queston for Atheist

[Fromper]

Not sure why, but I'm going in. I should probably just pull out my Bingo card instead.

How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause. The beginning of the big bang in a split second threw in the existence of time,laws,matter,physics, everything are universe lives with today.

Scientists are still working on the details there. That's the definition of science - admitting that we don't know everything, and working to try and find the answers, rather than just inventing an answer with no logical basis and assuming it's true.

If you want to understand more of this stuff, I recommend Stephen Hawking's books. I recently read "A Brief History of Time", and plan to read " A Briefer History of Time" as a followup. Educating yourself is always better than dismissing something because it's too complex for you to understand immediately.

If the sun was to far away from the earth we would freeze to death, If we were to close the sun we would burn up.If the oxygen level wasn't perfect we would either suffocate or have fires everywhere. DNA is extremely complex everything is designed on a razors edge, life demands for a brilliant designer its the only logical way. And in the explosion of the big bang it wasn't just random chaos everything was guided into place, what did you guys think everything just happen to be perfect??

Yup, things had to fall into place pretty perfectly for life to exist on Earth. It's a highly improbable phenomenon. You seem to think that it's so highly improbable that it couldn't have happened without outside intervention. Let's look at the math on that.

Think of it this way. Best estimates from scientists are that there are 70 sextillion (7 with 22 zeroes after it) stars in the universe. If you think about it, with that many different stars, the odds of at least one having a planet that's perfect for human life are actually pretty high. That's just a LOT of chances for blind luck to make things fall into place perfectly.

Think of it this way, if you played the lottery that many times, even if it was the lottery with the worst chances in the world, you should win trillions of times. The chances of you not winning at least once would be significantly lower than the chances of someone with only one lottery ticket winning the jackpot.

I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

Yet you believe in things that can't be observed or proven, while discounting the work of thousands of scientists who would be more than happy to show you the proof behind their work, if you would take the time to learn.

[Alex K]

How do you explain the start of the big bang? there has to be and unCaused first cause.

Why bother with the rest of it if you were going to answer your own question in the very next breath?

Maybe spidey suspects that his answers are crap and wanted a second opinion

---

Think of it this way. Best estimates from scientists are that there are 70 sextillion (7 with 22 zeroes after it) stars in the universe.

May I stress that the observed flatness of our universe and the lack of correlations in the CMB and the evidence for inflation point very strongly to the actual universe being muuuuuuuuch bigger than the observable universe. There is no reason to think that the universe just ends at our current horizon, which is entirely an artifact of light speed being what it is.

[Faith No More]

I don't have near enough faith to be an Atheist.

No, you just rely on arguments from ignorance.

The question you should be asking is whether or not a lack of knowledge on a certain subject is evidence for a magical sky-wizard.

[Minimalist]

a very compelling explanation is a quantum fluctuation of a scalar field (the inflaton) to a higher energy state, triggering a rapid expansion of a patch of space and subsequent heating via decay of the scalar field.

Um, Alex. He's a guy who thinks that "In The Beginning" is a viable explanation. You may as well be writing in Sanskrit to a dork like that.

[Alex K]

a very compelling explanation is a quantum fluctuation of a scalar field (the inflaton) to a higher energy state, triggering a rapid expansion of a patch of space and subsequent heating via decay of the scalar field.

Um, Alex. He's a guy who thinks that "In The Beginning" is a viable explanation. You may as well be writing in Sanskrit to a dork like that.

Hindi will have to do...

एक बहुत सम्मोहक विवरण अदिश क्षेत्र के क्षय के माध्यम से अंतरिक्ष और बाद में हीटिंग का एक पैच का तेजी से विस्तार ट्रिगर, एक उच्च ऊर्जा राज्य के लिए एक अदिश क्षेत्र (inflaton) के एक क्वांटम अस्थिरता है

[archangle]

It is ok for us to say "we don't know yet".

Don't confuse atheist that claim "there is no god" with the ones that say "it seems some of the traits you claim are not supported by observation."

There is a difference. One sect claims a ton more "knowledge" then the other does.

does that sound familiar?

[Fromper]

Think of it this way. Best estimates from scientists are that there are 70 sextillion (7 with 22 zeroes after it) stars in the universe.

May I stress that the observed flatness of our universe and the lack of correlations in the CMB and the evidence for inflation point very strongly to the actual universe being muuuuuuuuch bigger than the observable universe. There is no reason to think that the universe just ends at our current horizon, which is entirely an artifact of light speed being what it is.

Interesting. I'm no expert on this stuff, but as I said, I recently read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". As I understand what I read there, there is no "edge" to the universe, but I thought the curvature just meant that if you could travel faster than light in one direction, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Also, if you were traveling faster than light, then you'd be traveling 4 dimensions, not just 3, so you could arrive back where you started before you actually left.

But I didn't realize that there would be more out there than we're capable of observing due to light speed limitations.

[archangle]

May I stress that the observed flatness of our universe and the lack of correlations in the CMB and the evidence for inflation point very strongly to the actual universe being muuuuuuuuch bigger than the observable universe. There is no reason to think that the universe just ends at our current horizon, which is entirely an artifact of light speed being what it is.

Interesting. I'm no expert on this stuff, but as I said, I recently read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". As I understand what I read there, there is no "edge" to the universe, but I thought the curvature just meant that if you could travel faster than light in one direction, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Also, if you were traveling faster than light, then you'd be traveling 4 dimensions, not just 3, so you could arrive back where you started before you actually left.

But I didn't realize that there would be more out there than we're capable of observing due to light speed limitations.

thats right.

They don't know yet. They are still looking. They aint even sure that those galaxies so far away aint our own milky way 10 billion years ago.

remember they know less than 10% of the stuff out there. Everything we know is a human perceptive only.

[LastPoet]

If we find more evidence to answer the questions, will they shut up then?

Rethorical question, of course they want, they'll just find another gap to cram their god into.

[Alex K]

Interesting. I'm no expert on this stuff, but as I said, I recently read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". As I understand what I read there, there is no "edge" to the universe, but I thought the curvature just meant that if you could travel faster than light in one direction, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Also, if you were traveling faster than light, then you'd be traveling 4 dimensions, not just 3, so you could arrive back where you started before you actually left.

But I didn't realize that there would be more out there than we're capable of observing due to light speed limitations.

thats right.

They don't know yet. They are still looking. They aint even sure that those galaxies so far away aint our own milky way 10 billion years ago.

That's wrong, we know that this isn't the case, e.g. from cmb observations.