I know how the universe was created

[pgrimes15]

While I wholly agree that theist "something from nothing" arguments are pathetic and tiresome, let's not rush to embrace one fable to displace a more odious one. At present, the science is still unsettled. We don't know how the universe began, if it began and why. I'd say however, that in the same way that Dawkins referred to Darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, modern physics and cosmology provide plausible alternatives to this apologetic chestnut. And I dare say, the alternatives that science posits make use of demonstrable mechanisms; the GodDidit hypothesis does not.

One minor point. Some physicists, like Hawking, do not postulate a singularity, as when the universe was below the Planck length, our physics simply no longer apply.

Agree with you. Perhaps this thread should be in the life sciences section.
I am just fed up with Xtians saying to me "What happened before the Big Bang then?" or equating BBT with Genesis and declaring "Look, even your beloved science agrees with the bible".

The other one that irritates me is when apologists start mentioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics to "prove" that an agency must have had a hand in the creation of complex stuff. I find that asking them to state the 2nd law usually puts that one to bed.

Regards

Grimesy

[Minimalist]

Not that theists ever think deeply ( it is, after all, frowned upon) but this

"Does she believe the universe evolved from nothing?"

is completely ass-backwards. Science asserts that all matter was compressed into a single point before the Big Bang. That is not "nothing" it is "everything."

It is the theists who assert that their particular deity choked his holy chicken ( god invariably has a dick) and "poofed" everything into existence. THAT is creating from "nothing."

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, science doesn't quite assert that. It asserts its current body of theories describing how the universe empirically works, agrees with each other reasonably well only under conditions pervailing back to a certain point in time, say X. Beyond that point those theories as we understand them can not longer be reconciled with one another, so no convincing model of what had been happening could yet be built.

The point of science is to improve the theory so they can function empirically under a greater range of circumstances, including thoaswe pervailing before X. The point of religion is to find loop holes and scream God!

[FemmeRealism]

Not that theists ever think deeply ( it is, after all, frowned upon) but this

"Does she believe the universe evolved from nothing?"

is completely ass-backwards. Science asserts that all matter was compressed into a single point before the Big Bang. That is not "nothing" it is "everything."

It is the theists who assert that their particular deity choked his holy chicken ( god invariably has a dick) and "poofed" everything into existence. THAT is creating from "nothing."

[Humesapprentice]

In the 'I' (20p version of the Independent New Paper) there was a letter from a believer which ended by asking the atheist he was addressing "Does she believe the universe evolved from nothing?" Which must be the most common believer vs atheist put down.

Isn't this the easiest question in the world to answer, the answer being it was never created because its always existed?

That's one answer. I'd add that "the universe always existed" can be interpreted to mean that (a) the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time or (b) the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but has existed for every single nanosecond of time that has been, and asking what came before is like asking "what is north of the north pole?" In other words, if fourteen billion years is all the time that has been, and the universe has existed for every second of it, asking a question concerning the time before is meaningless because there was no time before. The universe cannot be pictured as coming from nothing, under this hypothesis, because "coming from nothing" denotes a time in which there is nothing and a later moment in which there is something. Of course, since there wasn't time prior to the existence of the universe (or anything before the universe) there could not have been such a "moment of nothingness."

[Anomalocaris]

I think it is fair to say our understanding of the nature of time is too limited to enable us to conceptualize how it works under conditions dramatically different from those which we have direct experience.

There are some theories that suggests time, like space, has multiple dimensions. Our big bang could represent the expansion of the one dimension of time - the one which we are currently equiped to perceive, but there may be multiple other dimensions of time that is uneffected, or differently effected by our big bang.

[Vincent Sauve]

This is the first time posting here so please forgive any web site format mistakes for my attempt to reply to what this poster wrote about me.

The poster wrote that the author of the Big Bang Cosmology web site is a 9/11 truther and is thereby attempting to smear me and my research. The fact is that assertion is not true. Unfortunately too many people do the shallowest of research and don't realize that I joined the group because my sister was all involved in it and I wanted to investigate the assertions that were being made. After some time, I came to the conclusion that the movement was quite wrong and very flawed and left after thoroughly exploring what it was about. It was a very interesting learning experience. As far as I know the only postings on the Internet still available that relate my name and the movement is at a site that features a critique I wrote of a segment of one of the films that part of the movement embraced.

My apologies for not knowing about and replying to this attempt of character assassination when these posts were originally made.

Vincent Sauve

Many cosmologists (the most famous being Fred Hoyle) have problems with the Big Bang theory considering it to be the 20th century's version of the creation story.

https://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/

The basic case is that the galactic redshift has been misinterpreted as indicating speed of recession, whilst it is actually an indication of distance, and is caused by something called the "Compton Effect" where photons are absorbed by intergalactic gas and retransmitted at a lower energy. The site also mentions how the cosmological heirarchy is acting like a priesthood where the Big Bang idea is so firmly entrenched (it is in textbooks after all ) that all dissenting views are dismissed, and anyone who wants to get ahead in the field (i.e. wants study and research grants) cannot afford to be seen as a maverick.

Make up your own mind.

Regards

Grimesy

The guy who wrote that is also a 9/11 truther.

Make up your own mind.