The beginning of the universe

In fact there is no reason not to believe in inquiry, sine what we call facts about the origin of life or the universe is base on premises and premises are multiple born of our our bigoted or take for granted attitudes and even scientific hypotheses are founded on not reasons or scientific facts alone

 

universe most likely had a beginning. Science has demonstrated that.

- - - Updated - - -

I LOVE Christmas too! It's the closest thing that atheists have to a holiday. It's so commercialized nowadays, it's basically a pagan holiday anyhow.

 

not true at all. scientists are collecting data, as we speak to try and determine how the universe first started. The experiments are complex (involving the measurements of gravitational perturbations that would move an object a distance about half the size of an atom). But they're being done. And that's the methods of EMPIRICAL science. There are no such experiments being done by Christians or Muslims. And that's the difference between science and religion.

 

it's quite simple. Here it is:

 

If it always existed, why did it start to expand?

 

Something is NOT nothing. From your article:

Let me know when you have proof that something can come from ABSOLUTE NOTHING.

 

Uh - dude - that is something from nothing. The particles and antiparticles are the something. And nothing is the fading back into nothingness. Learn to read.

 

we don't know yet

 

Sigh, a vacuum is not a void.

- - - Updated - - -

And you never will....

 

no, we probably won't know in our lifetime. you don't know either by the way.

 

Seriously? You are going to give me your hopeful OPINION as absolute truth?

My statement stands, unrefuted. Sure, people have been collecting 'data' for millennia. But that is not the same as coming to an empirical conclusion, based on the scientific method.

And give me a break. Not everyone who has made a scientific discovery has been an atheist. Many tremendous advancements in science & technology have been made by both christians & muslims, hindus & buddhists. You are trying to bring a philosophical thread about the universe into a pissing contest over current ideological beliefs.

Great. I'm so glad that is settled. And you claim religious people are gullible?

I'll restate the empirical FACTS about the universe:

There is NO empirical proof of either HOW, WHEN, or WHY the universe started, or if it happened by natural processes, or supernatural ones.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want about those things, but that does not make them EMPIRICAL truth. You may be fully convinced of your view, & may be willing to kill & die for it, but that is NOT empirical science.

If you have actual facts & empirical evidence to explain the how, when, & even why, i would be thrilled to see it. I have been on a quest for these things my whole life, & am obsessed with them. But be forewarned: I am a skeptic, & am not easily bluffed by BS & bravado. I can see through assertions & mandated science. I won't take your word for it, but will have to be shown, by valid, repeatable, reviewable SCIENCE that what you claim is supported.

 

I could start with such mundane things as quantum physics, E=mc2, mathematics, macro/micro sensory extensions across the spectrum, and move on from there, but for you to actually present such a ridiculous argument that its all "pseudo scientific jargon" indicates that it won't help.


http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

As if you could comprehend such "proof"? Apparently there are those that do not comprehend that the big bang theory is supported by literally VOLUMES of mathematical proof and prediction. One definitely should look before one leaps.

My concept of lameness seems to differ considerably from yours. But don't let that stop you from displaying a rather remarkable lack of understanding of what scientific knowledge actually consists of, when expressing your opinion of what scientific knowledge actually consists of.

Oh, the irony.


BTW, have you always had that footer? I've had mine for a few years. Cheers

 

My challenge remains, unrebutted. I have asked for definitive, empirical PROOF of your claim that you know, absolutely, the origins of the universe, & even have mathematical proof as well.

All you have offered is demeaning quips about my intelligence (which is not the subject), or vague references that prove nothing of the sort of any evidence to the origins of the universe.

Try me. Show me the mathematical 'proof' of the origins of the universe. I was a math major, so i might surprise you. But pretending that it is all too complicated for the common ignoramuses is a favorite ploy of the pseudo scientists, who rely on credentials, bluff, & bluster, when they don't have facts.

I change the sig from time to time, but this is a good one.

 

Are you familiar with the term "agnostic" at all?

OF COURSE there is no "smoking gun" absolute, no doubt, plain as your nose "proof" of what occurred 14.5 billion years ago.
There is just a consistent theoretical framework within which ALL of our scientific observations, experiments, analysis, predictions have so far "fallen within".

Now take this mountain of contributory/supporting evidence and compare it to theological "proof" of god(s) existence.


BTW, it actually is too complicated for the average individual to comprehend. In fact I do believe it takes something called a PHD (obtained thru years of study) to comprehend the "jargon" of mathematics, let alone its actual workings. Rather odd you are not aware of this.

 

See, i don't get this. First you claim that the origins of the universe are empirical facts, with even mathematical proofs. Now, you are saying you are agnostic, which means 'I don't know'. Which is it? Dogmatic assertion of the absolute truth of the universe's origins, or 'I don't know', which has been my point all along?

I have consistently stated that the origins of the universe (and life) is unknown, empirically. Those are beliefs. You believe in either an unknown, untestable natural process, or an unknown, untestable supernatural process. That is all there is. But you have been arguing against my premises, & seem to be making a case that the origins of the universe are settled science. You have dogmatically stated as much. but it appears that my karma has run over your dogma, in this case.

 

Its not hard at all. Its not that I don't know, its that I don't know if I am right but am willing to alter my belief in the face of compelling evidence.
So until such time that some compelling evidence appears that trashes any or all of our scientific understandings, I shall retain my perspective on the evolution of our universe, our planet, our biosphere and ourselves in all our glory.

Perhaps its your style. Since I clearly stated I was an agnostic atheist, I considered the above is a given. Understanding the how does not answer the why.
To me, understanding the mechanisms is the best that we can do, since we are creatures of this universe and anything beyond it is beyond us. I prefer the pragmatic approach over the emotional one.

 

not every one who made a scientific discovery was an atheist. but everyone who made a scientific discovery made it using the principles of atheism (ie they prrtended that god didnt exist for the purposes of their discovery).

and there are differences between scientific predictions and religious ones. Scientific predictions are ones that are not necessarily true, but are at least based on some sort of empirical data - ie like the quantum computing. We may never achieve quantum computing, but it is based on the principles of hard science. As opposed to the predictions of nostradamus, which are based on nothing.

As for empirical facts about the origin of the universe - there are many. We create theories that make predictions. We then take data - from telescopes, and experiments, and we see if those data jive with the predictions made by our theories. The modern theories of the origin of the universe were developed from DATA taken from telescopes (where you can look back in time and actually see the origin of the universe). A telescope is like a time machine. When you look at light through a telescope, you are looking back in time! That's EMPIRICAL. As opposed to religion, where they make something up, and there's no data, there's no experiments. It's just a story.

 

Well, what you call "a void" is simply a state where space and time did not exist. But my whole point is that space-time spontaneously popped into existence from the void. The vacuum came later. So no. A vacuum is not a void. But space time did spontaneously arise from the void.

 

Where is the evidence that something popped out of absolute nothing???

 

we know it exists.

we have no evidence that it once didn't exist.

 

The expanding universe did not always exist.

 

evidence?

 

Expanding and accelerating...and I agree, it couldn't have always existed. I've watched videos of Lawrence Krauss explaining a universe from nothing, but now I'm reading it in text to better understand. It goes through the history of what scientists thought historically about the universe and how we've reached what they know now, plus what they're still working on. Fascinating.

 

Something from absolute nothing is an impossibility.

- - - Updated - - -

Singularity?

 

Hubble's Law

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p4.html

- - - Updated - - -

Because you said so or because you don't understand the science that explains it or choose not to believe it?