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

[Alex K]

Any evidence to support this factory of yours?

Sounds a bit like Steady State Theory, which AFAIK, hasn't been taken seriously by mainstream cosmology in four decades.

Because it's erm... ruled out by observations, and BB perfectly confirmed?

[popeyespappy]

Any evidence to support this factory of yours?

Sounds a bit like Steady State Theory, which AFAIK, hasn't been taken seriously by mainstream cosmology in four decades.

Or QSS. Both of which conflict with observations that the universe is changing.

[Jackalope]

Sounds a bit like Steady State Theory, which AFAIK, hasn't been taken seriously by mainstream cosmology in four decades.

Because it's erm... ruled out by observations, and BB perfectly confirmed?

Pretty sure that's what I was strongly implying.

[Alex K]

---

The problem with the question is that we simply don't know what the universe is or how large it is. But based on the most likely possibility the universe came from Nothing and it is constantly being created.

The question is naturally how can something come from Nothing? For one thing we have no understanding what the properties of Nothing are. Since there is nothing in the raw Nothing area except unimaginable cold how can something come from it? It's actually the cold void that is the "factory", creating strings that combine to form quantum foam, which in turn starts creating various particles until eventually hydrogen atoms are formed. Once hydrogen has been created other materials become possible. Eventually stars form and then solar systems and ultimately, life appears if the conditions are right, which vary over billions of years.

Right now we may think that everything has been created but that may not be true. Who knows what new elements will form in our own solar system as time passes? The process seems to be one on continuous evolution, from Nothing to what we are experiencing now.

In our field of view we can see empty voids of up to 100 million light years in size in deep space. If our life spans were long enough we would probably detect the formation of hydrogen in those empty areas and the eventual formation of stars.

BTW, the Big Bang is just a Catholic version of creation. It's stupid when you think about it.

---

And I don't even know what you are on about. Where do you get this stuff?

But concerning the general question of "Universe coming from nothing". I reiterate it in ever conversation where this trope comes up: what does "coming from" mean if there's no universe with time, in which a process can happen? It's meaningless unless you specify that there is something like time independent of our universe, in which case the beginning isn't really the beginning.

[Bucky Ball]

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

The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.

Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

The typical answer to get around the fact that the singularity-big bang model violates the laws of nature is that the laws of nature only came into being a fraction of a second after the big bang.

Of course, that makes the singularity-big bang a supernatural explanation for the universe.

Wrong. All it means is we don't have a good answer at this time. Making up a god to fill the gap in our knowledge is a proven failed option.
I do realize ambiguity tolerance, and the NEED for cognitive closure can be strong. It's about psychology, not science, or religion.

[Jackalope]

I swear, this thread needs to be taken out behind the shed and be given a sound ass whipping.

[Whateverist]

I know, I was surprised to see it rise again. I'm vaguely curious about what all has gone on here .. just not curious enough read through it to find out.

[rsb]

There is nothing in the big bang to imply anything outside the universe or the bang, and it is a false argument to say it needs to prove outside that.

Nothing more than philosophical smoke and mirrors and nonsense words spoken with the intent to weave fairy tales.

I am happy with the 10 billion year history of observed stellar evolution, as clear as day and night and the stars and black and white and spectroscopy to prove it all. I don't really care about what came before, explain how your theological religious lies are consistent with that 10 billion year history and I will then perhaps think about your claims beyond those observable boundaries.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

The problem with the question is that we simply don't know what the universe is or how large it is. But based on the most likely possibility the universe came from Nothing and it is constantly being created.

The question is naturally how can something come from Nothing? For one thing we have no understanding what the properties of Nothing are. Since there is nothing in the raw Nothing area except unimaginable cold how can something come from it? It's actually the cold void that is the "factory", creating strings that combine to form quantum foam, which in turn starts creating various particles until eventually hydrogen atoms are formed. Once hydrogen has been created other materials become possible. Eventually stars form and then solar systems and ultimately, life appears if the conditions are right, which vary over billions of years.

Right now we may think that everything has been created but that may not be true. Who knows what new elements will form in our own solar system as time passes? The process seems to be one on continuous evolution, from Nothing to what we are experiencing now.

In our field of view we can see empty voids of up to 100 million light years in size in deep space. If our life spans were long enough we would probably detect the formation of hydrogen in those empty areas and the eventual formation of stars.

BTW, the Big Bang is just a Catholic version of creation. It's stupid when you think about it.

---

And I don't even know what you are on about. Where do you get this stuff?

But concerning the general question of "Universe coming from nothing". I reiterate it in ever conversation where this trope comes up: what does "coming from" mean if there's no universe with time, in which a process can happen? It's meaningless unless you specify that there is something like time independent of our universe, in which case the beginning isn't really the beginning.

Why would there be time in a field of Nothing? Can time exist in a field of Nothing if there's no atomic movement of any kind? Does time exist before the first hydrogen atom is formed or does time begin with the formation of the first string in a field of Nothing?

Do you think time is constant throughout the universe or is it variable depending on where you are? If you were on Pluto would time go slower than on Earth or would it be the same?

---

There is nothing in the big bang to imply anything outside the universe or the bang, and it is a false argument to say it needs to prove outside that.

Nothing more than philosophical smoke and mirrors and nonsense words spoken with the intent to weave fairy tales.

I am happy with the 10 billion year history of observed stellar evolution, as clear as day and night and the stars and black and white and spectroscopy to prove it all. I don't really care about what came before, explain how your theological religious lies are consistent with that 10 billion year history and I will then perhaps think about your claims beyond those observable boundaries.

How do you know that the visible universe is 10 - 13.7 billion years old?

[Alex K]

I don't know what you mean and to which part of my rant you are replying...