Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[shawn001]

Originally Posted by shawn001
Thief, your a carbon life form yes?

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

More to point...consider the singularity....and the void previous to it.

There was no void previous to it.

Consider the question I asked, where does the element carbon your made from come from in the first place?

as to the first light, everything evolved after this, as this is before any stars or galaxies existed at all. The light has been stretched into the microwave ban as space expands. There was also "light" twice. The bang and then the first stars igniting.

This is like a heat map of the entire universe, the red spots are where later the galaxies formed, the blue are huge voids in space. This light is everywhere you look out into space if you could see in microwave.

 

[shawn001]

Thief, you might want to read this site.

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)


we also have a new satellite up taking better measurement then wmap called Planck.

Planck - Home Page

 

[garrydons]

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?

So far, as of this very moment, I dont think the beginning of everything has been answered without a Creator God.

 

[shawn001]

So far, as of this very moment, I dont think the beginning of everything has been answered without a Creator God.

"So far, as of this very moment, I dont think the beginning of everything has been answered with a Creator God"

But it has been shown that it could happen without one and not break any rules of nature.

The question has been going on for a while now. What caused the bang, a "god" or another natural process. There is now starting to be some evidence of another natural process, but no evidence yet for any "god."

 

[idav]

...There is now starting to be some evidence of another natural process, but no evidence yet for any "god."

God would have to at least put his signature or something. When within any system will you see evidence of it being created from a systems master?

 

[The Wizard]

When all energy is spent and everything starts collapsing back on itself and then it gets condensed to the size of a marbel.. What do people think is going to happen next? BOOM! Existence has always existed. No beginning. No end. There was never a "nothing that just randomly became something void of cause or reason." Just an infinity of a cosmic boom and collapse cycle.

No different than God's paper weight toy of the two balls bouncing back-n-forth hitting each other for an eternity... imo.

 

[Thief]

okay...ground rules....
Believing in God is matter of faith.
Faith needs no proving.

There will be no fingerprint...no photo...no equation....no repeatable experiment.

The bible uses the word...'void'.
That works for me.

Cause and effect is a basic technique.
No effect without a cause...no cause without an effect.

Now choose.

If you say substance first, then all that is spirit is no more than a chemistry problem.
When your chemistry fails you go to your grave.
Eternal darkness is physically real...you can believe that.
No form of light follows anyone into the ground.
No sunlight...no moonlight....no starlight....no philosophical light.
It really is dark down there.
Problem solved.

If you say Spirit first.....
Then you have at least some hope of continuance after your last breath.

The problem with the singularity....no geometry...no numbers.
For the singularity to be truly singular there can be no secondary point.

At the moment a secondary point is made....infinity becomes physical.
Before the secondary point...'void'...which also is infinite....but not physical.

Explain God before the singularity?.....not likely.
God first?...cause and effect.

 

[Copernicus]

Now choose.

If you say substance first, then all that is spirit is no more than a chemistry problem.
When your chemistry fails you go to your grave.
Eternal darkness is physically real...you can believe that.
No form of light follows anyone into the ground.
No sunlight...no moonlight....no starlight....no philosophical light.
It really is dark down there.
Problem solved.

If you say Spirit first.....
Then you have at least some hope of continuance after your last breath...

From Wikipedia:

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

 

[shawn001]

When all energy is spent and everything starts collapsing back on itself and then it gets condensed to the size of a marbel.. What do people think is going to happen next? BOOM! Existence has always existed. No beginning. No end. There was never a "nothing that just randomly became something void of cause or reason." Just an infinity of a cosmic boom and collapse cycle.

No different than God's paper weight toy of the two balls bouncing back-n-forth hitting each other for an eternity... imo.

So far they have basically ruled out the big crunch, because right now the universe (space) not matter is expanding faster then light.

The End of Everything
Universe Today

The End of Everything

 

[shawn001]

okay...ground rules....
Believing in God is matter of faith.
Faith needs no proving.

There will be no fingerprint...no photo...no equation....no repeatable experiment.

The bible uses the word...'void'.
That works for me.

Cause and effect is a basic technique.
No effect without a cause...no cause without an effect.

Now choose.

If you say substance first, then all that is spirit is no more than a chemistry problem.
When your chemistry fails you go to your grave.
Eternal darkness is physically real...you can believe that.
No form of light follows anyone into the ground.
No sunlight...no moonlight....no starlight....no philosophical light.
It really is dark down there.
Problem solved.

If you say Spirit first.....
Then you have at least some hope of continuance after your last breath.

The problem with the singularity....no geometry...no numbers.
For the singularity to be truly singular there can be no secondary point.

At the moment a secondary point is made....infinity becomes physical.
Before the secondary point...'void'...which also is infinite....but not physical.

Explain God before the singularity?.....not likely.
God first?...cause and effect.

"Faith needs no proving."

Because its a personal opinion.

So the faith of other gods needs no proving, you believe in all gods, because they are all based on faith?

Hawking showed a "cause with an effect" without a god as a cause.

You really don't understand cosmology or astronomy. Or where the elements came from in the first place that makes all matter, including the matter and carbon your made from, which was created in super nova star explosions many billions of years ago to make carbon by a process called nucleosynthesis.

"Explain God before the singularity?.....not likely."

Your god of course. But you can show your god caused the singularity.

I believe a pink unicorn did it by faith, prove me wrong.

Your posting a negative arguement, god did it and that is that, but even if he did, were showing how it was done with or without one right up to trillions of a second after the bang. Everything after that evolved from a extremely hot dense state to what we see today.

 

[The Wizard]

So far they have basically ruled out the big crunch, because right now the universe (space) not matter is expanding faster then light.

The End of Everything
Universe Today

The End of Everything

Well, everyone can think what they wish. I'm just sharing my thoughts for other's entertainment. The infinite boom and crunch would explain everything. It would close up alot of junk. Of, course there are many that would not want that view accepted. How did they rule out that this expansion is not just a huge million/billion year fluctuation? How does it cancel out an eventual crunch?

Existence has always existed. When the picture is put together an infinute boom/crunch cyle explains it perfectly. Something cannot come from nothing. If people want to believe that stuff it's their perogative...

 

[shawn001]

Well, everyone can think what they wish. I'm just sharing my thoughts for other's entertainment. The infinite boom and crunch would explain everything. It would close up alot of junk. Of, course there are many that would not want that view accepted. How did they rule out that this expansion is not just a huge million/billion year fluctuation? How does it cancel out an eventual crunch?

Existence has always existed. When the picture is put together an infinute boom/crunch cyle explains it perfectly. Something cannot come from nothing. If people want to believe that stuff it's their perogative...

Its not nothing in the true sense, its quatum fluctuations from virtual particles.

You can watch it being explain here and its actually worth watching no matter what anyone believes or thinks about it.

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


Check it out.

"How did they rule out that this expansion is not just a huge million/billion year fluctuation? How does it cancel out an eventual crunch?


This is complicated really. But it has to do now with much newer obervations and measuremants we have taken, which a couple people just got a nobel prise for as well as dark matter and dark energy. The universe is expanding faster then gravity would be able to make it collaspe back into it self though.

This was a Time Magazine article on it in 2001, but they know a whole lot more about it all now.

The End - TIME

 

[Thief]

"Faith needs no proving."

Because its a personal opinion.

So the faith of other gods needs no proving, you believe in all gods, because they are all based on faith?

Hawking showed a "cause with an effect" without a god as a cause.

You really don't understand cosmology or astronomy. Or where the elements came from in the first place that makes all matter, including the matter and carbon your made from, which was created in super nova star explosions many billions of years ago to make carbon by a process called nucleosynthesis.

"Explain God before the singularity?.....not likely."

Your god of course. But you can show your god caused the singularity.

I believe a pink unicorn did it by faith, prove me wrong.

Your posting a negative arguement, god did it and that is that, but even if he did, were showing how it was done with or without one right up to trillions of a second after the bang. Everything after that evolved from a extremely hot dense state to what we see today.

A positive argument...God did it.

You've got the negative end of the stick.

 

[Thief]

From Wikipedia:

Not an appeal to consequence.....I was just pointing them out.

The actual argument....cause and effect.

You cannot separate cause and effect.
You cannot separate the Creator from His creation.

 

[shawn001]

A positive argument...God did it.

You've got the negative end of the stick.

"A positive argument...God did it."

So the "god" "Thor" did it?

Got it, Thor created the universe and that is all we need to know. We don't need to know how or why Thor did it, but he did it end of story.

That is what you believe, Thor did it?

 

[Thief]

"A positive argument...God did it."

So the "god" "Thor" did it?

Got it, Thor created the universe and that is all we need to know. We don't need to know how or why Thor did it, but he did it end of story.

That is what you believe, Thor did it?

I call Him.... the Almighty.
The term should be self explanatory.

You can call Him Thor, if it amuses you.
Latter, you can do it again before angels and heaven.

 

[shawn001]

Not an appeal to consequence.....I was just pointing them out.

The actual argument....cause and effect.

You cannot separate cause and effect.
You cannot separate the Creator from His creation.

The cause could be

"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account."[/FONT]

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

The effect could be

OUR UNIVERSE and perhaps even many universes.

This is pretty new

There’s More to Nothing Than We Knew 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/s...xplain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html

 

[PolyHedral]

You cannot separate cause and effect.

Heisenburg did.

 

[shawn001]

I call Him.... the Almighty.
The term should be self explanatory.

You can call Him Thor, if it amuses you.
Latter, you can do it again before angels and heaven.

You amuse me actually.

Explain then how did the "Almighty" created the universe, by what physical processes.

And why did the "Almighty" slam a planet the size of mars into the early earth to form our moon? Which almost vaporized the entire earth?

 

[shawn001]

Heisenburg did.

Just to know if you didn't already

One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead

Experimenters violate Heisenberg's original version of the famous maxim, but confirm a newer, clearer formulation

One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American