In the 'I' (20p version of the Independent New Paper) there was a letter from a believer which ended by asking the atheist he was addressing "Does she believe the universe evolved from nothing?" Which must be the most common believer vs atheist put down.

Isn't this the easiest question in the world to answer, the answer being it was never created because its always existed?

I'm not a particularly intelligent person but surely the concept of a beginning a middle and an end is a human notion which coincides with our own existence.

Sorry for the moan but the 'where did the universe come from' argument annoys me so much especially since the response to the question 'where did god come from' is "he's always existed".

(July 20, 2012 at 4:57 am)Chriswt Wrote: Sorry for the moan but the 'where did the universe come from' argument annoys me so much especially since the response to the question 'where did god come from' is "he's always existed".

When they state that god always existed, we can save a step and state that the universe always existed.

We can answer where the universe came from scientifically. We don't actually need a 'god' to explain it.
They know it and hate it.

(July 20, 2012 at 5:05 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 4:57 am)Chriswt Wrote: Sorry for the moan but the 'where did the universe come from' argument annoys me so much especially since the response to the question 'where did god come from' is "he's always existed".

When they state that god always existed, we can save a step and state that the universe always existed.

We can answer where the universe came from scientifically. We don't actually need a 'god' to explain it.
They know it and hate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

(July 20, 2012 at 5:15 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Also look up photon particles, virtual particles, quantum fluctuations, dark energy/matter. Deep subject, it will take time to read through it all.
I'm still learning.

Interesting read although it won't tell you what the consensus for the origin of the big bang. Sure you can dismiss an origin as time was created during the big bang, but I don't think that's a conclusion many scientists will consider as satisfactorily complete..hey it may have even lead to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

(July 20, 2012 at 5:31 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Interesting read although it won't tell you what the consensus for the origin of the big bang. Sure you can dismiss an origin as time was created during the big bang, but I don't think that's a conclusion many scientists will consider as satisfactorily complete..hey it may have even lead to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

If a clock entered the outer edges of a black hole, it'll stop. Mass effects time, and that when all the mass/energy was concentrated into an infinite speck, time itself cannot exist. So there cannot be a cause, seeing as there is no time for a cause to exist in.

Quantum fluctuations could of popped the universe into existence. Virtual particles after all can, in fact, appear and disappear, literally be self-created and self-destroyed in an instant, inside of a vacuum. And the universe was once smaller than a particle....
Interesting huh?

So you're proposing that the present conditions which show the fluctuations popping in and out of existence have been repeated during the conditions of the singularity as well? Interesting indeed, but probably not in the way you intended.

I find it fascinating the dependence many atheists place on these fluctuations. It almost seems like conjecture.

(July 20, 2012 at 5:51 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: So you're proposing that the present conditions which show the fluctuations popping in and out of existence have been repeated during the conditions of the singularity as well? Interesting indeed, but probably not in the way you intended.

I find it fascinating the dependence many atheists place on these fluctuations. It almost seems like conjecture.

Thing is, to be honest with you. I am generally interested in finding out how everything came to be. I really am interested in knowing the truth of the matter. I'm not trying to find something and go up to theists and shout "ha! See you're wrong!". If quantum fluctuations did play a significant role as well as certain particles then that's that. We can find out, we have the tools, the methods and it's all testable.
The collider is doing so much for us. With it we can look even deeper into how particles function. Apparently, the secret to how everything got here is within particles, and we can test them. I think we are well on our way to confirm that quantum laws, particles and dark energy/matter were all that were required for a universe.

I think atheists are the only people who are interested, the rest of us just want to condemn their interest.

(July 20, 2012 at 6:12 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I think atheists are the only people who are interested, the rest of us just want to condemn their interest.

I wouldn't say only atheists. It all depends on you. Looking at other possibilities and having the will to throw away old beliefs and to adopt new ideas to me is a demonstration of just how bright and rational beings we can be.

There may be a god. Perhaps there isn't. What matters is how do we go about finding out? Instead of assigning the belief that there is one, ask yourself, what suggests that there is one?

All I can say for myself is that I want to know what's true, what's real. If it be a god, I can accept that. If it be something completely different I can accept that too. Why? Because I want the truth, nothing less.