Problems understanding naturalistically the beginning of the universe

[Mister Agenda]

From the Orthodox I know personally, they don't hold that you don't agree with them you go to hell. They think they've got the best religion of course; but they don't have that fundamentalist legalist attitude that if you don't crack the Bible code just right, you're doomed.

[dyresand]

Hello to everyone (I have seen a post that is like this one but the forum adviced me to create another thread since that one was too old).

This matter "worried" me most when I was an atheist. I deeply believe that God created ex-nihilo the universe and I find it correct due to a number of reasons, but in this thread I am interested in speaking only naturalistically, in order to consider if actually the atheist cosmology is plausible now that I have a better understanding of the world and to eventually find a solution to this struggle that my atheist friends now (and myself many years ago) have. According to the Wikipedia: "The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe started, and then made the groups of stars (called galaxies) we see today. The universe began as very hot, small, and dense, with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). Then about 14 billion years ago, space expanded very quickly (thus the name "Big Bang"), resulting in the formation of atoms, which eventually led to the creation of stars and galaxies. The universe is still expanding today, but getting colder as well.", and this is what I believed. But my main question is, since: "The universe began as very hot, small, and dense, with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). Then about 14 billion years ago, space expanded very quickly", since the universe actually began, where did it begin from? The universe is all we know for sure (and sometimes not even for sure), but how can something exist outside the universe? Where was this very hot, small and dense structure since the universe "didn't happen" yet?

Thank you, and I remind that I would want this thread to remain naturalistic, without interference from any kind of religion account.

1. expansion of time and space

2. dust clouds of particles 

3. universe cools down 

4. hydrogen helium other elements forum

5. suns form and create other matter

6. formation of galaxies

7. planets 

may have gotten the order wrong but there.

[Cyberman]

I will never get tired of recommending Big Bang: The Most Important Scientific Discovery Of All Time And Why You Need To Know About It by Simon Singh. It lays out in painstaking detail not only what BBT is, but also the history of of how we came to know what we know about it. It's a fascinating story of all the unique characters involved.

[Alex K]

and written by a former particle physicist, too. The best kind of physicist, mhm...

[robvalue]

This thread should be called, "Problems accepting we don't have all the answers."

That seems to sum up about 99% of what theists say on here actually.

[Alex K]

This thread should be called, "Problems accepting we don't have all the answers."

That seems to sum up about 99% of what theists say on here actually.

Plus a dose of wilfully ignoring the ones we have...

[robvalue]

Oh yeah, of course. That is even more frustrating.

It makes me cringe that a person can think the evidence for scientific theories is insufficient, yet they think a book can be magically true based on no evidence at all.

[ignoramus]

Is it accurate to say that they are in denial of their reality?

[robvalue]

Quite often, that seems to be the case. If reality contradicts dogma, reality is wrong and further ad-hoc explanations must make up the difference.

Seriously, I don't know what reality some theists live in. I don't see what they see.

[downbeatplumb]

Can someone point out to me when the cause of something has been discovered to actually be supernatural, coz if that has never happened I am putting all such explanations for things in the can be safely ignored file.