Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

False, and maybe.

 

[McBell]

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

That's the rub, isn't it?
Theists like to throw the "Nothing comes from nothing" line out as though it is an ace in the hole.
Problem is, they refuse to apply it to their deity.

So where did their deity come from?
Oh, said deity always existed....
Why does said deity get a pass and not the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

The universe is kind of huge, I always wonder how scientists dare make such claims (I have seen such claims change after a few years)

Well, the basis for the claim that the total energy is zero is based on a comparison between the (positive) energy of mass and the (negative) energy associated with gravity. It turns out that under very general conditions, those two exactly cancel each other out. In essence, the curvature of spacetime associated to gravity enters into the energy calculations as a negative contribution. Then the basic dynamical equations show the two components cancel each other.

 

[PureX]

Why do you always bring up facts-not-in-evidence?

Why do you keep insisting that I (and everyone else) should comply with your criteria for "facts-in-evidence"?

 

[PureX]

I don't think it's fair to consider other people's conception of God a mischaracterization, unless you have definitive proof of exactly which conception of God is the true and accurate one. To me, the word "God" is generally a label that people can justifiably apply to many different things - I can't justifiably accuse any one of them of "mischaracterizing" God because I have no absolute or definite idea of what exactly "God" means or would be in reality beyond the definitions people present to me.


I would say that this is a fair assessment, but that's partly why I objected to your characterization of atheists as a general group.


That is not my experience. Most of the time I observe atheists raising challenges to theist positions which simply aren't met. I'm sure there are plenty of narrow-minded atheists, but I certainly wouldn't say that they constitute "most" atheists.

Also, don't you think this attitude of yours is incongruent with your statement above that many people "mischaracterize" or "misunderstand" God? Is that not an example of your not understanding why people choose to conceptualize God in a way that is different to yours and a dismissal of their thinking just because it's different?

The odds are that we are ALL mischaracterizing "God" (the great/divine mystery), and misunderstanding reality. How could it be otherwise except by chance, and even then we'd have no way of knowing that we'd gotten it right. But regardless of our blindness, we still have to live in a reality that we don't understand, and therefor cannot control. So we have to give it our best guess, and see how it works out for us. So that's what we're ALL doing. Theists, atheists, all of us.

 

[Altfish]

"God" IS the "gap". The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Knowing how a star formed, and what it's made of does not diminish this mystery. If anything, it just increases the profundity and magnitude of it.

I'm very hap0py that satisfies you.
It doesn't satisfy me. If there is an unknown "God did it" is not a good answer.

 

[Audie]

Why do you keep insisting that I (and everyone else) should comply with your criteria for "facts-in-evidence"?

"My criteria"?

Why do you and so many others feel so free to play Obi-Wan
with "facts" that you just make up?

Why is every comment I make about your posts an occasion for
personal attack?

 

[Audie]

I'm very hap0py that satisfies you.
It doesn't satisfy me. If there is an unknown "God did it" is not a good answer.

Aww, ya mean just making up (or letting someone else do the
dirty work of making things up, and then just parroting it)
dont satisfy you???

You some sort of scientist-philosopher??

 

[Altfish]

Aww, ya mean just making up (or letting someone else do the
dirty work of making things up, and then just parroting it)
dont satisfy you???

You some sort of scientist-philosopher??

Spot on

 

[Audie]

The odds are that we are ALL mischaracterizing "God" (the great/divine mystery), and misunderstanding reality. How could it be otherwise except by chance, and even then we'd have no way of knowing that we'd gotten it right. But regardless of our blindness, we still have to live in a reality that we don't understand, and therefor cannot control. So we have to give it our best guess, and see how it works out for us. So that's what we're ALL doing. Theists, theists, all of us.

All? Your problem, you deal with it. I will have no part in it.
Try as you may, you can's tar all of us with your brush.

 

[stvdv]

And indeed, we are restricted to a sphere approximately 15 billion (or so) years in diameter; that would be light years, naturally

Thanks for the update. Amazing, 15 billion light years. I did not know that, but even knowing it, it's way beyond my imagination

 

[Polymath257]

And indeed, we are restricted to a sphere approximately 15 billion (or so) years in diameter; that would be light years, naturally.

Two things: the easy one is that the 15 billion light year figure is the *radius*, not the diameter.

Second: Some care is required here because light takes time to travel. We see light from objects that were less than about 15 billion light years from us *when they emitted the light*. But, because of the expansion of the universe, those objects are *now* farther away than that. The light we are seeing was from 15 billion years ago, but those galaxies we see are *now* approximately 47 billion light years away (of course, we don't see than as they are now--it will take light another 47 billion years to reach us from where they are now).

So, there is a very real sense in which the 'observable universe' is *now* about 47 billion light years in radius, or 94 billion light years across.

 

[stvdv]

Well, the basis for the claim that the total energy is zero is based on a comparison between the (positive) energy of mass and the (negative) energy associated with gravity. It turns out that under very general conditions, those two exactly cancel each other out. In essence, the curvature of spacetime associated to gravity enters into the energy calculations as a negative contribution. Then the basic dynamical equations show the two components cancel each other.

Thanks for the info.

That is kind of amazing, such a huge universe and the total energy appears to be "coincidentally" ZERO. I mean I need to do a lot of sport to balance my extra food intake to get ZERO extra kilograms in the end of the week. If I would not do so, the universe might go out of whack

This makes it hard to believe there is 1 God in control of all this. I mean that seems to be too big for ONE God to get all back to ZERO. But it is kind of intriguing how this is all possible. I have no clue. But it makes me humble to see that this universe is so perfectly in balance.

So suppose there would be a World War 3 with a lot of atomic bombs exploding, would that impact on the ZERO value of energy? Compared to the Universe I imagine all the atomic bombs in the world are still infinitesimal.

Some people worry about we humans upsetting the eco system. But considering the ZERO energy thing, I think that we give ourselves too much credit. Maybe we kill ourselves, but that is probably as far as it would go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the info.

That is kind of amazing, such a huge universe and the total energy appears to be "coincidentally" ZERO. I mean I need to do a lot of sport to balance my extra food intake to get ZERO extra kilograms in the end of the week. If I would not do so, the universe might go out of whack

This makes it hard to believe there is 1 God in control of all this. I mean that seems to be too big for ONE God to get all back to ZERO. But it is kind of intriguing how this is all possible. I have no clue. But it makes me humble to see that this universe is so perfectly in balance.

So suppose there would be a World War 3 with a lot of atomic bombs exploding, would that impact on the ZERO value of energy? Compared to the Universe I imagine all the atomic bombs in the world is still infinitesimal.

Also it is "measured" by observing the radiation from the Big Bang itself. They compared the observe pattern from the pattern predicted by theory different models. If you have an hour a lecture by Lawrence Krauss goes into far more detail than I can:

 

[paarsurrey]

Same place God came from?

By definition God is the only being who never was created or born, He always existed and will never die or non-exist. Right, please?
That is not the case with Universe. Right, please?

Regards

 

[FearGod]

Because in all history, "god" has the one consistency, of not doing anything? So it's quite safe to assume this pattern will continue long enough, that people will finally quit believing in Santa Claus for Adults.

And who actually believe in Santa Claus?
Do you celebrate Christmas or are you living in another world?

 

[Polymath257]

By definition God is the only being who never was created or born, He always existed and will never die or non-exist. Right, please?
That is not the case with Universe. Right, please?

Regards

I don't know. How do you know the universe isn't the only thing not created?

And why do you assume there is only *one* thing that isn't created?

 

[QuestioningMind]

It must have had a starting point, no?

Are you incapable of using Google? You can easily find out what the most current scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe are. In a nutshell what we know thus far is that approximately 14 billions years ago the entire universe existed as a singularity. So the universe as we know it originated from this singularity.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not necessarily. When talking about the origin of all things - including all natural laws - it's practically meaningless to ascribe presumptions based on natural laws. The most common answer you'll probably get in this thread is "I don't know".

"natural"

What does one mean by the word "natural", please?
Please give one's own understanding rather than giving from a lexicon, please.

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

And who actually believe in Santa Claus?

So why *don't* people believe in Santa Claus? In what way is the evidence for God any better than that for Santa?

Do you celebrate Christmas or are you living in another world?

Huh? Not everyone celebrates Christmas. Especially those in societies that are not primarily Christian.

Generally, I try to ignore it when Christmas comes around, but the dominance of that particular religious expression is difficult to avoid. Stores tend to be closed on that day for some strange reason.