Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[ImmortalFlame]

On that something doesn't come from nothing. The universe has a starting point.

I'm not sure this is necessarily agreed upon. For starters, there are plenty of scientists who do believe it's possible for something to come from nothing:

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia
Virtual particle - Wikipedia
Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light

What's more, how can you demonstrate that something can't come from nothing? Do you have a "nothing" to test?

 

[ChristineM]

The question of cause comes after the first thing - the starting point.

In this universe it is understood that the starting point was the big bang, of course.

Perhaps you mean prior to the starting point of this universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is often referred to with the same grammar rules as a person. But I assume you know this.

Yes: and the converse to "no one did it" is "someone did it:" i.e. that the "it" was done by a person... a grammatical person, not necessarily a human being, but not an impersonal "thing."

I would like to hear from @FearGod - or you, if you feel like answering - why we should assume that the cause of the universe is not impersonal.

 

[ChristineM]

Physics. Nothing comes out of nothing. Universe cannot come out of nothing.

That is not true on both counts

 

[Altfish]

Not knowing means to you "no one did it"

No knowing means "I don't know"; no one does. But I must admit, if/when we get an answer I'm not expecting it to be a person or a being.

 

[Quintessence]

I have never come by a thesist who doesn't agree that God has always been since God is not limited to time and space.

You haven't held many conversations with non-monotheists, have you? Any theistic system where the gods are not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent (which is most of them, outside of monotheism) will have gods limited to time and space in some way. Chronologies of the gods are pretty common outside of monotheism, actually.

 

[Altfish]

How you know that eventually God won't be needed?
better to keep saying "I don't know"

I'm just extrapolating the graph of the amount that was credited to a god 5000 years ago to where it is today and if it keeps heading as it is it will be at zero.

 

[Remté]

In this universe it is understood that the starting point was the big bang, of course.

Perhaps you mean prior to the starting point of this universe.

Penrose, reported Physics World, proposes a solution that points to the existence of an aeon before the Big Bang. Correlated noise in the two LIGO gravitational-wave detectors may provide evidence that the universe is governed by conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) which assumes that the universe consists of a succession of aeons, “the boundaries of infinity,” speculates Penrose of the University of Oxford. “The Big Bang was not the origin of our universe,” he observed.
Dark Matter --"Emerged From an Eon Before the Big Bang" (Weekend Feature) | The Daily Galaxy

The big bang was not and is not the starting point of the universe.

We've all heard of the Big Bang theory (I'm talking about the cosmological model, not the TV show), but it's important to understand what that theory is and what it's not. Let me take this opportunity to be precisely, abundantly, emphatically, ridiculously, fantastically clear: The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe. Full stop. Done. Call it. Burn that sentence into your brain. Say it before you go to sleep, and first thing when you wake up.

The Big Bang theory is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos to its very earliest moments. And that's it. Don't try to stuff anything else into that framework. Just stop. You can keep your meta safely away from my physics, thank you very much. I'm emphasizing this because there is a lot of confusion from all sides, and it's best to keep it simple. The Big Bang theory is a scientific model, just like any other scientific model. We believe the theory is on the right track because it's — gasp — supported by extensive evidence.
What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It must have had a starting point, no?

There is nothing found in the world through science which can be considered as an evidence for existence of God.

I believe in God though, because I see signs of divinity in the Prophets and in the Holy Books, not because anything through science.

When i was younger, i used to think, this world is too big and complicated to have come to existence without God. I just could not understand how possibly the Atheists deny it, or not seeing it. Now, I agree with Atheists on this. There is nothing in the physical world which can prove God.

 

[Willamena]

Believing is about fiction to me, so not knowing whether it is true or not (yet)

In a sense (the "Matrix" sense), the world is fiction because how we know it is just an interpretation of sensual data. Hence some people will insist we can never know whether something is true or not. But for the definition of knowledge it's not necessary to know whether something is true or not, and, in fact, it amounts to a contradiction to "know" knowing. In other words, knowing is something we do, not something we know.

 

[youknowme]

No. Knowledge is belief that just happens to be true.

If that is so then we know nothing.

 

[viole]

It must have had a starting point, no?

No. And even if it did, that point must be part of the Universe, right?

Boy, that was an easy one.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

And that suffices for you?

Mmh, my ancestors did not find sufficient ignorance and “I dont knows” and decided that Thor was the creator of lightnings. Alas, that appears to have been premature.

That is what happens when things are not sufficient. You make up things, so everything is hunky dory.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

I have never come by a thesist who doesn't agree that God has always been since God is not limited to time and space.

But the mere word 'always' implies time.

 

[Polymath257]

Like scientists?

I think you will find that scientists are quite willing to admit when they don't have the answers. Since they limit themselves to what the actual data allows them to say, they frequently will admit to not knowing when there isn't any data to say what is going on.

 

[Willamena]

If that is so then we know nothing.

Do you mean that in a Socrates sense, a Quantum Mechanics sense, or a conventional sense?

 

[Polymath257]

On that something doesn't come from nothing. The universe has a starting point.

Not all scientists agree with that. Currently, the evidence isn't conclusive.

 

[Quintessence]

But the mere word 'always' implies time.

Not in the context of classical monotheism, which posits "god is eternal" or beyond the bounds of space and time. It's weird, and I'm not going to pretend to get it, but that's their god-concept.

 

[ChristineM]

The big bang was not and is not the starting point of the universe.

The bb is understood to be the starting point of THIS universe. Before is unknown so it doesnt really matter how hard you precisely, abundantly, emphatically, ridiculously and fantastically stomp your foot while trying to intimidate me to your blind ideas.

Also i dont think you have actually read the link you posted. I.e. it is proposition and speculation just as the multitude of hypothesis on the cause of the bb is speculative.

I personally prefer the hypothesis of dr Laura Mersini-Houghton, unlike Penrose's idea it is at least based on observation. Also the mathemamatheal idea of a universe from nothing has its good points in that it is actually happening all the time.

Consider that nothing is known prior to the Planck epoch, unless of course you can provide peer reviewed research to show otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

The big bang was not and is not the starting point of the universe.

OK, how do you know this?

And, if the BB is NOT the start, why do you think there *was* a start?