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

[Baqal]

---

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

---

This ain't evidence that the universe is determined. I think I know where you are going with this: "The chances of [whatever] happening were pretty slim. There MUST have been a guiding force behind it!" I could agree with that there was a guiding force, but I definitely won't agree with you if you try to sell us your specific god as the guiding force until you provide evidence for it or at least a reason for anybody to think so.

[psychoslice]

Of course no one knows how the universe came about, this is where mysticism comes from, knowing that we don't know, its no big deal not to know.

[Baqal]

Of course no one knows how the universe came about, this is where mysticism comes from, knowing that we don't know, its no big deal not to know.

This is also what science aims at, and actually tries to find out answers instead of making stuff up. Tell you this: how do you know that no one knows how the universe came about?

[Diablo]

in a couple days, I'm posting evidence (that's right, evidence) that the universe was determined. going to be a lot of people getting on their knees confessing their sins, and there are beaucoup sins to be confessed.

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

One answer to this is to say that the universe is configured to make life very difficult indeed. The vast majority of planets can't support it, so it's likely pretty rare. Our own planet is lucky in being the right size and type, orbiting around a stable, long-lived sun, and in a quiet part of a galaxy which is fairly stable. Those things are unusual.

If the universe was configured for life then the physics would be set up entirely differently, so that all the stars were like ours and all the planets were like ours, and so that it didn't take 4.5 billion years to get where we are, and so that we didn't get 1000 rotten diseases and die after a few damn years.

I tell you, this damn universe is HOSTILE to life.

[Chas]

in a couple days, I'm posting evidence (that's right, evidence) that the universe was determined. going to be a lot of people getting on their knees confessing their sins, and there are beaucoup sins to be confessed.

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

[Tonus]

He thinks it makes the trolling more effective if he builds up a bit of suspense before letting everyone down.

Called it.

[Anomalocaris]

To not know that someone could know is ignorance.

So do you know ?.

Not I. But I do know it is more possible that someone in the cosmology or astrophysics community already at this moment knows, in the sense of having reasoned confidence in an accurate idea of where the universe came from, then solipsists think.

[Whateverist]

I once knew someone who knew. But then they forgot. And I can't remember who it was anyway.

[Anomalocaris]

I once knew someone who knew. But then they forgot. And I can't remember who it was anyway.

So I made something up.

[Angrboda]

in a couple days, I'm posting evidence (that's right, evidence) that the universe was determined. going to be a lot of people getting on their knees confessing their sins, and there are beaucoup sins to be confessed.

... in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it".

The key phrase there is "life as we know it." If life as we knew it were in some sense essential, then the existence of these parameters would be essential, and that would be remarkable. However, since "life as we know it" isn't essential to this universe, these parameters are not essential for this universe, and this is not in any way remarkable. Basically, all you've shown is that if things were different, then things would be different.

So what?