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

[snowtracks]

---

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

How do you know that?

Because it doesn't make sense for an eternal being to need a creator? Sure....according to our universe's logic, but we clearly aren't dealing with that, now are we?

---

[Mister Agenda]

How many people on this site believe in this Quantum Foam?

You should do a poll, you're not going to find out this way. QF is theoretical, there's not enough evidence for it at this time to justify believing in it (ie, holding it to be true). It is one of multiple hypotheses for the origin of the universe, one of which or none of which could turn out to be true. In the worst case scenario, we never find out. What QF has going for it is the math works, it fits what we know already, and it is a hypothesis that we can test eventually, at least in theory (involves sending up expensive satellites full of instrumentation).

I can't speak for others, but I am capable of entertaining multiple hypotheses simultaneously without feeling a need to commit to picking one of them to be true, especially when I am not qualified to make that kind of assessment.

---

Hey, there's this wonderful new invention - it's called Google:

Quantum foam

Unless I can see this foam, and touch this foam, or handle this foam, I will not believe.

You seem to apply this stance inconsistently. More than any atheist here, you have everything you need to believe in QF without reservation, given the amount of evidence you require to believe in other things you can't touch without reservation: none at all.

---

If you believe that then you have more faith than I will ever have.

I think you mean 'more information than I will ever have', but I think that's pessimistic. You are perfectly capable of learning new things. This site is one of the places creationists come to have the seeds of their future education planted.

[Tonus]

Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

So one option is that the universe, which we can observe and thus know exists, has always existed in some form or other. The other option is that god, whom you claim cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist, has always existed and created the universe. Seems that the former explanation is simpler and more likely, and does not require us to presume the existence of things we cannot possibly detect.

[Mister Agenda]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

There is no evidence whatsoever to that effect. The physicial laws apply within this universe, that doesn't even imply that they apply to this universe, anymore than a wall made out of unbreakable bricks implies that the wall is unbreakable.

[Faith No More]

If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

[Godlesspanther]

If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

It's like they were just making it up as they go along.

[Esquilax]

It's like they were just making it up as they go along.

I bet if you wait a week and remember what Snowy has said today, it'd be very possible to engineer a situation in which he contradicts his current statements in order to negate whatever he's up against at the time.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

You are trying to apply THIS universe's logic to something you have claimed is OUTSIDE the realm of this universe. You have no way of knowing that said logic is applicable anymore. It might be, but it also might not be. I thought I made this clear already, you can't discern the veracity of any statement you make about something outside our universe since all and any possible frameworks to approach the issue with are no longer guaranteed to apply. You have no hope of necessitating such a thing's existence when you have no means of producing reasonable certainty.

If there's one thing I've learned about all of these theistic arguments that require ad hoc explanations to keep them afloat, it's that theists treat all of these ad hoc explanations as if they exist in a vacuum, never considering the consequences of that explanation beyond the current hole in the argument they are attempting to patch.

They're just on a sinking ship, and every time they plug one hole, another one pops up, because they never consider the big picture and just seek to justify their preconceived beliefs. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so goddamn frustrating to watch.

This is what happens when people with faith-based beliefs try to justify their beliefs with logical equations. Logic and faith are inherently opposed to each other, so when they mix, it's like oil and water. The best theists, in my opinion, are those that admit and embrace what it means to have faith. Strangely, they also tend to be very logical on just about everything else.

[snowtracks]

Can't have infinite regression since by definition nothing could begin, nor can have a random generator (no intellect), nor could there be God², God³, etc.

So one option is that the universe, which we can observe and thus know exists, has always existed in some form or other. The other option is that god, whom you claim cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist, has always existed and created the universe. Seems that the former explanation is simpler and more likely, and does not require us to presume the existence of things we cannot possibly detect.

an unassailable fact : universe is 13 billion years old.

"whom you claim cannot be observed". that part is correct. for instance, an entity standing right in front of you claiming to be God wouldn't be proof.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So one option is that the universe, which we can observe and thus know exists, has always existed in some form or other. The other option is that god, whom you claim cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist, has always existed and created the universe. Seems that the former explanation is simpler and more likely, and does not require us to presume the existence of things we cannot possibly detect.

an unassailable fact : universe is 13 billion years old.

"whom you claim cannot be observed". that part is correct. for instance, an entity standing right in front of you claiming to be God wouldn't be proof.

More uninformed, ridiculous babbling, throwing out half-formed assertions just to see what sticks.

The first direct observational evidence that the universe has a finite age came from the observations of astronomer Edwin Hubble published in 1929.[21] Earlier in the 20th century, Hubble and others resolved individual stars within certain nebulae, thus determining that they were galaxies, similar to, but external to, our Milky Way Galaxy. In addition, these galaxies were very large and very far away.

---

Spectra taken of these distant galaxies showed a red shift in their spectral lines presumably caused by the Doppler effect, thus indicating that these galaxies were moving away from the Earth. In addition, the farther away these galaxies seemed to be, the greater the redshift and thus the faster they seemed to be moving away. This was the first direct evidence that the universe is not static but expanding. The first estimate of the age of the universe came from the calculation of when all of the objects must have started speeding out from the same point. Hubble's initial value for the universe's age was very low, as the galaxies were assumed to be much closer than later observations found them to be.

---

The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage.[22] His measured value for the Hubble constant came very close to the value range generally accepted today.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Why is Google so hard for you to use? You just type words in, and read the results that appear.