• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Meow Mix said:
So, regardless of knowing now why matter exists, we don't know why "something at all" exists rather than "the absence of anything." This finding does not absolutely vindicate atheism; rather it just makes the necessity of a God-like being that much less likely and that much less rational to believe.
Click to expand...
This can in fact be deduced, albeit rather shakily, if you treat the universe as computable in its entirety. In the Plato-ist worldview, integers exist automatically as constructions of logic; from there, functions exist; and functions describe the universe in its entirety.

2+2=4. All else follows. :D
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
The question has been going on for a while now, what caused the big bang, natural or supernatural forces. Hawkings was showing it could be natural without breaking any known natural laws.

Rare Subatomic Particle Discovery Pushes Limits of Current Physics

Rare Subatomic Particle Discovery Pushes Limits of Current Physics - Yahoo! News


Many scientists believe that Bs (B-sub-s) meson's decay faster then their counterparts and that is why matter won out over antimatter when the universe first began and why we have matter today. Although they are still trying to find the higgs that may give matter mass.
 
Last edited:
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Well, let's all just get the spellings straight. "Hawking" has no "s" at the end of his name. "Dawkins" has an "s". That may be all that we can agree on, although I'm not totally certain of that, either. :)
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Copernicus, you talking to me, yes I made a mistake with his name. Hawking-Hawking's

I personally didn't mention Dawkins.

What don't you agree with? Hawking's position was a personal one, but could show how the universe could have started without a supernatural being, without breaking any laws of nature. That is important. One way or another.

But again, many others cosmologist believe there is more then one universe and that ours was a product of another. However, they are in the process of figuring that out, specifically using the CMB, but other means as well.
 
SaintAugustine

SaintAugustine

At the Monastery
The concept is that within a vaccum, free from matter there is exists an energy field, with flucuating virtual particles at zero point energy. While this is largely deduced it has been observed in the Casmir Effect. This is has weighty implications...while the universe is boundless, is it infinite? Does it have a beginning like the Big Bang Model, or a series of cyclical deaths and births? The problem I have is you still have to account for the origin of the "energy field" and "virtual particles" Ultimately,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle begins to toll its bell. Science is beautiful, but I think you'll find the God Factor is still very potent and legimate answer.
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
SaintAugustine said:
The concept is that within a vaccum, free from matter there is exists an energy field, with flucuating virtual particles at zero point energy. While this is largely deduced it has been observed in the Casmir Effect. This is has weighty implications...while the universe is boundless, is it infinite? Does it have a beginning like the Big Bang Model, or a series of cyclical deaths and births? The problem I have is you still have to account for the origin of the "energy field" and "virtual particles" Ultimately,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle begins to toll its bell. Science is beautiful, but I think you'll find the God Factor is still very potent and legimate answer.
Click to expand...
God isn't an answer; just an admission of "I don't know."
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
SaintAugustine said:
...The problem I have is you still have to account for the origin of the "energy field" and "virtual particles" Ultimately,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle begins to toll its bell. Science is beautiful, but I think you'll find the God Factor is still very potent and legimate answer.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the problem with Hawking's argument. He is saying that God is an "unnecessary hypothesis". He is not proving the nonexistence of God. He is showing that you don't need God to explain the origin of the universe. Nevertheless, people who want to believe in God will still assume that he somehow causes random quantum fluctuation and that God is a "potent and legitimate answer". They just don't seem to understand why Occam's Razor is relevant to the discussion, and Hawking is trying to reason with people who did not arrive at their belief through reason.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
And no one seems to ask...ever....
Which came first?...Spirit?...or substance?

It's not difficult.

If you say substance the all that is spirit is a result of chemistry.
As such, all spirit is finite and mortal.
The grave awaits.

If you say Spirit....
Then God did it.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
SaintAugustine said:
The concept is that within a vaccum, free from matter there is exists an energy field, with flucuating virtual particles at zero point energy. While this is largely deduced it has been observed in the Casmir Effect. This is has weighty implications...while the universe is boundless, is it infinite? Does it have a beginning like the Big Bang Model, or a series of cyclical deaths and births? The problem I have is you still have to account for the origin of the "energy field" and "virtual particles" Ultimately,the Heisenberg uncertainty principle begins to toll its bell. Science is beautiful, but I think you'll find the God Factor is still very potent and legimate answer.
Click to expand...


Any god?
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Thief said:
And no one seems to ask...ever....
Which came first?...Spirit?...or substance?

It's not difficult.

If you say substance the all that is spirit is a result of chemistry.
As such, all spirit is finite and mortal.
The grave awaits.

If you say Spirit....
Then God did it.
Click to expand...


Thief, your a carbon life form yes?

Where does the element carbon come from in the first place that you are made out of?
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Skwim said:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the first photons of light didn't appear for 300,000 some years after the BB.
Click to expand...
...counting high-energy plasma as light! :p

(Yes, yes, you're entirely correct. The universe isn't transparent to EM radiation until the year 300k. My mistake.)
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
dyanaprajna2011 said:
In David Mills' book, Atheist Universe, he states on pgs. 73-74:



So, has the riddle of how the universe began been solved, all without resorting to a divine being? Is this idea logical and does it resonate with known scientific findings?
Click to expand...
There is no way I can think of to reconcile something existing rather than nothing. Any premise starts with something, God, Quantum particles etc. It always comes back to nothing actually being something. A creation from nothing is hard enough without having to explain the creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top