No one says the universe came from nothing.

Then what do you say? Where did the universe come from?

(September 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Hmza. Wrote: No one says the universe came from nothing.

Then what do you say? Where did the universe come from?

We don't know.

Neither do you.

(September 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Hmza. Wrote: No one says the universe came from nothing.

Then what do you say? Where did the universe come from?

Dunno. We're currently looking into it.

(September 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Hmza. Wrote: No one says the universe came from nothing.

Then what do you say? Where did the universe come from?

The question is simply not well defined and thus cannot be answered. You think you are asking a question, but it's only words strung together.

The concept of "coming from" presupposes the existence of time, and the concept of causality on top of this. Both are not obviously there without already having a universe. The former is absent almost by definition in my book.

Not knowing exactly where the Universe came from in no way makes the "God" hypothesis the only answer. Even if all natural and physical explanations were proven wrong, the case for creator gods would still have to be made. And there's a long way to go before you can even begin to do that.

(September 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm)Hmza. Wrote: No one says the universe came from nothing.

Then what do you say? Where did the universe come from?

All we know... actually infer from the available evidence... is that the known Universe (we have no idea about the unknown in this universe alone, much less about any other possible, but also unknown, universe) once was extremely dense and extremely small.
Prior to that, if "prior" is a concept that can be applied to that state of the Universe, we don't know.
No one knows.

Anyone who claims to know is practicing the art of lying.

Hypotheses abound, of course... each crazier and more far-fetched than the next... but none is verified, none is validated, none is true. (I know how you god-believers like the word "true")

Why did I say that the concept of "prior" may not apply? Also, why did everyone else say that the concept of time and causation may not apply?
Because there is a hypothesis that claims the nonexistence of the space-time fabric, absent of a universe.
If there's no space-time, then there are no distances, no duration... all, or most, our verbs become meaningless, such are the ties of our language with actions and their reliance on time and causation and distances.
Our way of conveying concepts becomes inadequate to handle these notions. Our way of reasoning itself feels paradoxical... we can't understand the absence of space and time. At least I can't... and I'm a physicist.
What does "absence of space" mean, anyway?! I don't know... I can't imagine it... I can think of the concept, but not of the actual implementation of that "thing".

It is in this mental paradox of poorly defined concepts and under-equipped language that theist apologists work to easily insert the notion of a being capable of generating the Universe from the absence of everything, including space-time.
It can be considered a hypothesis.... one that, as all others, lacks verification and validation... and truth.

(September 25, 2014 at 3:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: All we know... actually infer from the available evidence... is that the known Universe (we have no idea about the unknown in this universe alone, much less about any other possible, but also unknown, universe) once was extremely dense and extremely small.
Prior to that, if "prior" is a concept that can be applied to that state of the Universe, we don't know.
No one knows.

I believe that the proper approach is to make something up ("the universe just keeps forming and re-forming itself every 72.7 trillion years") and then daring anyone to prove it wrong. Since they can't, your theory becomes fact and everyone must accept it or be wrong.

If religious people can believe that there's a timeless being, who popped out of nothing and existed forever, why is it so hard to understand the concept that the universe too might've just always been there? Why is it that the universe has to have something before it, but not their sky-daddy?

Oh and lastly, the big bang in NOT a f*ckin explosion. Maybe the scientists should really change that term.

Still waiting for Hamza to respond, that's literally his only post ever. My hopes are not high.

Nothing up my sleeve!