• 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?

The Wizard

The Wizard

Active Member
shawn001 said:
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
Click to expand...
Your informing reply is appreciated. I just go by what comes together the best for myself. If existence has always existed then an eternity of infinute boom and crunch cycles make the most sense to me....

Unless one wants to entertain the notion that at some point existence did not exist. And, if that were so then nothing could of started it in the first place.... imo.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
The Wizard said:
Your informing reply is appreciated. I just go by what comes together the best for myself. If existence has always existed then an eternity of infinute boom and crunch cycles make the most sense to me....

Unless one wants to entertain the notion that at some point existence did not exist. And, if that were so then nothing could of started it in the first place.... imo.
Click to expand...

" just go by what comes together the best for myself."

so you don't go by the actual science, just your opinion?


You have to have a basic understanding of cosmology and astronomy. But now even a basic understanding of quantum physics.

"Unless one wants to entertain the notion that at some point existence did not exist. "

Virtual particles do exist and they pop in and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space all the time. So where do those particles come from?



One thing we know for sure, 13.7 billion years ago there were no stars or galaxies and we have actual pictures of that time from Wmap that I posted earlier in the thread. The universe hasn't existed in the state its in now when it first banged or in the future, as it to is evolving.
 
punkdbass

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
Meow Mix said:
Back to objectivity, it can already be demonstrated that there are some necessary laws which aren't possible not to be true: logical self-identity is my favorite example. If we suppose the existence of anything and then try to negate that, we find that we can't -- so by reductio ad absurdum, we must agree that at least something must exist.

If we substitute "the existence of anything" with the symbol x, and then we propose ¬x, we still find that we must agree with the foundations of logic and its corollaries:

(¬x = ¬x) --> T (true)
(¬x V x) --> T
¬(¬x ^ x) --> T

Even assuming the absence of anything demonstrates the efficacy of identity, negating the original premise that there isn't anything (since we must agree there is still identity!)
Click to expand...


First of all thanks for the very interesting post.

I'm actually taking a foundation of math(proofs) class right now, and I'm a little confused about the logic behind your argument(like why would you assume P and then try to prove ~P, unless you were trying to do a proof by contradiction, but you then said that we can't even show ~P is true so clearly this isn't a proof by contradiction) but I'll assume what you've said makes sense.

So if at least something must always exist, then a paradox arises. If something has always existed, then that means this "something" has experienced an infinite number of events. Which logically isn't possible, for you'd think any "something" can only experience a finite amount of events.

Is there an explanation for this paradox? You seem a lot more learned on this subject than I do
 
Last edited:
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
"If something has always existed, then that means this "something" has experienced an infinite number of events."

Our universe might not have always existed. It certainly hasn't existed in the state its in now. In fact we can go back before any stars or galaxies existed and we have pictures and evidence.


Just fyi

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap

[youtube]8eZqQUdWURs[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap - YouTube


[youtube]XsI5OAqYf5I[/youtube]
NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos | The Illusion of Time | PBS - YouTube


[youtube]wy9gXKwRpXc[/youtube]
The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space? - YouTube
 
The Wizard

The Wizard

Active Member
shawn001 said:
" just go by what comes together the best for myself."

so you don't go by the actual science, just your opinion?


You have to have a basic understanding of cosmology and astronomy. But now even a basic understanding of quantum physics.

"Unless one wants to entertain the notion that at some point existence did not exist. "

Virtual particles do exist and they pop in and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space all the time. So where do those particles come from?



One thing we know for sure, 13.7 billion years ago there were no stars or galaxies and we have actual pictures of that time from Wmap that I posted earlier in the thread. The universe hasn't existed in the state its in now when it first banged or in the future, as it to is evolving.
Click to expand...
Existence has ALWAYS existed. Do you agree with that position or not? Yes or no?
 
punkdbass

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
PolyHedral said:
Why would you think this?
Click to expand...

Well correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure infinity can not logically exist within space and time. It's a hypothetical concept that isn't present in reality.

If something were to always have existed, then that means it would have experienced an infinite amount of events.. which just seems logically impossible and contradictory to what we are taught in physics and math. Why would you think otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Thief said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thief, your argument had nothing at all to do with cause and effect. You have made the same appeal to consequence several times before. Basically, you are saying that people can choose to believe which came first--"chemistry" or "spirit". You then lay out the consequences of the first or the second choice. In your scenario, the consequence of believing the first choice is always dismal. The second is always bright, because it gives us "hope". You are clearly saying that we should have an incentive to accept "spirit first" because of what follows--the consequence--if it is true.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
The Wizard said:
Existence has ALWAYS existed. Do you agree with that position or not? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Its not a yes or no question, nor is it answerable at this time. Our universe had a start.

In QM theory for the most part you could say yes to this question "perhaps." There are an infinite number of universes. Watch the above videos. The universe is way stranger then anyone realizes at this point.

"Existence has ALWAYS existed"

as in reference to what? What existed, the singularity? Space, Time, the stars, the planes, us? What? The matter we are made out of hasn't always existed in the state its in now?

As far as our universe time and space and math end when you go back to the what's called planck time at the begining, because they become nonsensical equations.

However, the wmap and new planck satellites might show a ripple in them (the light) that could be from another universe. planck's data will be avaiable soon.

Like throwing a pebble in a pond and oberserving the ripples.

We are begining to move past the big bang to what might have come before it, if anything. But, there is reason to believe and a lot if not most cosmologist do these days think there is more then one universe.
 
The Wizard

The Wizard

Active Member
shawn001 said:
Its not a yes or no question, nor is it answerable at this time. Our universe had a start.

In QM theory for the most part you could say yes to this question "perhaps." There are an infinite number of universes. Watch the above videos. The universe is way stranger then anyone realizes at this point.

"Existence has ALWAYS existed"

as in reference to what? What existed, the singularity? Space, Time, the stars, the planes, us? What? The matter we are made out of hasn't always existed in the state its in now?

As far as our universe time and space and math end when you go back to the what's called planck time at the begining, because they become nonsensical equations.

However, the wmap and new planck satellites might show a ripple in them (the light) that could be from another universe. planck's data will be avaiable soon.

Like throwing a pebble in a pond and oberserving the ripples.

We are begining to move past the big bang to what might have come before it, if anything. But, there is reason to believe and a lot if not most cosmologist do these days think there is more then one universe.
Click to expand...
It is so a "yes or no question." What is with some of you people attempting to always complicate even the most simplest concepts and secrets of Life. So, your very first sentence in this reply is about as far as I can even tolerate.

The question is about "existence". Either it has always existed or it has not- just like anything else. When reffering to "existence" you can't have both at the same time unless you are some sort of contradiction. The computer in front of your face either exists or it don't. This is a topic where there are no tricks of duality. You really do have to come down on one side of the fence or the other. If you can't even answere a simple 'yes or no question" then I have no reason to discuss anything furthur... sorry.


Existence cannot not exist and exist at the same time. It either is or it isn't. Either it has ALWAYS existed or has not at some point....
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I happen to love science.

In recent years I've heard all that talk about things popping into existence from out of nothing.....yeah right.

And let's just forget about....cause and effect.

And let's forget that scientists are now saying they believe in things they cannot prove.

Love that documentary about dark energy.
Can't see it...can't contain it....can't generate it....

BUT IT'S GOT TO BE THERE!
We can see the effect!
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Thief said:
I happen to love science.

In recent years I've heard all that talk about things popping into existence from out of nothing.....yeah right.

And let's just forget about....cause and effect.

And let's forget that scientists are now saying they believe in things they cannot prove.

Love that documentary about dark energy.
Can't see it...can't contain it....can't generate it....

BUT IT'S GOT TO BE THERE!
We can see the effect!
Click to expand...
Dark energy/matter may just be gravity affecting us from the future or past.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Gjallarhorn said:
No, but God is extraneous and redundant under this current scientific model.
Click to expand...

Okay...redundancy works for me.....
put anything in front of me.....

God did it.

Science will disprove God?
There are scientists striving in their work to show...He really is (there).
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Thief said:
Okay...redundancy works for me.....
put anything in front of me.....

God did it.

Science will disprove God?
There are scientists striving in their work to show...He really is (there).
Click to expand...
A scientist striving to prove God is biased. They are to look only at the data and create the best explanation for the evidence at hand.

God isn't even a hypothesis.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Gjallarhorn said:
A scientist striving to prove God is biased. They are to look only at the data and create the best explanation for the evidence at hand.

God isn't even a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect....
one creation after another.....

No one in charge?....no one in control?....

Choose...
Spirit first.... or substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top