Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[MindForgedManacle]

the multiverse a theoretical construct that would exist outside the U.; therefore is not detectable, thus making it a metaphysics (outside of objective experience) concept only.

A theoretical construct is not metaphysical at all.

[snowtracks]

the multiverse a theoretical construct that would exist outside the U.; therefore is not detectable, thus making it a metaphysics (outside of objective experience) concept only.

A theoretical construct is not metaphysical at all.

the atheists are trying but are unable to do away with that stubborn singularity that has theistic implications. they like the idea of something bubbling or even nothing as the cause.

[MindForgedManacle]

...Are you trolling me? 1) The singularity conclusion doesn't itself have theistic implications. Do you know what a singularity is? I doubt it. 2) I would stake my lot with the camp that sees the singularity as shoing a flaw in our theories regarding this, since singularities are mathematical objects. We already know at least 1 major flaw, and that's that we cannot describe this properly without a theory of quantum gravity, because our current theories have General Relativity go out the window since it hasn't been synthesized with quantum mechanics.

Further, you don't think God has a cause for his existence, so it's stupidly disingenuous to get mad at atheists positing that as a possibility, except in regards to something that can at least plausibly said to exist.

[Owlix]

I do not know if I, or anyone else, has stated thus in 49 pages, but I'm stating this now because it's what stands out most of the things I could post.

Atheism isn't going to answer this question, because atheism doesn't answer this question. It's not a cult or religion or belief system or organization (tax-free) or charity (non-profit). It's the absence of ________. Period.

Science, on the other hand, is always trying, striving , blood sweat and tears style, to answer these questions and many more.


The idea, the enormity, the unencompassing immensity of science is, just wow. Science isn't one thing, it's everything. Everything you know about the world is because of science. Earth science, life science, chemistry, physics, neurophysiology, astronomy, fucking simple archery involves science. Certain parts of it are perhaps a little more fundamental, and It's taken hundreds of thousands of people and maybe more to understand and see what's truly going on around us in the real world.
In the world of mythology, it takes one, a few or a handful. Of people who all have the same thought in their heads, as opposed to one or a few or many or groups of science-minded people who perform studies and experiments under controlled conditions and can report similar (if not the same) results.
No, atheism doesn't answer the question, and science hasn't yet either. But where science is taking steps, religion consistently erodes the ladder that tends to make advancement possible.

[houseofcantor]

Yeah, wtf is "atheistic origin science?" I heard that a lot of atheists originated from reading the Bible, is that what you mean?

Scientific consensus, however, is rather content with the idea of singularity then universe. And has been mentioned, it is a model based on General Relativity where the equations only make sense for values of time t>0.

Scientific consensus is also pretty content with the of causal origin at singularity, i.e. that before has no meaningful context. And these answers may not be emotionally satisfying, but these are the answers that work. These are the answers that haven't been shown to be, as yet, wrong.

Unlike creation myths - which have all been shown to be myth.

[ThomM]

A theoretical construct is not metaphysical at all.

the atheists are trying but are unable to do away with that stubborn singularity that has theistic implications. they like the idea of something bubbling or even nothing as the cause.

Sorry - but YOU are wrong

There is nothing in a "beginning" of the Universe that requires a "GOD" of religion at all.

Even if the Universe was created by a higher power - there is NO reason to believe a "god" was needed - only a being with the power to start the process of Evolution - ie a "creator" - can possibly be implied even then.

There is no need for that being to have ANY power beyond that of creation - no need for that being to continue to exist After the "creation" - and no support for claims of religion regarding an almighty god at all.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I can't accurately respond to any posts here yet, I'm still laughing at the term "atheistic origin science."

[snowtracks]

Yeah, wtf is "atheistic origin science?" I heard that a lot of atheists originated from reading the Bible, is that what you mean?

Scientific consensus, however, is rather content with the idea of singularity then universe. And has been mentioned, it is a model based on General Relativity where the equations only make sense for values of time t>0.

Scientific consensus is also pretty content with the of causal origin at singularity, i.e. that before has no meaningful context. And these answers may not be emotionally satisfying, but these are the answers that work. These are the answers that haven't been shown to be, as yet, wrong.

Unlike creation myths - which have all been shown to be myth.

God is supra-dimensional to the cosmic timeline. He is not usher along by it's one-directional cause-effect property or control by it in anyway. It is known by deductive reasoning that He has access to at least to two dimensions of time and probably a time plane where He is able function with an infinite amount of time dim's.

[Jackalope]

Yeah, wtf is "atheistic origin science?" I heard that a lot of atheists originated from reading the Bible, is that what you mean?

Scientific consensus, however, is rather content with the idea of singularity then universe. And has been mentioned, it is a model based on General Relativity where the equations only make sense for values of time t>0.

Scientific consensus is also pretty content with the of causal origin at singularity, i.e. that before has no meaningful context. And these answers may not be emotionally satisfying, but these are the answers that work. These are the answers that haven't been shown to be, as yet, wrong.

Unlike creation myths - which have all been shown to be myth.

God is supra-dimensional to the cosmic timeline. He is not usher along by it's one-directional cause-effect property or control by it in anyway. It is known by deductive reasoning that He has access to at least to two dimensions of time and probably a time plane where He is able function with an infinite amount of time dim's.

"Known by deductive reasoning"?

Prove it, snowflake.

[Esquilax]

God is supra-dimensional to the cosmic timeline. He is not usher along by it's one-directional cause-effect property or control by it in anyway. It is known by deductive reasoning that He has access to at least to two dimensions of time and probably a time plane where He is able function with an infinite amount of time dim's.

And Spiderman can do whatever a spider can. Are we going to continue talking in handwaving, baseless speculation, or are you going to get to the point of demonstrating your claims?