Beginnings

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Christians get a lot of "guff" for trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

It got me to thinking, what would be your explanation for the beginnings of the universe?

Given that atheism is true, how did this universe begin?

Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contempor...e-universe

[Faith No More]

I don't know. The key here is that is never a reason to insert a deity.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

I don't know. The key here is that is never a reason to insert a deity.

But we see that there is consciousness in the effect - I'm conscious, I imagine you are too.

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

[jonb]

Science is about finding out, not pretending we know. Pretending we have an answer is called faith, the lie is called dogma. I am not interested in the lies you tell paperclip.

[KichigaiNeko]

Christians get a lot of "guff" for trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

Mainly because they "explain" nothing

It got me to thinking, what would be your explanation for the beginnings of the universe?

Big Bang theory is the best we have at the moment

Given that atheism is true, how did this universe begin?

This is where you fail miserably. Atheism is a position with a basis built on the lack of evidence & that the "gods" were man made and ergo, do not exist.

Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Science has not proven anything of the sort. Science has a theory that holds based on current available evidence. To be honest there is another hypothesis that we are actually living in a Black Hole....I think it was Steven Hawkings .... our best minds are working on this issue but nothing is as solid as childish minds like yours demand

Three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

I am unfamiliar with the people whom you speak of.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

This is interesting.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Why? How did they describe this?

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Interesting. Like I said the theory we currently have is the "Big Bang" but this is not as rock solid as gravity theory. So, should these people be able to prove their hypothesis that will yield a theory then science will change it's stance on the subject.

These ideas have merit but I fail to understand the direction of your argument.

---

Are you saying that this abrahamic god never existed?

[Faith No More]

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

Why should it?

[Zen Badger]

Christians get a lot of "guff" for trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

It got me to thinking, what would be your explanation for the beginnings of the universe?

Given that atheism is true, how did this universe begin?

Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

And all of this brings to you to god does it?

And even if you were able to prove that the universe had an intelligent cause you would then have to prove that it was your particluar god that did it.

[Shell B]

I don't know. The key here is that is never a reason to insert a deity.

But we see that there is consciousness in the effect - I'm conscious, I imagine you are too.

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

When I use a cake mix, cake is the result. Holy shit! There is cake in cake mix! Oh, wait. Phew. That's just ingredients.

Consistency in your reasoning could help you solve half of your "questions." Simply take your silly reasoning, apply it to something that does not involve your faith and look at how horribly it doesn't work.

[Rhizomorph13]

Shell,

Are you arguing that cake mix is intelligently designed? I think it just evolved to become cake mix.

[The Grand Nudger]

Been watching some WLC have we?