I have a question

[CleanShavenJesus]

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU&list=FLhXsiv3XINVE3ZZfITWevJw

---

Oh come on. I hear this enough. Make it go away.

[rexbeccarox]

I think there's a difference between having questions about something and questioning something. The OP wasn't here to learn, and I think that's TGaC's point... right Germans?

[Something completely different]

I'm not convinced. Why? Surely if they ask questions, they may come to understand that which they do not know. right?

Not questions in the sence of trying to get an understanding of the concept.

But questioning as in questioning the validity of concepts within the subject. Which is nothing but a display of ignorance and a waste of peoples time, if done with the purpose of shoving an agenda when not even understanding the concept called into questioning.

[Creed of Heresy]

Aww. The burqa-durka stopped responding.

Good riddance.

[ManMachine]

Okay, so atheists say the universe started with a Big Bang, which I don't disagree with BUT
The 'thing' that exploded or whatever to create the universe, where did that come from?
I mean, everything has to come from somewhere right? As in, you can produce something from nothing, because you had nothing to work with to start with. This is what my common says tells me anyway

So yeah, that tiny thing that exploded, it must have come from somewhere so how do atheists explain this?

All matter is energy, we know this from E=MC2.

In short the only thing you require to make mass is energy. The question, therefore is not where did all this 'stuff' or 'matter' come from but where did all the energy come from, out of which all the 'stuff' is made.

Quantum Physics theorises that all the energy in the universe (and hence all the 'stuff') totals zero. It is, in this case, not inconceivable that what we perceive as 'stuff' is in-fact a very special kind of nothing. In which case, none of the fundamental laws of physics need to change to create our universe from nothing, which in fact, they don't. So, we have a good solid basis for theorising that a universe full of 'stuff' came from nothing.


MM

[Whateverist]

All matter is energy, we know this from E=MC2.

In short the only thing you require to make mass is energy. The question, therefore is not where did all this 'stuff' or 'matter' come from but where did all the energy come from, out of which all the 'stuff' is made.

Quantum Physics theorises that all the energy in the universe (and hence all the 'stuff') totals zero. It is, in this case, not inconceivable that what we perceive as 'stuff' is in-fact a very special kind of nothing. In which case, none of the fundamental laws of physics need to change to create our universe from nothing, which in fact, they don't. So, we have a good solid basis for theorising that a universe full of 'stuff' came from nothing.


MM

The kind of nothing which has everything as one of its potential states is pretty far from the pure, unrelenting nothing that seems implied in the cosmological argument. If nothing, energy/matter and dark energy/matter are all intrinsic states of pre-bang nothing, isn't it really misleading to call it "nothing"? How is that really any different than saying before the big bang there existed the conditions necessary to give rise to everything?

[ManMachine]

All matter is energy, we know this from E=MC2.

In short the only thing you require to make mass is energy. The question, therefore is not where did all this 'stuff' or 'matter' come from but where did all the energy come from, out of which all the 'stuff' is made.

Quantum Physics theorises that all the energy in the universe (and hence all the 'stuff') totals zero. It is, in this case, not inconceivable that what we perceive as 'stuff' is in-fact a very special kind of nothing. In which case, none of the fundamental laws of physics need to change to create our universe from nothing, which in fact, they don't. So, we have a good solid basis for theorising that a universe full of 'stuff' came from nothing.


MM

The kind of nothing which has everything as one of its potential states is pretty far from the pure, unrelenting nothing that seems implied in the cosmological argument. If nothing, energy/matter and dark energy/matter are all intrinsic states of pre-bang nothing, isn't it really misleading to call it "nothing"? How is that really any different than saying before the big bang there existed the conditions necessary to give rise to everything?

My point ot the OP is simply that enough understanding exists for us to join a few jots and build a coherent theory of a Universe from nothing. But as you point out, this depends on what we understand to mean 'nothing'.

You are absolutely right. A Quantum Vacuum is as close to nothing in nature as we have encountered, and one of the features of the QV is that it's full of fundamental particles popping in and out of existance. Which is far removed from what most people think of when they think of 'nothing'.

'Nothing' is one of those concepts that humans have used for centuries but, from what we understand so far, is not the same in nature as our concept of it, a bit like geocentrism in the middle ages.

I'd argue it's a conceptual issue, not a physics issue.

MM

[Walking Void]

With the creation of the universe, one of the things that were created were time. So what does this mean? This means that if God created this universe and therefore created time, He is not affected or bounded by time, so what can we say from this?
This means God has no beginning or end, because what moved us for example, from the point of birth to death, is time right?

What the... another challenger fighting on a time-sensitive argument. Why do You people fall onto this point?! Time, is not a thing, nothing creates it! Nothing destroys it! Nothing can stop it!

-We have never reached absolute zero

http://m.livescience.com/25959-atoms-col...-zero.html

-Particles have never stopped vibrating/moving

Time, I repeat, is not a "thing". Just to let You know, time is a standard of measurement. Essentially, the measurement allows us to have frequency, because You cannot have something like vibration without any kind of repeated process. Frequency is used everywhere, like in your phone. Your phone has a receiver that picks up a certain frequency of radio wave that allows You and no one else to answer a call (unless someone intercepts your call).

So, again, time is a standard measurement just like a meter would be on a tape measure... not a thing. It does not exist as matter or space. It is time, the semi-dimension that allows "things" to change.

[Sciworks]

I studied astrophysics at The Imperial College, London.

The truth is, no-one knows the answer, there are theories only.

The problem with religion is, if you don't know, make something up, modern Cosmology is also a bit like that, it sells books.

Janeway sums it up:

Captain Kathryn Janeway: Let me ask you something. If you were something other than a human being, if you were a different kind of animal... If you were a small bird, a sparrow - what would your world be like?
Leonardo da Vinci: I should make my home in a tree, in the branch of an elm. I should hunt insects for food, straw for my nest, and in the springtime, I should sing for a companion.
Captain Kathryn Janeway: And you would know nothing of the politics of Florence - the cutting of marble or mathematics.
Leonardo da Vinci: Of course not.
Captain Kathryn Janeway: But why not?
Leonardo da Vinci: My mind would be too small.
Captain Kathryn Janeway: As a sparrow, your mind would be too small, even with the best of teachers?
Leonardo da Vinci: If Aristotle himself were to perch on my branch and lecture till he... fell off from exhaustion - still the limits of my mind would prevent me from understanding.
Captain Kathryn Janeway: And as a man, can you accept that there may be certain realities beyond the limits of your comprehension?
Leonardo da Vinci: If I could not accept that... then I would be a fool.