Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[jargin]

Delete all of the thoughts, posts, arguments, ideas and words that came before this post.

That is what I have to do to mentally prepare myself to answer this question.

I need a clean slate.

Though I hope my answer is not "lacking" or "unsatisfactory" to some, I cannot control how my words are received, I can only control how they are formed and sent. I do not enjoy seeing people becoming armchair philosophers, armchair scientists, armchair quarterbacks or armchair theologians when answering this question. This question of "How did the Universe begin" or "what happened at the beginning of time" or "How did everything that is come to be" is a question that is being answered by people; people of all types with all types of flaws, strengths, biases and weaknesses.

Keeping all of that in mind, my answer to the question is this: Gathering, collecting and acquiring all of the information we possibly can about the origin of the universe then analyzing, reanalyzing, cross-examining all of that information may lead us back to where we began-without a "correct" answer. In other words, the universe or multiverse or string of verses or whatever this vast or small or perfectly sized expanse of things that both exist and do not exist may not just be stranger and more mysterious than we imagined, but it may be more strange and more mysterious than we can imagine. To put it simply; the answers we find may not be the ones we need but at some point we may realize they were the ones we were looking for all along and they are enough for us to give up on our previously trivial pursuits and endeavors.

 

[chinu]

Riddle of the beginning solved without god ?

Don't know about the riddle, but the above made sentence is surely incompleate without god

 

[Thief]

"My opinion' is formed of careful meditation."

But not science. Opinion is not science.

all religions are taught. Your not born with a specific one.

...and you noticed my banner?

And science will not answer the question....because it can't.

At the point of singularity, there is only one point...it has no substance.
No geometry...no numbers...no equations.
There will be experiment.

At the 'point' of singularity, movement does not exist.
You need geometry for that.
Without movement there is nothing to consider......the void.

So we end up with that mystery about...'God'.

Whatever you think of God...it will always be 'your opinion'.

And it is 'your opinion' that you will take back to Him.

 

[Thief]

Scripture talks about heaven and earth being created before it talks about anything resembling a singularity. The beginning fails as a metaphor compatible with science. Further the scripture does believe spirit to be first but only when you believe god to be first and of spirit. It is a tough call though in the beginning because in the quantum level things act like waves and particles so to answer spirit or substance, it is both. They are products of each other.

This last line touches 'the point'.

How do you 'say'...."I AM"....?

"Let there be light."

 

[shawn001]

...and you noticed my banner?

And science will not answer the question....because it can't.

At the point of singularity, there is only one point...it has no substance.
No geometry...no numbers...no equations.
There will be experiment.

At the 'point' of singularity, movement does not exist.
You need geometry for that.
Without movement there is nothing to consider......the void.

So we end up with that mystery about...'God'.

Whatever you think of God...it will always be 'your opinion'.

And it is 'your opinion' that you will take back to Him.

"and you noticed my banner"

I notice you keep talking about genesis and the bible.

"And science will not answer the question....because it can't."

Its working on it and there are begining to be clues. But it has shown a universe can be created without a "god." Not that there is or isn't one.

Which is exactly where your at, you can't prove there is or isn't one or more even.

"At the point of singularity, there is only one point...it has no substance."

It has a massive amount of energy and its own space and time.

"At the 'point' of singularity, movement does not exist."

Debatable on the quantum level. of course at a trillion of a second after the bang movement does exist and everything after that evolves to what we see today.


"Without movement there is nothing to consider......the void."

What void are you talking about here.

"So we end up with that mystery about...'God'.

we sure do, and the answer right now is we don't know of any god or have any evidence.

"Whatever you think of God...it will always be 'your opinion'.

Right which is why there are so many beliefs and opinions and gods to form an opinion about, based on opinion and being taught or learning yourself from others.

And it is 'your opinion' that you will take back to Him

Its a "him"?

I am honest, I don't know. You seem to claim to know things that aren't known to anyone based on your own opinion.

As in the old show dragnet, "just the facts ma'am"

 

[shawn001]

This brings us back to my original question “Do we know what nothing is?” You say that you probably would have difficulty conceptualizing it and I agree, but what is more important is how would you know if your conceptualization of “nothing” is accurate?

did you look at this?

This may help some at least. A brief description of Quantum fluctuation

Quantum Fluctuation

 

[Corkscrew]

did you look at this?

This may help some at least. A brief description of Quantum fluctuation

Quantum Fluctuation

Yes I saw this. Actually it is not what I was referring to when I was talking about not knowing what “nothing” is. I was referring to the supposed nothing that existed prior to the big bang. Quantum fluctuations describes post big bang phenomenon.

I’m curious if physics, in the way that we understand it, even existed prior to the big bang. We may be trying to apply laws that are completely foreign to the pre big bang reality. The statement “prior to the big bang” may actually make absolutely no sense. I do find contemplating the whole thing fascinating.

 

[idav]

I’m curious if physics, in the way that we understand it, even existed prior to the big bang. We may be trying to apply laws that are completely foreign to the pre big bang reality. The statement “prior to the big bang” may actually make absolutely no sense. I do find contemplating the whole thing fascinating.

Quantum physics is foreign to classical physics. Quantum levels do things that may go against our natural assumptions and even the laws we are so familiar with. Unfortunately it causes more questions and extends the possibilities of something from "nothing".

 

[shawn001]

Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe?

[youtube]WQhd05ZVYWg[/youtube]
Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? - YouTube

Corkscrew, that is the "nothing" astrophysicis are referrring too.

Just like those fluctations appear to pop out in and out of nowhere and then disappear in a Vaccuum.

We live in a 0 energy universe. There are equal amounts of positive and negative energy.

Astronomical Society of the Pacific

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing."

ASP: A Universe from Nothing


Rigth now there is no "prior" to the singularity. Although that is being worked on and why I posted about the "ripples" in the CMB.

The big challenge today and for a while now is tying cosmology and QM into a unified theory. Which is one reason they are looking for the Higgs boson.

 

[Thief]

Corkscrew, that is the "nothing" astrophysicis are referrring too.

Just like those fluctations appear to pop out in and out of nowhere and then disappear in a Vaccuum.

We live in a 0 energy universe. There are equal amounts of positive and negative energy.

Astronomical Society of the Pacific

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing."

ASP: A Universe from Nothing


Rigth now there is no "prior" to the singularity. Although that is being worked on and why I posted about the "ripples" in the CMB.

The big challenge today and for a while now is tying cosmology and QM into a unified theory. Which is one reason they are looking for the Higgs boson.

And at this point you fail to realize...even when others point it out to you.

Looking for the evidence to disprove God?
Science cannot actually do that.
The particle you offer as evidence is yet to be discovered?

And I know the argument Hawking makes.
Like all the others it reduces to a 'point' that has no scientific explanation.

He even failed to support his own long standing view of information lost to the horizon point when speaking of black holes.
Suskind took the win, as Hawking could only offer his ideas COULD still be true, in 'other' universes.

When citing evidence...against the existence of God.....
You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'.

Yes..it's biblical...
Yes you don't know...thank you for your confession.

 

[McBell]

When citing evidence...against the existence of God.....
You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'.

I agree.
When citing evidence concerning god, there is a great big void.

 

[shawn001]

And at this point you fail to realize...even when others point it out to you.

Looking for the evidence to disprove God?
Science cannot actually do that.
The particle you offer as evidence is yet to be discovered?

And I know the argument Hawking makes.
Like all the others it reduces to a 'point' that has no scientific explanation.

He even failed to support his own long standing view of information lost to the horizon point when speaking of black holes.
Suskind took the win, as Hawking could only offer his ideas COULD still be true, in 'other' universes.

When citing evidence...against the existence of God.....
You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'.

Yes..it's biblical...
Yes you don't know...thank you for your confession.

As I stated numerous times in this thread you left out.

It does not prove or disprove god. Just shows a scientific way the universe could have started without the need for one.

Please provide scientific evidence for any god?

You make the claim god exists so its up to you to provide the evidence.

as Carl Sagan would say

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You have no evidence.

"The particle you offer as evidence is yet to be discovered?"

I didn't offer any particle, I said they were looking for the higgs boson which would tie in QM and Cosmology.

Virtual particles however do exist.

"
He even failed to support his own long standing view of information lost to the horizon point when speaking of black holes."

This research and the conclusions it brought has nothing to do with the above video.

"Like all the others it reduces to a 'point' that has no scientific explanation"

A singularity?

"Yes you don't know...thank you for your confession"

Nor do you. But I am honest about it.

"When citing evidence...against the existence of God"

Where have I personally done that? Please show me the exact words?

"You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'"

Void as in "nothing" as in "no matter" as in the vacuum of space?

Which is not "void" but contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere.

So Please explain the physical properties of this "void" of which you speak of?

 

[Thief]

As I stated numerous times in this thread you left out.

It does not prove or disprove god. Just shows a scientific way the universe could have started without the need for one.

Please provide scientific evidence for any god?

You make the claim god exists so its up to you to provide the evidence.

as Carl Sagan would say

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You have no evidence.

"The particle you offer as evidence is yet to be discovered?"

I didn't offer any particle, I said they were looking for the higgs boson which would tie in QM and Cosmology.

Virtual particles however do exist.

"
He even failed to support his own long standing view of information lost to the horizon point when speaking of black holes."

This research and the conclusions it brought has nothing to do with the above video.

"Like all the others it reduces to a 'point' that has no scientific explanation"

A singularity?

"Yes you don't know...thank you for your confession"

Nor do you. But I am honest about it.

"When citing evidence...against the existence of God"

Where have I personally done that? Please show me the exact words?

"You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'"

Void as in "nothing" as in "no matter" as in the vacuum of space?

Which is not "void" but contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere.

So Please explain the physical properties of this "void" of which you speak of?

None the less your rhetoric is to leave God out of the creation.
Not so...can't be done.

You are attempting to say the creation is self creating....
while ignoring the word...'self'.

Void has no physical property,btw.
(prior singularity)
Did I not describe it?...all in terms lacking?.....
No light, no shadow...no sound, no echo.... no heat, no cold,....
etc....et...etc...

 

[PolyHedral]

None the less your rhetoric is to leave God out of the creation.
Not so...can't be done.

You are attempting to say the creation is self creating....
while ignoring the word...'self'.

Void has no physical property,btw.
(prior singularity)
Did I not describe it?...all in terms lacking?.....
No light, no shadow...no sound, no echo.... no heat, no cold,....
etc....et...etc...

Everything you are trying to imply is at best unjustified, at worst wrong.

 

[Thief]

Everything you are trying to imply is at best unjustified, at worst wrong.

Your knee-jerk reaction is noted....please continue...

 

[outhouse]

Your knee-jerk reaction is noted....please continue...

you can attribute all you want through faith.

it doesnt make it so.

 

[shawn001]

None the less your rhetoric is to leave God out of the creation.
Not so...can't be done.

You are attempting to say the creation is self creating....
while ignoring the word...'self'.

Void has no physical property,btw.
(prior singularity)
Did I not describe it?...all in terms lacking?.....
No light, no shadow...no sound, no echo.... no heat, no cold,....
etc....et...etc...

"None the less your rhetoric is to leave God out of the creation."

As I mentioned numerous times, I am agnostic and can say with honesty, "I don't know if there is a god or not", but I don't subscribe to organized religions.

"Not so...can't be done."

"The physicist Heinz Pagels speculates, "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"


"You are attempting to say the creation is self creating....
while ignoring the word...'self'."

No I am not, I am talking about physics and QM, an self is a human term. A human concept. Which is why God is always a "him" or a "being" or a "self" or in your case and "Almighty" ect.., but for most religions never a woman. Because organized religions don't hold women in the same esteem as males. But that is another subject for another thread perhaps.

"Void has no physical property,btw."

In this universe it does, that is part of what some of us are trying to get you to understand, but its not going well.

"(prior singularity)"

LOL Please provide any evidence of a "void" prior to the singularity, you don't have any for a fact, because no one does. Some very esteemed cosmologist who have won the Albert Einstein medal of honor, believe this universe started from a black hole from another universe. You also don't get the possiblity this universe might have stated from another. Or the Quantum flutuations.


"
Did I not describe it?...all in terms lacking?.....
No light, no shadow...no sound, no echo.... no heat, no cold,...."

And you have what credentials on the matter? Your either "god" then or the most famous physicist ever here, with more knowledge then anyone on Earth and would win a nobel prize for the discovery, or your making it up and believe your own opinion as fact.

 

[Thief]

"None the less your rhetoric is to leave God out of the creation."

As I mentioned numerous times, I am agnostic and can say with honesty, "I don't know if there is a god or not", but I don't subscribe to organized religions.

"Not so...can't be done."

"The physicist Heinz Pagels speculates, "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"


"You are attempting to say the creation is self creating....
while ignoring the word...'self'."

No I am not, I am talking about physics and QM, an self is a human term. A human concept. Which is why God is always a "him" or a "being" or a "self" or in your case and "Almighty" ect.., but for most religions never a woman. Because organized religions don't hold women in the same esteem as males. But that is another subject for another thread perhaps.

"Void has no physical property,btw."

In this universe it does, that is part of what some of us are trying to get you to understand, but its not going well.

"(prior singularity)"

LOL Please provide any evidence of a "void" prior to the singularity, you don't have any for a fact, because no one does. Some very esteemed cosmologist who have won the Albert Einstein medal of honor, believe this universe started from a black hole from another universe. You also don't get the possiblity this universe might have stated from another. Or the Quantum flutuations.


"
Did I not describe it?...all in terms lacking?.....
No light, no shadow...no sound, no echo.... no heat, no cold,...."

And you have what credentials on the matter? Your either "god" then or the most famous physicist ever here, with more knowledge then anyone on Earth and would win a nobel prize for the discovery, or your making it up and believe your own opinion as fact.

At this point I see you have enough information to have made the better 'choice'...and somehow failed to do so.

That you have chosen not to believe....
you can't say it was for good reason or cause.

No kind of universe (one word) just 'pops' into existence.
Saying so abandons cause and effect.

 

[idav]

At this point I see you have enough information to have made the better 'choice'...and somehow failed to do so.

That you have chosen not to believe....
you can't say it was for good reason or cause.

No kind of universe (one word) just 'pops' into existence.
Saying so abandons cause and effect.

Why should one resort to God just popping into existence? The mystery remains as to how god or existence is outside cause and effect. The moment of existence being without cause also negates an intelligent cause.

 

[bribrius]

the more science tries the more it proves the existance of God just by its failure to find another answer.

The more atheist look to disprove God and can't, the more they are proving God exists.

I am sure that at this point more scientists and atheists must be looking for God than those of faith, and consistant prove his existance just in their failures.