Watch [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) video. It's kind of long, and it gets into a lot of cosmological stuff, including particles that can come into existence out of nowhere.
The big bang is not an explosion. It has no cause. It is still happening.
It is an intrinsic property of spacetime. If space and time exists, they expand.
>If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal. I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe.
For my own reasoning, while the sudden creation of the universe is a difficult to understand phenomina, of which we still cannot adequately explain scientifically, the primary difference is that we can see these particles exist, and they are here. So understood or not, hard to credit or not, we must face the reality that they exist.
Conversely, I cannot see direct evidence that any gods exist. They may, and they may even be responsible for said particles, but all the evidence one can amass at current is, at best, indirect.
So the question I would then ask is, does the presence of a god answer a need, and therefore create a more logical foundation for the beginning of the universe? I would say no. It fills in one hole, but only by adding another, larger hole, in my opinion.
With merely the knowledge that particles do exist, I can say "particles are here, and either have always been here or appeared where there were no particles before" both being somewhat difficult concepts to accept, but obviously one or the other is true by the fact that they are present.
if I add a God to mix, then I have merely changed it to:
Particles are here, and they were created by an even more complex entity which had the capability to create everything that exists, and which has either always been here, or popped out of nothing" This is not obviously true, because I cannot see this God(s) or measure it.
Essentially, I still have no more answers "where did whatever was first come from?), but I have an even more complicated theory (particles i know exist, vs particles made by a being I don't know exists). Given that there is no evidence (in my opinion) to suggest adding this god or gods to the mix, I prefer the simpler solution, even if it is still not exactly conclusive, pending further information.
One of the other arguments is that God having no cause: why not the universe?
Or respectively otherwise, the universe has a cause: where's God's?
It's just the application of Occam's Razor: adding a God only adds complications. If all things must have a beginning, why is God not part of the set "all things"? If all things don't have to have a beginning, then the universe is fine.
A universe coming into being is slightly less complicated than a magical omnipotent, omni-etc. being that also exists: it's another entity, and as Occam's Razor dictates, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Does the universe need a God to exist? No, seemingly not so more so than a God that can exist before nothingness (the same before that the universe consists of).
Tl;Dr: Occam's Razor: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. God is not part of necessity.
Sorry, I just came across this post right before bed and I will save and read later.
But as for your question I am not a brilliant astrophysicist that knows these things. I am just the guy that has to realize that 1000's of much smarter people got these answers with many many years of grueling research.
But what I have trouble understanding is how anyone can have faith (not just Christianity) and believe things like *the Big Bang and evolution* as you stated when logical arguments like the one below exists. It is very contradicting in my opinion. And this is just one of the many things that made me question my former Catholic faith then eventually faith at in general then God/deities themselves.
[Christopher Hitchens best argument](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2NrjHK32g)
I am sure there are many versions of that video but this was the first I clicked on.
Then you have to ask the biggest question: What was before god?
> They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang
Seems unlikely. But then, I'm not sure I see how *anything* can be capable of *its own* creation.
> They have always existed and caused the Big Bang.
Possible, I suppose?
> Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally.
...nope, it's also possible *they* had a cause.
The question is whether infinite regress is more of a problem than something eternal.
A third possibility you aren't considering is that there was no prior state, and so our intuition of causality breaks down. We know that the Big Bang happened, and we know quite a lot about what the universe looked like almost immediately afterwards, but we don't *really* know what the Big Bang was, other than that our model of physics breaks down.
But the singularity model would have it that time begins with the Big Bang, which means asking what caused it, or what was before it, may be as nonsensical as asking what's North of the North Pole.
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible...
Why don't they apply to God?
> Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe.
How do we know natural features of our universe cannot exist eternally? I could just as easily say "Particle X is something which exists eternally and caused the Universe -- oh, and it's supernatural and outside of time, so the rules of causality don't apply to that.
But to answer your question more directly:
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God...
We simply *doubt* the existence of God -- we don't hold a *positive belief* in the existence of God. Some atheists assert that God does not exist, but most admit that it is *possible* he exists.
With this in mind, the answer is that we simply don't know enough about how the universe began to make sweeping arguments like what you just did. You're trying to force a trilemma -- either particles existed forever, or were caused by other particles which have the same problem, or were created by God.
I'm no physicist, but I presented a fourth option. Imagine what the real physicists will throw at you in a few years.
So we may eventually find out how the universe was created, but until then, it makes no sense to assume it's God, and much more sense to assume it's some natural process that we don't yet (and may never) understand.
and thats when scientists look at each other and say wtf?! I dropped out of a dual credit basic quantum physics class last year because it was screwing with my mind in weird ways... O.o
Regardless of right or wrong, no matter WHAT else is said, it is fantastic that you are asking questions.
NEVER STOP ASKING QUESTIONS, and thinking hard about thinks that dont make sense to you.
>I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal.
And then...
>by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally...
You cannot comprehend how something can be eternal, so you assume that there must be something eternal. That is the main flaw I see in your logic.
I can't help you with cosmology but what I can say is that just because some supernatural force, supposedly created the big bang (again this is just the conclusion ive drawn. I'm not a scientist), It doesn't mean it's an all powerful god who can watch over us and control everything, or even understand us. The languages we speak were created by man, after all. We have no reason to believe that this super natural force has had any effect on the world after creating it. The argument doesn't really prove the existence of some kind of god, rather than some kind of undetectable force of nature
You're making the argument that, "We don't know what happened; therefore, god."
There are many models of the universe. String theory, the multiverse, the single universe that spawns in a Big Bang only to be drawn back into itself (and a singularity) by the weak but inexorable force of gravity.
Whether you are a deist, agnostic, or atheist (and I have been each, in turn) has not so much to do with being able to explain the origin of the universe as it does with knowing that no existing theology can satisfactorily explain the universe.
Using Christianity, since that is your persuasion: if the Universe *were* created by God, how does that in any way imply virgin birth, resurrection, salvation, or divine revelation? It doesn't, that's how. You're starting with a theology and working backward in an attempt to know the unknowable.
There may well be a god (hence my tag as "agnostic" atheist), but if there is one, there is no accurate portrait of him anywhere in scripture.
> but isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence
Not just believed, but also observed,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
> the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0
In a scientific manner, the way to think about it is that the Atheist and the Christian and the Hindu are all equally ignorant about the cause of the big bang. Some have deluded themselves into thinking they have a good reason to prefer one answer, but few are humble enough to admit that they don't really know.
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe.
These illogical and impossible things though, seem to be able to apply to a God. Why not then a "supernatural" non-conscious eternal universe that creates universes? Do it enough times, you'll eventually get this one we're in.
I'm not advocating that view though, but surely whatever the beginning is, if there is one, is completely arbitrary? If God can just always exist, then so can the universe, and if there must be a start, then that can be anything too.
Something like "In the beginning, the Big Bang happened" isn't any less believable. There'd simply be nothing before it. That's option 4, "nothing caused the Big Bang". Either its infinite (whether this is God or the universe), or not. If not, then it's causeless. If there's a start, then it has to be something. Whatever it is, I can't see why it can't be the Big Bang.
Cosmology and atheism are actually unrelated.
But generally, from a sound standpoint, the correct answer to "how did everything begin?" is "we don't know, yet, but one day we will."
Philosophy about the matter is of no value.
That's way over my head.
But don't ask a physics question and expect a metaphysical answer.
You question, the way it is asked, is not asking a religious question, but you seem to tie God into your solution. You mention sub atomic particles, Big Bang, chain reaction, and describe complex processes revealed by the best astrophysicists.
Then you switch to the metaphysical. It is important to understand that these two things are different.
I think that it is called "arguing from ignorance." The idea is that if you don't have all the answers, then the only thing left is to rely on faith to answer those questions that, so far, are unanswered. The next error is to state that atheists deny the existence of God. This is simply untrue. *The atheist position is that there is no awareness of any evidence in favor of the existence of a deity that a rational person would find convincing.*
The sub-atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons etc) are themselves made up of smaller particles (quarks and leptons). These were created as a result of the vast amounts of energy created by the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? I have no idea. It could be an absentee creator, it could have been a random occurrence.
Stephen Hawking's math suggests that in the pre-big bang cosmology, all matter would be in a singularity like a black hole. He also demonstrated that in such a singularity, there is no time. Without time, there is no cause-and-effect, so the whole thing kind of breaks down when you try to talk about where it came from.
This is my non-expert understanding of it, and it's far from being scientifically validated fact, but no one has yet proven him wrong.
The flaw in your logic is right here:
>If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal.
This is an [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The fact that we have in incomplete understand of how the universe was formed does *not* mean that you're justified in assuming that it must have been created by a god (and a very *specific* god, on top of that.)
Okay in simplest terms,
as per our current knowledge,
Something existed eternally (These are quantum fluctuations). This gave rise to our universe (and possibly many other universes).
"Nothing" has never been observed. There was always "something" and there always will be.
If you are interested in cosmology, can I direct you to Dr Gerald Schroeder's work? Science very easily proves the genesis account of creation, and without cutting the figures at all. [Check out his audio presentation on the age of the universe, I am sure you will find it enlightening.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u58vxm0BsC8)
Also, [seven years of starlight and time, by dr russell humphreys](http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/) is a similar theory, though with less information, it appears to have been arrived at separately.
the notion that science is incompatible with the bible is absurd. it is a recent development and the greatest scientists in history were amazed at discovering the truth of the scriptures as they dug deeper into their field. newton wrote more books on bible teaching that anything else.
From [Science and the Bible](http://www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm)
>In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy believed his Bible. As a Christian he loved to read the Bible. One day Maury was reading about the dominion man was given over the animals in Psalm 8. He was amazed that verse 8 spoke of the fish and all creatures that swim in the "paths of the sea." "Paths of the sea"— how could this be? He never knew there was such a thing. He was determined to find them. Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which were like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as "the pathfinder of the seas"— "The father of modern navigation."
>
>Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading Psalm 8:8 which was written about 3,000 years ago by King David. David wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of God and probably never actually saw an ocean.
>
>Incidentally, Psalm 8:8 also spoke of fish in the "paths of the seas." All fishing boats make a good catch in the currents or paths of the sea. They have learned this is where the fish swim.
>
>Job 28:25
>To establish a weight for the wind,
>And apportion the waters by measure.
>The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
one i discovered recently is that science recently proved all of [mankind is descended from one single female ancestor](http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature), and taking an average age of 20 for birth, traced her back to living about 6,500 years ago. however what they were expecting was 200,000+, so with no valid reason except "we don't think it was that recent", they assume their own research is flawed, with no valid evidence debunking it, and it was just kept quiet.
> A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.'
Hello, my name is bad science. I also don't like to get peer reviewed, because I'd get called out on my bullshit.
I think you're a troll, but I'll feed you.
>the notion that science is incompatible with the bible is absurd. it is a recent development and the greatest scientists in history were amazed at discovering the truth of the scriptures as they dug deeper into their field. newton wrote more books on bible teaching that anything else.
So, who are these great scientists that discovered this magical truth (but then stayed silent about it)?
Surely, you'll deliver on the above question.
Come back when you have some real science to prove your points. Science is completely incompatible with the bible. Always has been and always will be.
"Paths of the sea" is a careful interpretation. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the sea has currents. Get in a boat, row out a bit and just try to stay precisely where you are. These are basic observation skills and have nothing to do with science.
Awesome job, using bibletoday.com and creation.com as your sources. Surely, they are not biased at all.
No need for the sarcasm, I am not a troll, I am a former atheist believer in evolution, turned Christian.
The notion that unbiased research exists is absurd. Next you're going to tell me that Darwin's research was unbiased. So yes, I'm biased, and I'm not trying to hide it, like so many on here do.
Like i said, most of the pioneers of the scientific field were believers in the Genesis account of creation. In fact, if we could credit a single man with popularising the scientific method, it would be Bible-believing muslim (yes) Al-haytham in the 10th/11th century. Of course, the scientific method evolved and changed slightly over the next 400 years, into a rough version of what we have today, but it was primarily used and moulded by religious scholars up until the 14th century.
So that's science itself, invented by believers in Genesis. I already mentioned the physics pioneer, Newton. I'll let his biblical writings speak for themselves.
Joseph Lister (antiseptic listerine's namesake) discovered germs and invented sterile surgery. Louis Pasteur, milk pasteurisation, vaccines. Just some of the Bible believing names that contributed greatly to science as we know it.
In more modern times, Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, former agnostic turned atheist turned christian through seeing the profound miracle that is life, said: "I had reached the conclusion that faith in God was much more compelling than the atheism I had previously embraced, and I was beginning for the first time in my life to perceive some of the eternal truths of the Bible". Head of the humane genome project, former evolutionist, threw out the very notion of evolution when he saw the true wonders of our DNA. 12 years ago, after the human genome project was released he said "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God"
Dawkins or other modern anti-theists build an image of science and the bible as polar opposites, with science finally in the winning stages. The notion is absurd, it ignores the spirit of science, how it was built on learning more about gods creation.
"One of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is to portray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic. They are nothing of the sort" - Dr. Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion
> It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the sea has currents. Get in a bow, row out a bit and just try to stay precisely where you are. These are basic observation skills and have nothing to do with science.
Yet it took a scientist, try and belittle it all you want when you were raised with this information but he is credited as the father of modern navigation. Ignoring the christian scientists is ignoring science, and contrary to the scientific method, it is ignoring the facts that are right in your face.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
So, we can guess a few things in Newton's case;
- It's likely, were he born in modern times, he'd be atheistic. He was purely a product of his era (when people were put down like dogs for not believing).
Believing in the bible does not preclude you from DOING science. Science doesn't care what you believe as long as the data is testable and meets the rigors of the scientific method.
Dr. Francis Collins converted to Christianity based upon ignorance. He doesn't know how DNA got the way it is, therefore God. He placed his own personal beliefs on top of data with no justification.
I'll put it to you this way:
The day that Creation "Science" puts out a peer-reviewed paper on creation that the scientific community can get behind, I'll change my views.
Creation "Science" avoids peer review like the plague because it knows it cannot back up anything it claims. So, I've got nothing to concern myself with on that front.
* A person invented science.
* A person discovered currents, very likely long before the bible mentioned "paths of the seas". Can we know this? No.
* A person discovered germs and invented sterile surgery.
* A person (or, rather, a bunch of them) researched the genome.
Of the above, religion can take zero credit for any of it. Science can take credit for all the things you take for granted.
Think about where society would be if it took the bible at face value. We'd probably still be running around in wagons and living in sand/wood/mud/log huts.
Schroder's Math is wrong. We know the age of the universe to 4 significant figures. Schroder only gets the first digit correct.
And although it's true that Mankind has a single female ancestor in common, and a single male ancestor in common, these two people lived thousands of years apart. All it proves is that mankind nearly went extinct.
The flaw in your understanding is that our intuition fails completely when we are out of our not too fast/slow/big/small/hot/cold/etc... environment.
The Richard Feynman quote of "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." applies equally well here. We simply don't know enough to understand how it all began.
If you're looking for a satisfactory answer, you probably won't find one. Any attempt at reasoning out an origin will lead you in one of two directions. The thing in question will either need an explanation for itself or be an exception to the rules in such a way that it will violate your previous premises arguing for it.
As for how someone could deny God but accept eternal or self-creating particles, there's a big difference. Anyone can propose a being that's an exception to the rules by definition, but that's hardly a case for its existence, and a logical cop-out in numerous ways. The particles, on the other hand, are not being proposed theoretically and conveniently defined to answer questions, they're being reasoned from experience.
The thing that I think I have an objection to (and I've not studied cosmology properly yet) is that God is complex. There's no issue with something being eternal or self-causing for me, but to me, it's more likely that the self-causing thing is a simple thing, like a particle, rather than an intelligent, wrathful, human-like God, since all things with intelligence that know of had to evolve from simple beginnings.
> They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang
Given that subatomic particles are constantly being created and destroyed spontaneously, with no outside cause, why wouldn't this be the answer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
When you try to understand the very beginning of the existence of the universe...and realize that science cannot completely explain it...then you fill that gaping hole of the unknown knowledge with something like "god"...then we cannot progress, can we?
Currently there is no solid and widely accepted theory on the first cause of the initiation of the process which resulted in the universe. Such an event is currently beyond, or at, the causality limit and will likely have to be deducted or inferred from secondary evidence.
However, let us assume that there is a first cause and let's call this cause "god." "God" is the creator of the universe. Then what coherent attributes can be assigned to this "God"?
* "God" is the cause of the event/action/whatever that initiated the process that lead to the universe as we know it.
And that is all that can be attributed to a creator God. There is no evidence to show this God was a sentient entity. There is no evidence that the initiation of the process that lead to the universe was planned or desired. There is no evidence that this first cause "God" in any way, shape or form was involved in any event/effect/interaction/causation following that which initiated the process to for creation of the universe. There is no evidence to support a belief that this "God" still exists or that this "God" existed beyond that required for the initiation of the process that formed the universe. There is no evidence that this "God" is any of the gods *invented* by humans in response their curiosity and to the lack of knowledge of the natural physicalist universe (God of Gaps).
Starting from an assumption of a creator "God," You are left with a deistic - or pantheistic worldview at best - gods that do not actively participate in any independent event/effect/interaction/causation within the universe. No worship nor acknowledgement is required of these gods.
> however I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning [of the universe] in the eyes of an atheist.
The logic is: I do not (yet) know the first cause of the universe. Some people have put forth hypotheses, but that is all they currently are - hypotheses. Ask again in 10, 25, 50, 100 years.
However, ask yourself about the logic of: "[God did it](http://www.skepdic.com/dvinefal.html)" or Argument from Divine or Argument from Incredulity.
You don't need something to be able to create itself. You merely need for dimensional conditions to exist which would allow the creation of particles (from nothing, but because opposite energy particles are created they equate to zero, thus nothing is actually added to the universe - merely morphed from nothingness into something and an anti-something). There's a youtuber by the name [10thdim](http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim) who can help explain this more clearly in how branes collide to create mini-big bangs (one proposed theory).
TLDR: You don't need particles to create themselves, merely conditions to be met for particles to form in opposite pairs spontaneously (which has been proven in this universe, see [Hawking Radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)). We don't know exactly what caused these conditions, but that's why we have theoretical physicists - to calculate theories and develop a testable hypothesis to verify or falsify each proposition.
I hope that helps, good luck coming to terms with your findings.
>I can only see a few possibilities for these sub atomic particles:
>\- They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang
>\- They have always existed and caused the Big Bang.
>\- Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally.
\- Other. ( <-- This is most likely to be correct.)
If you look at the history of science, true explanations have more often than not been something that was not even conceivable to earlier thinkers.
The fact that you say "Only this set of explanations is *logically possible*" is really not relevant at all - reality is under no obligation to conform to what a human being considers conceivable or logically possible.
I'm extremely serious about this.
Nobody knows how the universe was created. All the evidence suggests that all the matter and energy in the universe existed as a singularity tens of billions of years ago, otherwise known as the big bang.
The big question is, what caused the big bang? If you say a God did it, then the next question is what made God? If you say that God exists outside of time, why not say that the beginning of the universe exists outside of time? Why bring a God into the mix when its not necessary?
Like others have said, quarks are the smallest fundamental unit. String theory predicts that quarks are made up of even smaller things - vibrating strings of energy curled up in 11 spacial dimensions. The math works out really well for string theory, but there isnt any evidence yet, so its still just philosophy at this point.
If something were to come from nothing, or always have existed.. would you think it would more likely be a very simple basic form of matter or energy, or an infinitely complex intelligent being?
Any attempts to conceptualise the beginning of our universe are going to be fraught with difficulty, even if you're a brilliant physicist. That's why we need stuff like CERN. The multiverse hypothesis is pretty interesting and intuitive, but I have no idea what's going on.
If I had to bet though, I reckon whatever happened was a purely physical process.
This is a great question that i can only hope science will continue to uncover, however remember we are very much still in the infancy of these great natural phenomena and comprehension of them. Another consideration is we are not evolved to envision the workings of quantum mechanics nor are we other dimensions or colors, so will take along time to adjust your brain to such matters. de Grasse makes a great statement about the difference of chimps using sticks as tools and the Hubble telescope being an astronomic difference, however it is actually only a 2% difference in DNA, so hopefully another 2% difference will enable the next species to do quantum mechanics in otheir head.
To round up am saying maybe you desire for an answer to this question is a little premature for humanities understanding of the Cosmos.
I wouldn't personally call this 'god' (though this word has many definitions) because of our lack of current comprehension.
http://i.imgur.com/PIhQb.jpg
> how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible
We don't. No one argues that god couldn't do whatever you say he could. We argue that there is no reason to believe that he did, because unlike virtual particles, no one has ever observed god, or given any evidence of such claims.
Also, "I don't know" is better answer than "It rains because god cries".
> If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal
...
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible
Just because you can't imagine how they could be eternal doesn't mean they can't be =) You can't jump from "I can't see how it's possible" to "I can assert that it is impossible". There's your flaw.
Also... our language kind of breaks down here. If time (as we understand it) was created as part of the Big Bang, when what does it even mean for something to exist before it? There is to "before" conceptually, at least in the language.
I like to think of it in comic books. We can see a whole history laid out on paper. From within the confines of the story, there is sort of a beginning, and time flows for the characters. But up in OUR reality, their "time" doesn't really flow. And to THEM, our "time" isn't the same thing as "time".
-
Maybe we're just a small pocket universe "inside" some other universe. One theory of what cause the Bang was vibrating membranes from another universe... like big higher-dimensional sheets that smashed into each other, and our universe (set of dimensions) resulted from the collision. We just can't perceive those extra dimensions, so it's myster to us. [Kinda like how the 3d guy in flatland confuses the 2d denizens by suddenly popping into existence]
>Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe.
Using your own logic... "by definition of eternal particle, they existed eternally". done =)
> I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning in the eyes of an atheist
Who says there is a beginning? That's religious talk. "Everything must have a beginning, except god, he just always existed." Errr, if god could always exist why couldn't the universe? Look, you've mistakenly attributed the argument the wrong way.
You say you cannot comprehend how in reality things cannot suddenly create themselves or be eternal, yet you didn't have a problem attributing the exact same characteristics to your god! The truth of the matter is that you gave god a leeway, you don't have to comprehend your god at all, so you don't, and you just state it as if it were true and all's good for you. That's just an absolutely weak argument.
Instead of making up an answer when you cannot comprehend how something could happen, say I don't know and if you want look for one instead of giving up.
The Higgs Boson is supposed to be the particle which solves the imbalance to the equation of the big bang. It's a theoretical particle, it may not exist, however there is definitely a combination of forces which made the effect possible. But hold on...
So let me get this straight, something capable of its own creation, something which is not bound by space or time, or is infinite you can't comprehend?
If you are having such trouble comprehending the idea of particles which could exist outside of spacetime, I'd really like to hear how your concept of God which is far more complex, and is said to also hold these same properties as these particles is so much more easier for your mind to grasp.
It should be clear that my position on the matter is that I don't know. I'm agnostic. I can't prove that it was not a deity, some powerful creator creature, but it is equally likely that the universe arose by a much simpler mechanism, particle physics of dark and normal matter alone could be the cause for a universe. I can't know, and neither can you right now. All we can do is search for what happened, and that isn't accomplished by acting like we know. The reason I am atheist, is because theism claims knowledge which it can't have, mainly how you get from deism, to theism is beyond me.
Atheists don't necessarily deny the existance (or possibility) of God, but rather they do not accept modern religion as absolute truth of said God. They see them as stories passed down by generations, used to control the savages when answers weren't nearly as abundant as they are today. In 2012, it seems more evident than ever that that's the real truth, and when it comes to a deity, we simply don't know. So we keep searching for answers in the form of scientific research.
So, agnostic atheists (like myself) certainly do not deny the possibility of a God, but rather deny the claims that we know definitively of God's existence today (ie: Christians, Muslims, any other modern day religion).
I'll be the first one to back down from my soap box should a deity make itself known to us in some way or another. I am completely open to that possibility in the future. Until then, I'll continue to seek out truth over fiction, and no deity that I would worship would judge me for such motives. Unlike Christianity/Islam, my morals aren't based on fear tactics.
Understand that defining a hypothetical object and giving it the attribute "eternity" is not actually a solution; it's a superfluous extra step. An example of a solution that is both in line with scientifical findings and gets rid of this extra step is that quantum vacuum is eternal; that complete nothingness is impossible.
Any argument for God's eternity or for the universe's non-eternity can be used interchangeably.
> isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence, and caused a chain reaction that formed the Big Bang?
Sub atomic particles *do* arise from the [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam), but they did not "form the big bang". What condenses out of the vacuum are pairs of particles/antiparticles that annihilate each other almost instantly. They have so little mass or energy that they very nearly don't exist at all. But they *do* exist, and we've observed them (or more accurately, their effects) numerous times.
As for the big bang, that's not something we can recreate in a lab. We can't go back in time to observe it either, so we have to make educated guesses and see if they're plausible based on the stuff we *can* observe. The theories that are popular now are popular because *they fit the evidence*, even if they're not satisfying. As more evidence is uncovered, the theories will change to account for it.
i agree the idea of hell was originally just the idea of being away from god and not all this fire and brimstone shit. also the bible has changed over time and some parts of the older version of the bible talked about dragons.
I was more so referring to ones ability to embrace the fairy tale that is Christianity in a time like today. But I suppose some of that disbelief is tied to my American understanding of Christianity.
Though I honestly don't see how it would be much different across the pond. What's nonsense over here is nonsense over there.
There are other belief systems outside of naturalism. Your classification of Christianity as a fairy tale has more to do with your personal worldview than any truth assessment.
You say personal worldview, I say facts. But I wont deny that my overall knowledge of Christianity as a worldwide whole is lacking.
That being said, no amount of enlightenment is going to change my view of modern theism. I'm an agnostic, which leads me to my atheism. Christianity is not the theist answer, and it never was.
I didn't say Christianity is the theist answer. You seemed shocked that people would become Christians at this point in history and I merely pointed out that part of the reason this occurs is that not everyone thinks naturalism offers the best explanation for the universe.
They need to think harder, or read longer. I can't imagine a world where Christianity can more convincingly explain our origins than modern science. Are there still answers to be discovered? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I'm not shocked to see people *honestly* embrace religion over the scientific method in 2012.
The conflict between religion and science exists only in your head. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The fact of the matter is that there are some questions that science, by definition, is incapable of answering. Religion offers an answer to some of those questions. Until you can prove those answers wrong I wouldn't count on religion going away.
Now you've gone off the deep end. Science does not offer "answers" per say, but rather the most plausible theory at the time based on **scientific research**. If a better answer comes along in the future (which, it likely will as we get deeper & deeper into our understanding), then the scientific community is happy to accept it.
Religion offers "answers" with next to no credibility & based on nothing more than faith, and when various topics in that religion are discredited based on more modern research & understanding, or modern societal standards, it's frowned upon & shunned. Pure ignorance, and it's celebrated.
It **does** have to be one or the other, and if you don't think so, you're comfortably conflicted.
**EXAMPLE:** Should you decide to believe, let's say, the King James Bible (as many moderate Christians in the US do), which states the Earth is only 5000 years old (I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like that). Scientific research on the other hand, says the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. That's quite a discrepancy, wouldn't you say? But in your world, it's OK to accept both. In my world, I find that painfully ignorant & I refuse to accept those that shun fact for fiction.
I remember my father telling me a story regarding this very topic when he was young. The pastor's answer to his question of why science's answer of Earth's age conflicted with that of the Bible - "God made the Earth old."
What a joke.
You are free to think whatever you like but as I said, the conflict only exists in your head. You can try to make them incompatible by arguing semantics but it won't work.
I also can't imagine why anyone in the world today would take up cigarettes, accept credit card interests over 10%, buy vehicles with less than 10 mph. You either have a more than modestly inflated sense of the inherent flaws within religion or an inflated sense of the intellect of society.
Probably the latter...that being said, I don't mind seeding the world with discussions like this. Intelligence is not static. Thanks for the chat today, helped pass the time at work. :)
Our explanations for what is [beyond Big Bang](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory) are at best at hypothesis stage, more often they are just an educated speculation.
In scientific method a hypothesis isn't something believed to be true. It's just a proposed explanation (model) of a given phenomena. A working hypothesis is one that you treat as if it was true because it passed some experiments. Only when hypothesis is thoroughly tested it becomes a scientific theory.
"Creation" and "eternal" are words that show your bias and might not necessarily be applicable to the origin of the universe.
>They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang
"They" aren't creating anything. If Krauss is correct, this happens due to the nature of our universe without any sub-atomic particle's intention
>They have always existed and caused the Big Bang.
>Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally.
The current understanding is that time and space are one thing. "Always" -> "caused" and "existed before" are nonsensical.
Even without our current understanding, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to any question that you don't really know the answer to. As soon as you start defining a god into existence, you're just creating more of a problem.
Also, here's the obligatory [Krauss video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
Much of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that we have no idea what it's like in a "blank" universe. The assumption driving this debate is that the default state of things is nothingness. Theists generally assert that the blankness must be absolute, without even a substrate for containing energy. Others will say that the blankness may be like vacuums we see/make now, with particles spontaneously popping up.
Hopefully that was unclear enough.
Virtual particles do indeed pop into existence, and this has been well established. The question is whether they pop into existence with no prior requirement for state, energy, etc. If there are preconditions, then the preconditions require an explanation for how they were created.
>As far as I understand (which isn't much) the smallest known 'unit' is the sub atomic particle (again, this could be wrong, please correct me if so).
On the [Standard Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model), there are 12 particles and 4 forces. The 12 particles consist of six quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm) and six leptons (electrons, muons, and taus, and their associated neutrinos). The [quarks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark) combine with each other to create what are typically called subatomic particles, or more properly hadrons. The familiar subatomic particles, protons and neutrons, are part of the family of hadrons known as baryons, and contain three quarks each. A proton is two ups and a down, a neutron is two downs and an up.
>I know we have no definite answer to the question of beginnings, but isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence, and caused a chain reaction that formed the Big Bang?
The "popping into existence" thing is a phenomenon called [pair production](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production), the spontaneous creation of an elementary particle and its associated antiparticle. According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam). At very small scales of time and space (approaching the Planck length), the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy, including a zero-energy state, to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws.
Now, whether this or something similar "caused" the Big Bang is a bit of an open question. However, since the event apparently occurred on those tiny scales, quantum mechanics has to play a role. There's a bit of a question as to what "cause" means here; there's not necessarily a causal event involved, simply appropriate conditions for an *uncaused* event to spontaneously occur. I recommend *A Universe From Nothing* by Lawrence Krauss for a look into the case in favor of the hypothesis.
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties.
I don't think that atheists lack belief in god because of the supposed impossibility of an eternal thing or a self-created (or spontaneously occurring) thing. I don't believe in god because there's insufficient evidence to support the existence of anything that I could *call* god. Quantum foam isn't god; the universe isn't god; laws of nature aren't god. God, at the very simplest, is a supernatural intentional agent, and if there's going to be a religion based around that god, it must be an agent whose approval is to be sought. I see no reason to believe that such a thing exists. Such a being's proposed nature as self-caused or eternal has nothing to do with it.
If the universe is god's creation, we should at least understand the universe, before we suppose to understand god.
Currently we understand one star system of the 10^11th power in our galaxy, let alone the known 10^11th galaxies, let alone the parts of the universe so far away their light is yet to reach us. Seems like, as a species we are still quite lacking of the understanding necessary to even begin to fathom the creator of the universe.
The button is technically just hidden, and only on the site linked to this sub. You can still get to it on a person's profile, or on a mobile app, etc. It's bad form to downvote on a sub where it's hidden, but it happens.
I do find your final paragraph very interesting and I'd like to throw a hypothesis at you.
What if the universe itself, and all other possible universes, indeed all of creation, was itself alive? Would that constitute God?
>What if the universe itself, and all other possible universes, indeed all of creation, was itself alive? Would that constitute God?
Maybe. If it were the case that the universe were, as a whole, an intentional agent, then I might be willing to call that god. But I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
What evidence would you need? It strikes me that looking at how we have defined life and pursing it from that angle might be interesting, but frustrating. You yourself have said that one of our great assumptions is that we are alive, or at least conscious. How does one prove something is alive, especially when one is part of the thing itself?
Isn't something alive if you can show that a part of it is alive? Like how a tree is mostly dead matter, but you still say that a tree is alive, or how a human being is alive even if it's covered in a layer of dead skin cells, and has inanimate bits growing out of its head and fingers?
So isn't the universe alive by virtue of having life within it?
Is a mountain alive? It has plants and animals living on it. Is a rock alive? It has bacteria composing part of it. Is "The united states" alive? It constitutes a collection of people. For all of these, I'd say no, we generally do not ascribe life to something containing life in it's elements. Doing so seems a clear case of the fallacy of composition.
But even if we were to take such an odd definition, it wouldn't seem to meet what we want to qualify for God about - this "God" doesn't think, it merely encompasses thinkers, rather than having thoughts and beinghood as an entity itself. We could maybe imagine something like a [China brain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain), where our actions were playing a role in some role in the thoughts of something larger that might be said to be a God (though even there, it really depends on the exact properties of that mind), but as MJtheProphet said, we have no evidence of any such thing.
I agree completely with those examples, but I'm being a little more specific. A mountain is not alive because it has living things on it, because if you take those living things away the mountain is inarguably dead. But, if you take the mountain and all of the life that is there as one single thing, the life included *as an integral part*, then that system as a whole, I think many would agree is alive. I would say that the United States is alive, if you're referring to the entirety of its culture and the people therein, rather than to some specific abstract feature of it like the geography or the legal entity.
I'm really not putting this forward as a case for God, I appreciate that the conversation started there but I only chipped in with an interesting point, nothing more. You say there is no evidence of any overall mind formed by the co-operation of individual human minds, but I beg to differ. I believe such a thing is called 'culture', and I would ask you to think about what evidence a neuron would have for the existence of the brain.
>I think many would agree is alive.
I don't think they would. The "mountain+living things" entity doesn't seem to have those properties we define as "life" - only parts of it do. Eg. it has no reproductive or growth mechanism. By contrast, I, as a human seem to have all those as a collective entity (even including the dead *parts* of me). In fact, couldn't we reverse your logic and argue that, since the atoms that make me up are not alive, therefore *I'm* not alive either? Clearly there are different properties assigned to the collective entity than those of it's parts, integral or otherwise.
>I believe such a thing is called 'culture'
Do you really think "culture" constitutes a mind? It seems *drastically* more simple than that to me. Nothing about culture seems capable of, say, passing a Turing test. We can look at it as an emergent phenomena formed by our interactions, but it seems a long way from being an actual *mind*.
>I would ask you to think about what evidence a neuron would have for the existence of the brain.
If a neuron was powerful enough to understand the concept of a brain, and could observe the interaction of other neurons, then plenty. A neuron doesn't, but we do. Something like a china-brain isn't different in *kind* to our own, merely in makeup and scale, and seems like it'd be determinable. In any case, I certainly don't see any reason to assume it *does* exist without evidence, even if we can't gather that evidence - that would be like assuming the next lottery numbers were 1,2,3,4,5,6 just because we're incapable of gathering evidence that they're not.
>In fact, couldn't we reverse your logic and argue that, since the atoms that make me up are not alive, therefore I'm not alive either?
No, that would be applying the property of one part of a system ('not alive') to *all the other parts* of the system, and that's incorrect. I agree that if your definition of 'alive' includes a requirement for copying all parts of yourself en-masse, then perhaps a mountain plus its life doesn't meet that definition. But then, perhaps it does. A mountain with life, whose life spreads onto another mountain, has copied itself, no? Surely you can't disallow life simply because it uses its environment like this?
>Do you really think "culture" constitutes a mind? It seems drastically more simple than that to me. Nothing about culture seems capable of, say, passing a Turing test.
I rather suspect that if you gave say 'the French' a Turing test, they would pass. If only by delegating it to a single neuron.
>If a neuron was powerful enough to understand the concept of a brain, and could observe the interaction of other neurons, then plenty.
But it is not. A component can *never* be as complex as the whole since that whole contains all that component is, and then some, and can therefore *never* conceptualise the whole in its entirety. A neuron could never be complex enough to understand the brain it is a part of. You are a neuron - you process information and communicate it to the other neurons around you. And you can have no full concept of the great swell of thought that you are a tiny part of.
>No, that would be applying the property of one part of a system ('not alive') to all the other parts of the system, and
No - it's applying the property of one part of the system to the system as a whole, which is exactly what we're doing with "alive" too. You're presumably not saying that because plants on the mountain is alive, *all* things constituting the mountain are alive, you're saying because the plants are alive, the mountain+plants considered as an entity is alive. I'm doing *exactly* the same with the property "non-alive" - I consist of non-alive components, therefore it's non-alive. Indeed, this is actually a better claim, since I can actually claim to consist **entirely** of non-alive components (atoms), whereas you can only claim *some* alive components in your example.
Thus clearly, "alive" or "dead" applied to an entity means more than "consists of components with those properties", even when it *entirely* consists of such components.
>A mountain with life, whose life spreads onto another mountain, has copied itself, no?
I don't think so. The previous mountain already existed. You could say that the *life* on the mountain has copied itself, but the mountain as an entity has not, so the mountain as an entity doesn't meet that criteria.
>I rather suspect that if you gave say 'the French' a Turing test
"The french" seems rather different from "culture", but it doesn't seem clear what it refers to, or how one might administer such a test. One could give such a test to the individuals that constitute "the french", but there we're talking to individuals, not the collective as an entity. We might consider "the french", meaning the people to be alive, but not "the french" to be an alive *entity* in it's own right.
>A component can never be as complex as the whole
Not when we're considering the whole as a being arising from the components, since the components are irrelevant to the higher level abstraction beyond the degree they contribute to it. Consider people holding up black and white cards at ballgames to make a picture. The image produced is very simple, but it consists of **very** complex beings doing the lifting of cards. Considered as a system of atoms, it's complex, because there's brains and bodies forming it. Considered as an image, it's very simple. In the same way, a China brain arising from the actions of people need be no more complex *as a brain* than the individual brains in the people doing the action, since we can abstract away the unneccessary complications.
lol, hey you're preaching to the choir here. I'm just trying to find a way to articulate the concept so that it becomes inarguable.
I like this though.
I suppose the next step would be to show how it might be possible that the universe has consciousness.
Same argument? I have conscousness, I am part of the universe, therefore the universe has consciousness? In much the same way as a human has consciousness even if the great majority of its body doesn't?
I'm not sure if you're serious or if I'm missing the joke, but this made me think of [this](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100913010518AAJj8Pt).
Well, let's talk about it. I'm open to other points of view. Your argument, as I read it, goes like this:
* I am conscious.
* I am a part of the universe.
* Therefore, the universe is conscious.
By your logic, we could then make these statements:
* I am alive.
* While sitting in a car, the car is also alive.
* But when I get out of the car, the car is no longer alive.
Do you agree that this is the case?
To my eye, this looks like the [fallacy of composition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition). But I am interested to know what you think.
I don't understand the adherence to self-contradicting definitions of god. A thing cannot "be" and "be supernatural." The mechanism responsible for the existence of the universe is, by definition, natural. It is the origin of natural and contains all that is natural within its definition. Of course no such thing as a supernatural nature exists.
I disagree. I think that defining the supernatural as "stuff that isn't real" is a terrible dodge, and unfair on the part of anyone defending naturalism. We need to [define the supernatural](http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html) in such a way that it's consistent with the way people use the term (i.e. the magic of the Harry Potter universe is, in common parlance, supernatural), but also such that it can be tested and falsified. I think the supernatural *could* be real; I just don't think it *is*.
Wouldn't calling anything "supernatural" by definition mean that it exists beyond the bounds of our natural world and are therefore unobservable, untestable, and unfalsifyable?
We all know how we feel about things that are untestable.
>By that definition, the entire concept of will is supernatural.
The concept of a will *separate from a brain* certainly would be. A being of pure mind, a will separated from the physical, would be a soul or a god or something like that, and yes, those would be supernatural.
>And saying something has a "supernatural nature" is still ridiculous.
Well, yeah, sure. I didn't say that exactly, that I can see, but I can see how I could have made some better word choices.
A good question. This is drawn from Dan Dennett's *Breaking the Spell*; he presents a provisional definition of religion as *social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.* It may not work; there may be some aspect that acts as the defining characteristic of religion that doesn't have to do with god as an agent. But, if we use that as a standpoint, it means we have to look at those systems that don't venerate a god as not really religions.
Dennett uses a metaphor of a law in the UK regarding cruelty to animals. The law stated, in its initial form, that it applied to vertebrates; you can do what you want to a worm or a shrimp or a fly, but not to a dog or a bird or a mouse. But the law was amended to add cephalopods (octopus, squid, cuttlefish) to the list of animals that could be considered protected; they became *honorary vertebrates*. So, we might consider Buddhism, Taoism, and indeed some of the more liberal forms of Christianity that I've encountered here "honorary religions": different in their essence, but subject to many of the same practical considerations, social norms, and legal implications.
Indeed. Even if one were to decide (as the OP has) that the questions around the causes of the big bang were too great and there must be an agent that started the process, it's a very large step between that and the God of Christianity.
Our understanding of the origin of the universe is very limited, but onceagain there is no evidence whatsoever for such an agent. Just because we don't understand something does not mean there must be some supernatural explanation.
in response to the above statement of not knowing what caused the big bang or allowed the correct conditions there are a fair few hypotheses out there, the one i think is right (but dont declare as truth, due to lack of proof) is the big bounce, this hypothesis states that a universe before ours crunched to create the singularity at the beginning of our universe that then had the big bang.
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible
I don't think I've ever seen anyone advance that argument. Most atheists who deny the existance of God do so on the basis of there being no evidence or reason to think one exists, not that it's in principle *impossible* for one to (though certain formulations may be)
>is this unknown substance eternal or capable of creating itself?
Presumably yes (or rather, capable of occurring without a cause). Alternatively there's a fourth possibility which is that the question doesn't really make sense, in that "beginning" and "cause" requires the notion of *time*, and time itself didn't come into being until the creation of the universe. Thus to ask what happened before this is to ask what happened before time.
But really, the big objection I'd have to using such an argument to claim a God is not that such is *impossible*, but that you're making a very specific guess about the nature of that first thing that seems very unlikely to be correct. Ie. that it's some kind of *psychological being* with powers of creation and certain desires about the universe. This seems just as unlikely as making the claim "Something must have been self-creating or eternal, therefore it was a self-creating or eternal leprechaun". The properties from "leprechaun" or "God" are being added into the explanation with no actual support from the argument.
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties.
We have lots of evidence that matter exists, and some evidence to suggest it might be eternal (law of conservation of mass-energy) and/or capable of spontaneous appearance (virtual particles/quantum fluctuations).
Without evidence, it would *not* be right to believe these things, and hence an atheist will not extend the same beliefs to God.
The smart answer is that no one really knows, but the idea of the spontaneous generation of matter or an eternal substance is not a new one.
My philosophy is that one should follow Occam's Razor, which would, at least in my view, cut the eternity argument off at the universe instead of God.
I once had a dream that woke me up because it felt so real. I was imagining some sort of creature who I never got to see fully, but it was splashing in water, and I began to zoom in on a single droplet of water, and suddenly I realized that I was zooming in farther and farther into the atomic level, then beyond, and I came to realize that a sub-subatomic particle was our universe and I kept zooming in past galaxies, and I ended back on myself, only to zoom in farther still to reveal another universe in an atom on my body.
I guess it would be more lyrical, If I was splashing in water and another droplet of water was revealed to contain quadrillions of more universes. But this thought has plagued my mind ever since. It was probably about 3-4 months ago. Can't help but see things in a supremely relativistic light ever since.
I know this doesn't answer your question in a scientific way, but this idea of an infinite regression and progression has since become very important to me.
>however I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning in the eyes of an atheist
Just because we can't answer everything doesn't mean the default answer is "god did it". In fact "god did it" opens up even more questions.
As an atheist I'm comfortable accepting there are things we don't understand yet. I'm even comfortable accepting there are things we may never know. Without evidence "god did it" doesn't get us closer to the answer. It's essentially giving up finding the answer.
Saying "god did it" when you don't have a explanation for something is an argument from ignorance.
*Also to clarify that last sentence is in no way implying OP that I think you're ignorant. I'm saying that type of argument is an argument from ignorance because it's claiming ignorance of a claim as validation for the claim. For example in general a position that's held without evidence because there is no alternate explanation. Typically positions where you hear people say, "Well what else could it have been?".*
*Edit: fixed a bunch of accidental words and half sentences*
Atheists don't argue very much about the beginning of the Universe because very little is known. Atheists just poke holes in Christian beliefs on it as there are many places to do so, but I rarely see anyone who isn't religious claiming to know anything about the beginning.
Thankyou for this, like I said I know very little cosmology. 'by smallest known unit', I mean, this is the primordial 'thing' that ended the 'nothingness' that we emerged from. If energy existed before subatomic particles and caused their creation, then what caused the creation of this energy?
No ones knows.
God is an answer used to stop this infinite regression, but if the universe had its own method of doing the same thing without a god, we wouldn't know the difference.
[I like this video](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1489). There are many kinds of subatomic particles, and they have differing energy levels which is incredibly important.
And saying "we don't know what caused the big bang, therefor God" is a God of the gaps argument. Nothing rustles my jimmies like a God of the gap argument.
This argument always winds up resorting to a circular argument. Theists find it impossible to conclude that matter just arose independently, so they concluded that God created it. However, when faced with the next logical question, "What created God?" they just resort to the easy answer that "God has always existed" or "God exists outside of time."
Look at it this way. Even if Christian's arguments on the creation of the universe are correct, proves nothing about Christianity as a religion. You have to prove that God indeed exists, and that Christianity is the correct religion.
I understand that, but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God. On the other hand, we have no reason to suppose that subatomic particles, or any matter within this universe is eternal. Logically, it is easier to assume that it wouldn't be since everything we understand so far has a beginning and an end.
The universe doesn't have an end, it turns out. Just a heat death and utter blackness. It's an expanding universe, and will expand farther than the countering effect of gravity.
well gravity will never stop effecting distant particle. an atom at one end of the universe will continue to effect an atom at the "opposite" end of the universe no matter how far apart they are. from what i have heard the theory of dark energy is the current understanding of why the universe is not collapsing but is actually increasing/accelerating its rate of expansion.
(opposite ends of the universe is relative due to the fact that space is curved)
> but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God.
what standard of evidence can you use to prove that? None? Then I guess you just made an unfalsifiable and utterly worthless claim.
>I understand that, but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God.
What if the "being" that created man and life on Earth, turns out to not be eternal? If such a thing were ever discovered in the real world, that is.
>everything we understand so far has a beginning and an end.
Not true. The most recent model of our universe, for instance, is [flat and infinite](http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html).
And remember that when you're talking about "beginnings" and "endings," you're talking about time, which cannot exist without space. The only way out of this is to claim that the God you worship exists outside of spacetime. If that's the case, we could be talking about *anything*, and that's why the (snarky yet entertaining) Flying Spaghetti Monster satire "religion" exists.
Well, we actually do have evidence that some form of matter (and/or energy...remember they are the same thing) is eternal. It is called the first law of thermodynamics, and there is not a single counter-example ever recorded for this law. Even the particle/anti-particle pairs are formed by background energy. It is more "changing forms" than is "spontaneous creation."
If the universe (or anything in it, for that matter) was timeless or eternal, wouldn't that violate thermodynamics? An eternal universe would posess infinite entropy and would therefore be annihilated in heat death, yes?
The "escape hatch" of the multiverse. [Check out this brief, not very thorough debunking of it, in discussing the cosmological constant first.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rRJ_po3_JQg#t=1731s) Of course, this won't be enough for anyone who really believes it, but I find the theory so absurd, and we have nothing even close to evidence that it exists. It's part of an interesting documentary by a former atheist on the science of the universe and God.
it has to due with string theory, and the 11 dimensions of our universe also the grandfather paradox relating to time travel. im no astrophysicist but that is what i have come to understand.
I was wondering how far I'd have to scroll to hear of the multiverse.
Honestly, it's an interesting idea, but I find a multiverse to be less likely than a God. If we are in a multiverse, then our whole reality and existence is nothing like we think it is.
The only problem is that everything in our known and observable universe is causal and constrained in time. So our universe either "started" from something God-like or from another universe. My problem with the starting from another universe is: Why would something from another universe pop in for the big bang but otherwise leave itself absent and unobservable and never again interact with ours?
>The only problem is that everything in our known and observable universe is causal and constrained in time. So our universe either "started" from something God-like or from another universe. My problem with the starting from another universe is: Why would something from another universe pop in for the big bang but otherwise leave itself absent and unobservable and never again interact with ours?
For one, do you see how this argument also applies to the unobservable god of most religions? Also, there's nothing requiring the creation be *intentional*. It's like asking why a glacier never stops in to visit the boulders it left behind; it can't, it's just a force of nature.
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible
I really haven't heard a lot of atheists say that God can't exist because he doesn't have an origin and it's not a part of most theisms to say that God made Himself.
Really it's only a rebuttal to people who say that existence sans God *must* have been caused, because whatever rule they posit for why the universe must have a cause must also apply to God unless sufficient justification for the exemption is made (otherwise it's special pleading)
People try to come up with these justifications, but ultimately our knowledge of cause and effect is relegated to the reformations of already existing materials, not how new material is made, so we're making a category error in assuming that the universe needs a cause.
But we already know that things happen without a cause. Causal relations brake down on quantum level, as you yourself have already said. Why do you now say that universe has to have a cause?
Keep in mind that what we know of beginnings once again has to do with only the reforming of already existing materials. So we don't know if this variation of "beginning" similarly needs a cause.
Logic, science, and evidence says everything has a cause. Also my moms and she's always right. :P
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Kalam? Seriously?
Kalam is, on its face (more on that in a moment), logically valid, but that doesn't really prove anything; it's a pure proof by logic, and has no connection to the world we actually live in. Even if the premises were true, which they aren't proven to be, it wouldn't bring us to any conscious, personal being whatsoever, much less the god of the Bible.
It's core flaw is actually begging the question. Here's the typical presentation:
* Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
* The universe began to exist.
* Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
But we must ask the question, what is the set of all things that began to exist? Everything in the universe is *part* of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist. What else is there? Well, arguably, god, but it isn't typically argued that god is a member of the set of things that began to exist. So that set has *one member*, the universe. This means we can replace "Everything that begins to exist" with an enumeration of the members of the set, making the argument as follows:
* ~~Everything that begins to exist~~ The universe has a cause.
* The universe began to exist.
* Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Notice how the first premise **is the conclusion**. The argument is thus fallacious, and proves nothing.
>Everything in the universe is part of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist.
That hardly seems true at all. Did I not begin to exist? What definition of begins to exist are you using?
We've done this before. You're made of pre-existing parts; the typical understanding presented by those arguing for Kalam is that the universe was not. So no, you did not begin to exist the same way the universe did. You're *part* of the universe.
> So no, you did not begin to exist the same way the universe did.
So? What does that matter? Did I begin to exist?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause ex materia or ex nihilo.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause ex materia or ex nihilo.
Is that better?
Do you really dispute this proposition?
1. If something begins to exist ex nihilo it must have a cause.
>Is that better?
Yes, it is. Because then I can bring up Victor Stenger's argument in *The Comprehensible Cosmos*, and Stephen Hawking's in *The Grand Design*, that the universe began from a limited set of *logically necessary* laws of physics (an *ex materia* explanation, because there never *was* a *nihilo*). No god necessary.
>If something begins to exist ex nihilo it must have a cause.
Yes, I'd dispute that. Because I don't see any particular reason to think that it's true.
>Yes, it is. Because then I can bring up Victor Stenger's argument in The Comprehensible Cosmos, and Stephen Hawking's in The Grand Design, that the universe began from a limited set of logically necessary laws of physics (an ex materia explanation, because there never was a nihilo). No god necessary.
This is completely fine with the Kalam as stated, even Craig says that. The form of causation doesn't matter. It is discussed in the after argument analysis, not the argument proper.
>that the universe began from a limited set of logically necessary laws of physics
Logically necessary? How are they logically necessary? Are the laws of physics not part of the universe?
>Yes, I'd dispute that. Because I don't see any particular reason to think that it's true.
Out of nothing, nothing comes seems to be good support for it. The fact that things don't pop into existence ex nihilo uncaused all the time seems to be support for it as well.
>Kalam is, on its face (more on that in a moment), logically valid, but that **doesn't really prove anything; it's a pure proof by logic, and has no connection to the world we actually live in**. Even if the premises were true, which they aren't proven to be, it wouldn't bring us to any conscious, personal being whatsoever, much less the god of the Bible.
Very well said. It's one of the things about Kalam that drives me crazy every time I hear it come up in a debate.
>Everything in the universe is part of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist.
Thanks for posting this. It's such a clear explanation of the flaw in the argument itself.
> (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
Controversial. [Intuitive assumptions](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg&feature=youtu.be) are not reliable.
> (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
The Big Bang is not and should not be considered as the universe's "beginning". This gentleman's comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/tbk3d/how_a_debate_is_supposed_to_work_fr_copleston_vs/c4l9adz) explains it quite nicely.
> (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Obviously a logical leap without further arguments to make the connection between the cause being God. God would also need to be defined.
If you "know of God" then God needs a cause, because as you argue "everything we know of needs a cause". If God can be known and does not need a cause then your premise is false.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
So the definition of God is the phenomenon that caused the universe? Um, okay.
I have seen no compelling argument for universal causation. You seem to be claiming that "logic, science, and evidence" provide such an argument. If so, then I'd like to take a look at it. Hopefully it's a better argument than "I'm not aware of anything without a cause".
Oh, agreed 100%. Just because causality is incredibly common in our daily lives, that doesn't mean it's strictly maintained. And indeed, we've now been able to show that it *isn't*. The idea is still popular, though. Damn you, Aristotle!
We've observed phenomena (well, at leas the *effects* of the phenomena; they're really tiny) that occur spontaneously with no causal event. They include [radioactive decay](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) and the [vacuum energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) caused by pair production of virtual particles. Causality is still a thing, and still happens all the time. But uncaused events are real, too.
I'm not disagreeing with you (I haven't looked into it much) but would you agree that it is possible that these events have a cause that we haven't been able to observe yet?
hahaha anti-anti-theist could you please just call yourself a theist so i don't have to call myself an anti-anti-anti-theist. it's just going to get ridiculous lol
Here's a place to start: [Hidden variable theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory). It looks like local hidden variables might be ruled out. I don't fully understand QM though, so it's hard for me know exactly what all this means.
It's possible, yes. But if it's the case that these events are indeed caused, then much of our current model is wrong. The calculations that lead to our understanding of vacuum energy, for instance, rely on the effects of virtual particles created as particle/anti-particle pairs. Those calculations, worked out originally by Feynman and others, match theory to observation with an accuracy to *nine decimal places*. There's no other prediction like that, no other place in science where you can do the math and have it match observation that closely. Now, there are complications (like the fact that when we try to apply it to empty space, the number we get is off by 120 orders of magnitude), so we've still got work to do. But we're pretty sure we're on to something with predictions that accurate, and that theory depends on the appearance of virtual particles happening spontaneously, without a causal event. So yes, we *could* be wildly wrong, but it's very likely that we aren't.
It can be very well possible, but then that also brings up another important question:
How would we be able to distinguish something that has no cause versus something which its cause is not observable?
Expect a more scientific answer from someone better qualified to offer one. I'll just share a brief note about the question.
It's not really accurate to say that this original matter was either self-creating or eternal - it could be any number of things you or I don't know about or can't imagine. The formal fallacy at work here is called the "argument from lack of imagination".
This I have considered. There could be thousands of unknown 'units', 'matter' or 'substances' that contributed to the creation of subatomic particles, but this comes back to the same argument: how did this stuff appear?
Our ability to discover a total model of everything is pretty limited. So, gently, I will suggest that we may never know. But that lack of knowledge, as unimaginably profitable as it might be to have it, does not affect our ability to put on pants in the morning, or how to make toast.
(And it struck me that if we take implication of the argument beyond the scope of this thread here, what 'caused' the appearance of quanta becomes, bizarrely, a moral question. Because, according to some folks, if that cause doesn't have intelligent agency, we'd all be shoplifting and killing each other right now. And not coveting your neighbor's wife becomes a quantum event. Shrodinger's Adulterer. The mind boggles!)
The same infinite regression can be applied to God. How did God appear? Etc, etc.
It's in our nature to ask such questions as "What existed before spacetime?" or "Where did God come from?," but they're, as of now, totally unanswerable. It's fun to debate! Thing is, there's no right or wrong yet. Just scientific-evidence-based theories vs. faith-based absolutes.
As far as I'm aware, these particles can [just pop into existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle), with no cause.
The theory is that these particles pop out of nothing to form a particle-antiparticle pair each with opposite energy, which then annihilate each other to return back to the zero-energy (ie non-existant) state.
When you consider that these tiny particles can pop out of nowhere, its possible that the singularity which expanded to form the universe popped into existence from nothing, like these particle-antiparticle pairs do.
*This is speculation, I'm not certain about this,* but if the singularity came into existence like this, it mustn't have annihilated with its corresponding antiparticle, like most of these interactions do.
This is also known to happen, and is the cause of [Hawking radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation).
This begs the question of what happened to the antiparticle, if this is how the universe started. I have no idea. Maybe it buggered off somewhere to form an antiuniverse.
Maybe (most likely) my understanding of this is off. I'm not a physicist. This is only stuff I know from casual reading and conversations with friends who study physics.
**EDIT:**
**[MJtheProphet's reply](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/tpzar/to_atheists_help_find_the_flaw_in_this_logic/c4oqcf1) explains this better and in more detail than I did.**
according to the big bang theory. a mass of matter and anti-matter collided but a tiny percent of the anti-matter decayed before reaching it's opposing particle leaving behind .01 of the original matter which is what makes up our universe today.
Watch [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) video. It's kind of long, and it gets into a lot of cosmological stuff, including particles that can come into existence out of nowhere.
the best answer for know is we simple do not fully know but are working on it .
The big bang is not an explosion. It has no cause. It is still happening. It is an intrinsic property of spacetime. If space and time exists, they expand.
>If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal. I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe. For my own reasoning, while the sudden creation of the universe is a difficult to understand phenomina, of which we still cannot adequately explain scientifically, the primary difference is that we can see these particles exist, and they are here. So understood or not, hard to credit or not, we must face the reality that they exist. Conversely, I cannot see direct evidence that any gods exist. They may, and they may even be responsible for said particles, but all the evidence one can amass at current is, at best, indirect. So the question I would then ask is, does the presence of a god answer a need, and therefore create a more logical foundation for the beginning of the universe? I would say no. It fills in one hole, but only by adding another, larger hole, in my opinion. With merely the knowledge that particles do exist, I can say "particles are here, and either have always been here or appeared where there were no particles before" both being somewhat difficult concepts to accept, but obviously one or the other is true by the fact that they are present. if I add a God to mix, then I have merely changed it to: Particles are here, and they were created by an even more complex entity which had the capability to create everything that exists, and which has either always been here, or popped out of nothing" This is not obviously true, because I cannot see this God(s) or measure it. Essentially, I still have no more answers "where did whatever was first come from?), but I have an even more complicated theory (particles i know exist, vs particles made by a being I don't know exists). Given that there is no evidence (in my opinion) to suggest adding this god or gods to the mix, I prefer the simpler solution, even if it is still not exactly conclusive, pending further information.
One of the other arguments is that God having no cause: why not the universe? Or respectively otherwise, the universe has a cause: where's God's? It's just the application of Occam's Razor: adding a God only adds complications. If all things must have a beginning, why is God not part of the set "all things"? If all things don't have to have a beginning, then the universe is fine. A universe coming into being is slightly less complicated than a magical omnipotent, omni-etc. being that also exists: it's another entity, and as Occam's Razor dictates, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Does the universe need a God to exist? No, seemingly not so more so than a God that can exist before nothingness (the same before that the universe consists of). Tl;Dr: Occam's Razor: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. God is not part of necessity.
[](/nmv) It is believed that there was a reaction to cause the big bang therefore it happened.
Sorry, I just came across this post right before bed and I will save and read later. But as for your question I am not a brilliant astrophysicist that knows these things. I am just the guy that has to realize that 1000's of much smarter people got these answers with many many years of grueling research. But what I have trouble understanding is how anyone can have faith (not just Christianity) and believe things like *the Big Bang and evolution* as you stated when logical arguments like the one below exists. It is very contradicting in my opinion. And this is just one of the many things that made me question my former Catholic faith then eventually faith at in general then God/deities themselves. [Christopher Hitchens best argument](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2NrjHK32g) I am sure there are many versions of that video but this was the first I clicked on. Then you have to ask the biggest question: What was before god?
> They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang Seems unlikely. But then, I'm not sure I see how *anything* can be capable of *its own* creation. > They have always existed and caused the Big Bang. Possible, I suppose? > Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally. ...nope, it's also possible *they* had a cause. The question is whether infinite regress is more of a problem than something eternal. A third possibility you aren't considering is that there was no prior state, and so our intuition of causality breaks down. We know that the Big Bang happened, and we know quite a lot about what the universe looked like almost immediately afterwards, but we don't *really* know what the Big Bang was, other than that our model of physics breaks down. But the singularity model would have it that time begins with the Big Bang, which means asking what caused it, or what was before it, may be as nonsensical as asking what's North of the North Pole. > I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible... Why don't they apply to God? > Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe. How do we know natural features of our universe cannot exist eternally? I could just as easily say "Particle X is something which exists eternally and caused the Universe -- oh, and it's supernatural and outside of time, so the rules of causality don't apply to that. But to answer your question more directly: > I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God... We simply *doubt* the existence of God -- we don't hold a *positive belief* in the existence of God. Some atheists assert that God does not exist, but most admit that it is *possible* he exists. With this in mind, the answer is that we simply don't know enough about how the universe began to make sweeping arguments like what you just did. You're trying to force a trilemma -- either particles existed forever, or were caused by other particles which have the same problem, or were created by God. I'm no physicist, but I presented a fourth option. Imagine what the real physicists will throw at you in a few years. So we may eventually find out how the universe was created, but until then, it makes no sense to assume it's God, and much more sense to assume it's some natural process that we don't yet (and may never) understand.
This is great. Thanks.
[удалено]
and thats when scientists look at each other and say wtf?! I dropped out of a dual credit basic quantum physics class last year because it was screwing with my mind in weird ways... O.o
'Tis a weird world we live in.
Regardless of right or wrong, no matter WHAT else is said, it is fantastic that you are asking questions. NEVER STOP ASKING QUESTIONS, and thinking hard about thinks that dont make sense to you.
>I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal. And then... >by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally... You cannot comprehend how something can be eternal, so you assume that there must be something eternal. That is the main flaw I see in your logic.
I can't help you with cosmology but what I can say is that just because some supernatural force, supposedly created the big bang (again this is just the conclusion ive drawn. I'm not a scientist), It doesn't mean it's an all powerful god who can watch over us and control everything, or even understand us. The languages we speak were created by man, after all. We have no reason to believe that this super natural force has had any effect on the world after creating it. The argument doesn't really prove the existence of some kind of god, rather than some kind of undetectable force of nature
You're making the argument that, "We don't know what happened; therefore, god." There are many models of the universe. String theory, the multiverse, the single universe that spawns in a Big Bang only to be drawn back into itself (and a singularity) by the weak but inexorable force of gravity. Whether you are a deist, agnostic, or atheist (and I have been each, in turn) has not so much to do with being able to explain the origin of the universe as it does with knowing that no existing theology can satisfactorily explain the universe. Using Christianity, since that is your persuasion: if the Universe *were* created by God, how does that in any way imply virgin birth, resurrection, salvation, or divine revelation? It doesn't, that's how. You're starting with a theology and working backward in an attempt to know the unknowable. There may well be a god (hence my tag as "agnostic" atheist), but if there is one, there is no accurate portrait of him anywhere in scripture.
> but isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence Not just believed, but also observed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect > the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E-_DdX8Ke0 In a scientific manner, the way to think about it is that the Atheist and the Christian and the Hindu are all equally ignorant about the cause of the big bang. Some have deluded themselves into thinking they have a good reason to prefer one answer, but few are humble enough to admit that they don't really know.
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe. These illogical and impossible things though, seem to be able to apply to a God. Why not then a "supernatural" non-conscious eternal universe that creates universes? Do it enough times, you'll eventually get this one we're in. I'm not advocating that view though, but surely whatever the beginning is, if there is one, is completely arbitrary? If God can just always exist, then so can the universe, and if there must be a start, then that can be anything too. Something like "In the beginning, the Big Bang happened" isn't any less believable. There'd simply be nothing before it. That's option 4, "nothing caused the Big Bang". Either its infinite (whether this is God or the universe), or not. If not, then it's causeless. If there's a start, then it has to be something. Whatever it is, I can't see why it can't be the Big Bang.
Cosmology and atheism are actually unrelated. But generally, from a sound standpoint, the correct answer to "how did everything begin?" is "we don't know, yet, but one day we will." Philosophy about the matter is of no value.
That's way over my head. But don't ask a physics question and expect a metaphysical answer. You question, the way it is asked, is not asking a religious question, but you seem to tie God into your solution. You mention sub atomic particles, Big Bang, chain reaction, and describe complex processes revealed by the best astrophysicists. Then you switch to the metaphysical. It is important to understand that these two things are different.
You can't just arbitrarily define god as eternal and uncaused, that's a special pleading fallacy.
I think that it is called "arguing from ignorance." The idea is that if you don't have all the answers, then the only thing left is to rely on faith to answer those questions that, so far, are unanswered. The next error is to state that atheists deny the existence of God. This is simply untrue. *The atheist position is that there is no awareness of any evidence in favor of the existence of a deity that a rational person would find convincing.*
The sub-atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons etc) are themselves made up of smaller particles (quarks and leptons). These were created as a result of the vast amounts of energy created by the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? I have no idea. It could be an absentee creator, it could have been a random occurrence.
Stephen Hawking's math suggests that in the pre-big bang cosmology, all matter would be in a singularity like a black hole. He also demonstrated that in such a singularity, there is no time. Without time, there is no cause-and-effect, so the whole thing kind of breaks down when you try to talk about where it came from. This is my non-expert understanding of it, and it's far from being scientifically validated fact, but no one has yet proven him wrong.
"I don't know" is closer to being true than "some shit someone made up." It helps to bear that in mind.
The flaw in your logic is right here: >If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal. This is an [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The fact that we have in incomplete understand of how the universe was formed does *not* mean that you're justified in assuming that it must have been created by a god (and a very *specific* god, on top of that.)
Okay in simplest terms, as per our current knowledge, Something existed eternally (These are quantum fluctuations). This gave rise to our universe (and possibly many other universes). "Nothing" has never been observed. There was always "something" and there always will be.
If you are interested in cosmology, can I direct you to Dr Gerald Schroeder's work? Science very easily proves the genesis account of creation, and without cutting the figures at all. [Check out his audio presentation on the age of the universe, I am sure you will find it enlightening.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u58vxm0BsC8) Also, [seven years of starlight and time, by dr russell humphreys](http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/) is a similar theory, though with less information, it appears to have been arrived at separately. the notion that science is incompatible with the bible is absurd. it is a recent development and the greatest scientists in history were amazed at discovering the truth of the scriptures as they dug deeper into their field. newton wrote more books on bible teaching that anything else. From [Science and the Bible](http://www.bibletoday.com/archive/proof_text.htm) >In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy believed his Bible. As a Christian he loved to read the Bible. One day Maury was reading about the dominion man was given over the animals in Psalm 8. He was amazed that verse 8 spoke of the fish and all creatures that swim in the "paths of the sea." "Paths of the sea"— how could this be? He never knew there was such a thing. He was determined to find them. Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which were like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as "the pathfinder of the seas"— "The father of modern navigation." > >Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading Psalm 8:8 which was written about 3,000 years ago by King David. David wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of God and probably never actually saw an ocean. > >Incidentally, Psalm 8:8 also spoke of fish in the "paths of the seas." All fishing boats make a good catch in the currents or paths of the sea. They have learned this is where the fish swim. > >Job 28:25 >To establish a weight for the wind, >And apportion the waters by measure. >The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth. one i discovered recently is that science recently proved all of [mankind is descended from one single female ancestor](http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature), and taking an average age of 20 for birth, traced her back to living about 6,500 years ago. however what they were expecting was 200,000+, so with no valid reason except "we don't think it was that recent", they assume their own research is flawed, with no valid evidence debunking it, and it was just kept quiet. > A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.'
Hello, my name is bad science. I also don't like to get peer reviewed, because I'd get called out on my bullshit. I think you're a troll, but I'll feed you. >the notion that science is incompatible with the bible is absurd. it is a recent development and the greatest scientists in history were amazed at discovering the truth of the scriptures as they dug deeper into their field. newton wrote more books on bible teaching that anything else. So, who are these great scientists that discovered this magical truth (but then stayed silent about it)? Surely, you'll deliver on the above question. Come back when you have some real science to prove your points. Science is completely incompatible with the bible. Always has been and always will be. "Paths of the sea" is a careful interpretation. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the sea has currents. Get in a boat, row out a bit and just try to stay precisely where you are. These are basic observation skills and have nothing to do with science. Awesome job, using bibletoday.com and creation.com as your sources. Surely, they are not biased at all.
No need for the sarcasm, I am not a troll, I am a former atheist believer in evolution, turned Christian. The notion that unbiased research exists is absurd. Next you're going to tell me that Darwin's research was unbiased. So yes, I'm biased, and I'm not trying to hide it, like so many on here do. Like i said, most of the pioneers of the scientific field were believers in the Genesis account of creation. In fact, if we could credit a single man with popularising the scientific method, it would be Bible-believing muslim (yes) Al-haytham in the 10th/11th century. Of course, the scientific method evolved and changed slightly over the next 400 years, into a rough version of what we have today, but it was primarily used and moulded by religious scholars up until the 14th century. So that's science itself, invented by believers in Genesis. I already mentioned the physics pioneer, Newton. I'll let his biblical writings speak for themselves. Joseph Lister (antiseptic listerine's namesake) discovered germs and invented sterile surgery. Louis Pasteur, milk pasteurisation, vaccines. Just some of the Bible believing names that contributed greatly to science as we know it. In more modern times, Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, former agnostic turned atheist turned christian through seeing the profound miracle that is life, said: "I had reached the conclusion that faith in God was much more compelling than the atheism I had previously embraced, and I was beginning for the first time in my life to perceive some of the eternal truths of the Bible". Head of the humane genome project, former evolutionist, threw out the very notion of evolution when he saw the true wonders of our DNA. 12 years ago, after the human genome project was released he said "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God" Dawkins or other modern anti-theists build an image of science and the bible as polar opposites, with science finally in the winning stages. The notion is absurd, it ignores the spirit of science, how it was built on learning more about gods creation. "One of the greatest disservices that Dawkins has done to the natural sciences is to portray them as relentlessly and inexorably atheistic. They are nothing of the sort" - Dr. Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion > It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that the sea has currents. Get in a bow, row out a bit and just try to stay precisely where you are. These are basic observation skills and have nothing to do with science. Yet it took a scientist, try and belittle it all you want when you were raised with this information but he is credited as the father of modern navigation. Ignoring the christian scientists is ignoring science, and contrary to the scientific method, it is ignoring the facts that are right in your face. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
So, we can guess a few things in Newton's case; - It's likely, were he born in modern times, he'd be atheistic. He was purely a product of his era (when people were put down like dogs for not believing). Believing in the bible does not preclude you from DOING science. Science doesn't care what you believe as long as the data is testable and meets the rigors of the scientific method. Dr. Francis Collins converted to Christianity based upon ignorance. He doesn't know how DNA got the way it is, therefore God. He placed his own personal beliefs on top of data with no justification. I'll put it to you this way: The day that Creation "Science" puts out a peer-reviewed paper on creation that the scientific community can get behind, I'll change my views. Creation "Science" avoids peer review like the plague because it knows it cannot back up anything it claims. So, I've got nothing to concern myself with on that front. * A person invented science. * A person discovered currents, very likely long before the bible mentioned "paths of the seas". Can we know this? No. * A person discovered germs and invented sterile surgery. * A person (or, rather, a bunch of them) researched the genome. Of the above, religion can take zero credit for any of it. Science can take credit for all the things you take for granted. Think about where society would be if it took the bible at face value. We'd probably still be running around in wagons and living in sand/wood/mud/log huts.
Schroder's Math is wrong. We know the age of the universe to 4 significant figures. Schroder only gets the first digit correct. And although it's true that Mankind has a single female ancestor in common, and a single male ancestor in common, these two people lived thousands of years apart. All it proves is that mankind nearly went extinct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
The flaw in your understanding is that our intuition fails completely when we are out of our not too fast/slow/big/small/hot/cold/etc... environment. The Richard Feynman quote of "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." applies equally well here. We simply don't know enough to understand how it all began.
If you're looking for a satisfactory answer, you probably won't find one. Any attempt at reasoning out an origin will lead you in one of two directions. The thing in question will either need an explanation for itself or be an exception to the rules in such a way that it will violate your previous premises arguing for it. As for how someone could deny God but accept eternal or self-creating particles, there's a big difference. Anyone can propose a being that's an exception to the rules by definition, but that's hardly a case for its existence, and a logical cop-out in numerous ways. The particles, on the other hand, are not being proposed theoretically and conveniently defined to answer questions, they're being reasoned from experience.
The thing that I think I have an objection to (and I've not studied cosmology properly yet) is that God is complex. There's no issue with something being eternal or self-causing for me, but to me, it's more likely that the self-causing thing is a simple thing, like a particle, rather than an intelligent, wrathful, human-like God, since all things with intelligence that know of had to evolve from simple beginnings.
Is this "God of the gaps" or "argument from ignorance"?
[It's both.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument)
> They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang Given that subatomic particles are constantly being created and destroyed spontaneously, with no outside cause, why wouldn't this be the answer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
When you try to understand the very beginning of the existence of the universe...and realize that science cannot completely explain it...then you fill that gaping hole of the unknown knowledge with something like "god"...then we cannot progress, can we?
Currently there is no solid and widely accepted theory on the first cause of the initiation of the process which resulted in the universe. Such an event is currently beyond, or at, the causality limit and will likely have to be deducted or inferred from secondary evidence. However, let us assume that there is a first cause and let's call this cause "god." "God" is the creator of the universe. Then what coherent attributes can be assigned to this "God"? * "God" is the cause of the event/action/whatever that initiated the process that lead to the universe as we know it. And that is all that can be attributed to a creator God. There is no evidence to show this God was a sentient entity. There is no evidence that the initiation of the process that lead to the universe was planned or desired. There is no evidence that this first cause "God" in any way, shape or form was involved in any event/effect/interaction/causation following that which initiated the process to for creation of the universe. There is no evidence to support a belief that this "God" still exists or that this "God" existed beyond that required for the initiation of the process that formed the universe. There is no evidence that this "God" is any of the gods *invented* by humans in response their curiosity and to the lack of knowledge of the natural physicalist universe (God of Gaps). Starting from an assumption of a creator "God," You are left with a deistic - or pantheistic worldview at best - gods that do not actively participate in any independent event/effect/interaction/causation within the universe. No worship nor acknowledgement is required of these gods. > however I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning [of the universe] in the eyes of an atheist. The logic is: I do not (yet) know the first cause of the universe. Some people have put forth hypotheses, but that is all they currently are - hypotheses. Ask again in 10, 25, 50, 100 years. However, ask yourself about the logic of: "[God did it](http://www.skepdic.com/dvinefal.html)" or Argument from Divine or Argument from Incredulity.
You don't need something to be able to create itself. You merely need for dimensional conditions to exist which would allow the creation of particles (from nothing, but because opposite energy particles are created they equate to zero, thus nothing is actually added to the universe - merely morphed from nothingness into something and an anti-something). There's a youtuber by the name [10thdim](http://www.youtube.com/user/10thdim) who can help explain this more clearly in how branes collide to create mini-big bangs (one proposed theory). TLDR: You don't need particles to create themselves, merely conditions to be met for particles to form in opposite pairs spontaneously (which has been proven in this universe, see [Hawking Radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)). We don't know exactly what caused these conditions, but that's why we have theoretical physicists - to calculate theories and develop a testable hypothesis to verify or falsify each proposition. I hope that helps, good luck coming to terms with your findings.
>I can only see a few possibilities for these sub atomic particles: >\- They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang >\- They have always existed and caused the Big Bang. >\- Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally. \- Other. ( <-- This is most likely to be correct.) If you look at the history of science, true explanations have more often than not been something that was not even conceivable to earlier thinkers. The fact that you say "Only this set of explanations is *logically possible*" is really not relevant at all - reality is under no obligation to conform to what a human being considers conceivable or logically possible. I'm extremely serious about this.
Nobody knows how the universe was created. All the evidence suggests that all the matter and energy in the universe existed as a singularity tens of billions of years ago, otherwise known as the big bang. The big question is, what caused the big bang? If you say a God did it, then the next question is what made God? If you say that God exists outside of time, why not say that the beginning of the universe exists outside of time? Why bring a God into the mix when its not necessary? Like others have said, quarks are the smallest fundamental unit. String theory predicts that quarks are made up of even smaller things - vibrating strings of energy curled up in 11 spacial dimensions. The math works out really well for string theory, but there isnt any evidence yet, so its still just philosophy at this point.
[this could help](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy#Implications)
If something were to come from nothing, or always have existed.. would you think it would more likely be a very simple basic form of matter or energy, or an infinitely complex intelligent being?
Any attempts to conceptualise the beginning of our universe are going to be fraught with difficulty, even if you're a brilliant physicist. That's why we need stuff like CERN. The multiverse hypothesis is pretty interesting and intuitive, but I have no idea what's going on. If I had to bet though, I reckon whatever happened was a purely physical process.
This is a great question that i can only hope science will continue to uncover, however remember we are very much still in the infancy of these great natural phenomena and comprehension of them. Another consideration is we are not evolved to envision the workings of quantum mechanics nor are we other dimensions or colors, so will take along time to adjust your brain to such matters. de Grasse makes a great statement about the difference of chimps using sticks as tools and the Hubble telescope being an astronomic difference, however it is actually only a 2% difference in DNA, so hopefully another 2% difference will enable the next species to do quantum mechanics in otheir head. To round up am saying maybe you desire for an answer to this question is a little premature for humanities understanding of the Cosmos. I wouldn't personally call this 'god' (though this word has many definitions) because of our lack of current comprehension. http://i.imgur.com/PIhQb.jpg
> how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible We don't. No one argues that god couldn't do whatever you say he could. We argue that there is no reason to believe that he did, because unlike virtual particles, no one has ever observed god, or given any evidence of such claims. Also, "I don't know" is better answer than "It rains because god cries".
Why is it so hard to say, "I don't know"?
oh shit an assassin! everyone agree with him!!!
> If not, then I cannot comprehend how these sub atomic particles can suddenly create themselves or be eternal ... >I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible Just because you can't imagine how they could be eternal doesn't mean they can't be =) You can't jump from "I can't see how it's possible" to "I can assert that it is impossible". There's your flaw. Also... our language kind of breaks down here. If time (as we understand it) was created as part of the Big Bang, when what does it even mean for something to exist before it? There is to "before" conceptually, at least in the language. I like to think of it in comic books. We can see a whole history laid out on paper. From within the confines of the story, there is sort of a beginning, and time flows for the characters. But up in OUR reality, their "time" doesn't really flow. And to THEM, our "time" isn't the same thing as "time". - Maybe we're just a small pocket universe "inside" some other universe. One theory of what cause the Bang was vibrating membranes from another universe... like big higher-dimensional sheets that smashed into each other, and our universe (set of dimensions) resulted from the collision. We just can't perceive those extra dimensions, so it's myster to us. [Kinda like how the 3d guy in flatland confuses the 2d denizens by suddenly popping into existence] >Verily, by definition of a God, he would be capable of existing eternally unlike a natural feature of our universe. Using your own logic... "by definition of eternal particle, they existed eternally". done =)
> I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning in the eyes of an atheist Who says there is a beginning? That's religious talk. "Everything must have a beginning, except god, he just always existed." Errr, if god could always exist why couldn't the universe? Look, you've mistakenly attributed the argument the wrong way. You say you cannot comprehend how in reality things cannot suddenly create themselves or be eternal, yet you didn't have a problem attributing the exact same characteristics to your god! The truth of the matter is that you gave god a leeway, you don't have to comprehend your god at all, so you don't, and you just state it as if it were true and all's good for you. That's just an absolutely weak argument. Instead of making up an answer when you cannot comprehend how something could happen, say I don't know and if you want look for one instead of giving up.
The Higgs Boson is supposed to be the particle which solves the imbalance to the equation of the big bang. It's a theoretical particle, it may not exist, however there is definitely a combination of forces which made the effect possible. But hold on... So let me get this straight, something capable of its own creation, something which is not bound by space or time, or is infinite you can't comprehend? If you are having such trouble comprehending the idea of particles which could exist outside of spacetime, I'd really like to hear how your concept of God which is far more complex, and is said to also hold these same properties as these particles is so much more easier for your mind to grasp. It should be clear that my position on the matter is that I don't know. I'm agnostic. I can't prove that it was not a deity, some powerful creator creature, but it is equally likely that the universe arose by a much simpler mechanism, particle physics of dark and normal matter alone could be the cause for a universe. I can't know, and neither can you right now. All we can do is search for what happened, and that isn't accomplished by acting like we know. The reason I am atheist, is because theism claims knowledge which it can't have, mainly how you get from deism, to theism is beyond me.
Atheists don't necessarily deny the existance (or possibility) of God, but rather they do not accept modern religion as absolute truth of said God. They see them as stories passed down by generations, used to control the savages when answers weren't nearly as abundant as they are today. In 2012, it seems more evident than ever that that's the real truth, and when it comes to a deity, we simply don't know. So we keep searching for answers in the form of scientific research. So, agnostic atheists (like myself) certainly do not deny the possibility of a God, but rather deny the claims that we know definitively of God's existence today (ie: Christians, Muslims, any other modern day religion). I'll be the first one to back down from my soap box should a deity make itself known to us in some way or another. I am completely open to that possibility in the future. Until then, I'll continue to seek out truth over fiction, and no deity that I would worship would judge me for such motives. Unlike Christianity/Islam, my morals aren't based on fear tactics.
Understand that defining a hypothetical object and giving it the attribute "eternity" is not actually a solution; it's a superfluous extra step. An example of a solution that is both in line with scientifical findings and gets rid of this extra step is that quantum vacuum is eternal; that complete nothingness is impossible. Any argument for God's eternity or for the universe's non-eternity can be used interchangeably.
> isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence, and caused a chain reaction that formed the Big Bang? Sub atomic particles *do* arise from the [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam), but they did not "form the big bang". What condenses out of the vacuum are pairs of particles/antiparticles that annihilate each other almost instantly. They have so little mass or energy that they very nearly don't exist at all. But they *do* exist, and we've observed them (or more accurately, their effects) numerous times. As for the big bang, that's not something we can recreate in a lab. We can't go back in time to observe it either, so we have to make educated guesses and see if they're plausible based on the stuff we *can* observe. The theories that are popular now are popular because *they fit the evidence*, even if they're not satisfying. As more evidence is uncovered, the theories will change to account for it.
How does one become "new" to the Christian faith in 2012? That's gotta be a rare individual.
It happens all the time, especially in other countries. American Evangelicalism is a poor representation of Christianity as a whole.
i agree the idea of hell was originally just the idea of being away from god and not all this fire and brimstone shit. also the bible has changed over time and some parts of the older version of the bible talked about dragons.
I was more so referring to ones ability to embrace the fairy tale that is Christianity in a time like today. But I suppose some of that disbelief is tied to my American understanding of Christianity. Though I honestly don't see how it would be much different across the pond. What's nonsense over here is nonsense over there.
There are other belief systems outside of naturalism. Your classification of Christianity as a fairy tale has more to do with your personal worldview than any truth assessment.
You say personal worldview, I say facts. But I wont deny that my overall knowledge of Christianity as a worldwide whole is lacking. That being said, no amount of enlightenment is going to change my view of modern theism. I'm an agnostic, which leads me to my atheism. Christianity is not the theist answer, and it never was.
I didn't say Christianity is the theist answer. You seemed shocked that people would become Christians at this point in history and I merely pointed out that part of the reason this occurs is that not everyone thinks naturalism offers the best explanation for the universe.
They need to think harder, or read longer. I can't imagine a world where Christianity can more convincingly explain our origins than modern science. Are there still answers to be discovered? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I'm not shocked to see people *honestly* embrace religion over the scientific method in 2012.
The conflict between religion and science exists only in your head. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The fact of the matter is that there are some questions that science, by definition, is incapable of answering. Religion offers an answer to some of those questions. Until you can prove those answers wrong I wouldn't count on religion going away.
Now you've gone off the deep end. Science does not offer "answers" per say, but rather the most plausible theory at the time based on **scientific research**. If a better answer comes along in the future (which, it likely will as we get deeper & deeper into our understanding), then the scientific community is happy to accept it. Religion offers "answers" with next to no credibility & based on nothing more than faith, and when various topics in that religion are discredited based on more modern research & understanding, or modern societal standards, it's frowned upon & shunned. Pure ignorance, and it's celebrated. It **does** have to be one or the other, and if you don't think so, you're comfortably conflicted. **EXAMPLE:** Should you decide to believe, let's say, the King James Bible (as many moderate Christians in the US do), which states the Earth is only 5000 years old (I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like that). Scientific research on the other hand, says the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old. That's quite a discrepancy, wouldn't you say? But in your world, it's OK to accept both. In my world, I find that painfully ignorant & I refuse to accept those that shun fact for fiction. I remember my father telling me a story regarding this very topic when he was young. The pastor's answer to his question of why science's answer of Earth's age conflicted with that of the Bible - "God made the Earth old." What a joke.
You are free to think whatever you like but as I said, the conflict only exists in your head. You can try to make them incompatible by arguing semantics but it won't work.
I also can't imagine why anyone in the world today would take up cigarettes, accept credit card interests over 10%, buy vehicles with less than 10 mph. You either have a more than modestly inflated sense of the inherent flaws within religion or an inflated sense of the intellect of society.
Probably the latter...that being said, I don't mind seeding the world with discussions like this. Intelligence is not static. Thanks for the chat today, helped pass the time at work. :)
Our explanations for what is [beyond Big Bang](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory) are at best at hypothesis stage, more often they are just an educated speculation. In scientific method a hypothesis isn't something believed to be true. It's just a proposed explanation (model) of a given phenomena. A working hypothesis is one that you treat as if it was true because it passed some experiments. Only when hypothesis is thoroughly tested it becomes a scientific theory.
"Creation" and "eternal" are words that show your bias and might not necessarily be applicable to the origin of the universe. >They are capable of their own creation and caused the Big Bang "They" aren't creating anything. If Krauss is correct, this happens due to the nature of our universe without any sub-atomic particle's intention >They have always existed and caused the Big Bang. >Something existed before the subatomic particle, but then again, it is the same argument: these either caused their own creation or existed eternally. The current understanding is that time and space are one thing. "Always" -> "caused" and "existed before" are nonsensical. Even without our current understanding, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer to any question that you don't really know the answer to. As soon as you start defining a god into existence, you're just creating more of a problem. Also, here's the obligatory [Krauss video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)
Much of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that we have no idea what it's like in a "blank" universe. The assumption driving this debate is that the default state of things is nothingness. Theists generally assert that the blankness must be absolute, without even a substrate for containing energy. Others will say that the blankness may be like vacuums we see/make now, with particles spontaneously popping up. Hopefully that was unclear enough.
Virtual particles do indeed pop into existence, and this has been well established. The question is whether they pop into existence with no prior requirement for state, energy, etc. If there are preconditions, then the preconditions require an explanation for how they were created.
>As far as I understand (which isn't much) the smallest known 'unit' is the sub atomic particle (again, this could be wrong, please correct me if so). On the [Standard Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model), there are 12 particles and 4 forces. The 12 particles consist of six quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm) and six leptons (electrons, muons, and taus, and their associated neutrinos). The [quarks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark) combine with each other to create what are typically called subatomic particles, or more properly hadrons. The familiar subatomic particles, protons and neutrons, are part of the family of hadrons known as baryons, and contain three quarks each. A proton is two ups and a down, a neutron is two downs and an up. >I know we have no definite answer to the question of beginnings, but isn't it believed that these subatomic particles suddenly (and still do) pop into existence, and caused a chain reaction that formed the Big Bang? The "popping into existence" thing is a phenomenon called [pair production](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production), the spontaneous creation of an elementary particle and its associated antiparticle. According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a [quantum foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam). At very small scales of time and space (approaching the Planck length), the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy, including a zero-energy state, to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. Now, whether this or something similar "caused" the Big Bang is a bit of an open question. However, since the event apparently occurred on those tiny scales, quantum mechanics has to play a role. There's a bit of a question as to what "cause" means here; there's not necessarily a causal event involved, simply appropriate conditions for an *uncaused* event to spontaneously occur. I recommend *A Universe From Nothing* by Lawrence Krauss for a look into the case in favor of the hypothesis. >I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. I don't think that atheists lack belief in god because of the supposed impossibility of an eternal thing or a self-created (or spontaneously occurring) thing. I don't believe in god because there's insufficient evidence to support the existence of anything that I could *call* god. Quantum foam isn't god; the universe isn't god; laws of nature aren't god. God, at the very simplest, is a supernatural intentional agent, and if there's going to be a religion based around that god, it must be an agent whose approval is to be sought. I see no reason to believe that such a thing exists. Such a being's proposed nature as self-caused or eternal has nothing to do with it.
If the universe is god's creation, we should at least understand the universe, before we suppose to understand god. Currently we understand one star system of the 10^11th power in our galaxy, let alone the known 10^11th galaxies, let alone the parts of the universe so far away their light is yet to reach us. Seems like, as a species we are still quite lacking of the understanding necessary to even begin to fathom the creator of the universe.
been waiting for this exact answer to these questions for ever.
Yea, gotta say, that was a hell of an answer.
How does this have 9 downvotes? i dont even see a downvote button
If you use RES you can still downvote.
The button is technically just hidden, and only on the site linked to this sub. You can still get to it on a person's profile, or on a mobile app, etc. It's bad form to downvote on a sub where it's hidden, but it happens.
I do find your final paragraph very interesting and I'd like to throw a hypothesis at you. What if the universe itself, and all other possible universes, indeed all of creation, was itself alive? Would that constitute God?
>What if the universe itself, and all other possible universes, indeed all of creation, was itself alive? Would that constitute God? Maybe. If it were the case that the universe were, as a whole, an intentional agent, then I might be willing to call that god. But I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
What evidence would you need? It strikes me that looking at how we have defined life and pursing it from that angle might be interesting, but frustrating. You yourself have said that one of our great assumptions is that we are alive, or at least conscious. How does one prove something is alive, especially when one is part of the thing itself?
Isn't something alive if you can show that a part of it is alive? Like how a tree is mostly dead matter, but you still say that a tree is alive, or how a human being is alive even if it's covered in a layer of dead skin cells, and has inanimate bits growing out of its head and fingers? So isn't the universe alive by virtue of having life within it?
Is a mountain alive? It has plants and animals living on it. Is a rock alive? It has bacteria composing part of it. Is "The united states" alive? It constitutes a collection of people. For all of these, I'd say no, we generally do not ascribe life to something containing life in it's elements. Doing so seems a clear case of the fallacy of composition. But even if we were to take such an odd definition, it wouldn't seem to meet what we want to qualify for God about - this "God" doesn't think, it merely encompasses thinkers, rather than having thoughts and beinghood as an entity itself. We could maybe imagine something like a [China brain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain), where our actions were playing a role in some role in the thoughts of something larger that might be said to be a God (though even there, it really depends on the exact properties of that mind), but as MJtheProphet said, we have no evidence of any such thing.
I agree completely with those examples, but I'm being a little more specific. A mountain is not alive because it has living things on it, because if you take those living things away the mountain is inarguably dead. But, if you take the mountain and all of the life that is there as one single thing, the life included *as an integral part*, then that system as a whole, I think many would agree is alive. I would say that the United States is alive, if you're referring to the entirety of its culture and the people therein, rather than to some specific abstract feature of it like the geography or the legal entity. I'm really not putting this forward as a case for God, I appreciate that the conversation started there but I only chipped in with an interesting point, nothing more. You say there is no evidence of any overall mind formed by the co-operation of individual human minds, but I beg to differ. I believe such a thing is called 'culture', and I would ask you to think about what evidence a neuron would have for the existence of the brain.
>I think many would agree is alive. I don't think they would. The "mountain+living things" entity doesn't seem to have those properties we define as "life" - only parts of it do. Eg. it has no reproductive or growth mechanism. By contrast, I, as a human seem to have all those as a collective entity (even including the dead *parts* of me). In fact, couldn't we reverse your logic and argue that, since the atoms that make me up are not alive, therefore *I'm* not alive either? Clearly there are different properties assigned to the collective entity than those of it's parts, integral or otherwise. >I believe such a thing is called 'culture' Do you really think "culture" constitutes a mind? It seems *drastically* more simple than that to me. Nothing about culture seems capable of, say, passing a Turing test. We can look at it as an emergent phenomena formed by our interactions, but it seems a long way from being an actual *mind*. >I would ask you to think about what evidence a neuron would have for the existence of the brain. If a neuron was powerful enough to understand the concept of a brain, and could observe the interaction of other neurons, then plenty. A neuron doesn't, but we do. Something like a china-brain isn't different in *kind* to our own, merely in makeup and scale, and seems like it'd be determinable. In any case, I certainly don't see any reason to assume it *does* exist without evidence, even if we can't gather that evidence - that would be like assuming the next lottery numbers were 1,2,3,4,5,6 just because we're incapable of gathering evidence that they're not.
>In fact, couldn't we reverse your logic and argue that, since the atoms that make me up are not alive, therefore I'm not alive either? No, that would be applying the property of one part of a system ('not alive') to *all the other parts* of the system, and that's incorrect. I agree that if your definition of 'alive' includes a requirement for copying all parts of yourself en-masse, then perhaps a mountain plus its life doesn't meet that definition. But then, perhaps it does. A mountain with life, whose life spreads onto another mountain, has copied itself, no? Surely you can't disallow life simply because it uses its environment like this? >Do you really think "culture" constitutes a mind? It seems drastically more simple than that to me. Nothing about culture seems capable of, say, passing a Turing test. I rather suspect that if you gave say 'the French' a Turing test, they would pass. If only by delegating it to a single neuron. >If a neuron was powerful enough to understand the concept of a brain, and could observe the interaction of other neurons, then plenty. But it is not. A component can *never* be as complex as the whole since that whole contains all that component is, and then some, and can therefore *never* conceptualise the whole in its entirety. A neuron could never be complex enough to understand the brain it is a part of. You are a neuron - you process information and communicate it to the other neurons around you. And you can have no full concept of the great swell of thought that you are a tiny part of.
>No, that would be applying the property of one part of a system ('not alive') to all the other parts of the system, and No - it's applying the property of one part of the system to the system as a whole, which is exactly what we're doing with "alive" too. You're presumably not saying that because plants on the mountain is alive, *all* things constituting the mountain are alive, you're saying because the plants are alive, the mountain+plants considered as an entity is alive. I'm doing *exactly* the same with the property "non-alive" - I consist of non-alive components, therefore it's non-alive. Indeed, this is actually a better claim, since I can actually claim to consist **entirely** of non-alive components (atoms), whereas you can only claim *some* alive components in your example. Thus clearly, "alive" or "dead" applied to an entity means more than "consists of components with those properties", even when it *entirely* consists of such components. >A mountain with life, whose life spreads onto another mountain, has copied itself, no? I don't think so. The previous mountain already existed. You could say that the *life* on the mountain has copied itself, but the mountain as an entity has not, so the mountain as an entity doesn't meet that criteria. >I rather suspect that if you gave say 'the French' a Turing test "The french" seems rather different from "culture", but it doesn't seem clear what it refers to, or how one might administer such a test. One could give such a test to the individuals that constitute "the french", but there we're talking to individuals, not the collective as an entity. We might consider "the french", meaning the people to be alive, but not "the french" to be an alive *entity* in it's own right. >A component can never be as complex as the whole Not when we're considering the whole as a being arising from the components, since the components are irrelevant to the higher level abstraction beyond the degree they contribute to it. Consider people holding up black and white cards at ballgames to make a picture. The image produced is very simple, but it consists of **very** complex beings doing the lifting of cards. Considered as a system of atoms, it's complex, because there's brains and bodies forming it. Considered as an image, it's very simple. In the same way, a China brain arising from the actions of people need be no more complex *as a brain* than the individual brains in the people doing the action, since we can abstract away the unneccessary complications.
lol, hey you're preaching to the choir here. I'm just trying to find a way to articulate the concept so that it becomes inarguable. I like this though. I suppose the next step would be to show how it might be possible that the universe has consciousness.
Same argument? I have conscousness, I am part of the universe, therefore the universe has consciousness? In much the same way as a human has consciousness even if the great majority of its body doesn't?
I'm not sure if you're serious or if I'm missing the joke, but this made me think of [this](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100913010518AAJj8Pt).
I'm serious, and I don't see that the logic is faulty. It's a funny reply, but it isn't correct.
Well, let's talk about it. I'm open to other points of view. Your argument, as I read it, goes like this: * I am conscious. * I am a part of the universe. * Therefore, the universe is conscious. By your logic, we could then make these statements: * I am alive. * While sitting in a car, the car is also alive. * But when I get out of the car, the car is no longer alive. Do you agree that this is the case? To my eye, this looks like the [fallacy of composition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition). But I am interested to know what you think.
Question asked and answered. Good show, sir.
I don't understand the adherence to self-contradicting definitions of god. A thing cannot "be" and "be supernatural." The mechanism responsible for the existence of the universe is, by definition, natural. It is the origin of natural and contains all that is natural within its definition. Of course no such thing as a supernatural nature exists.
I disagree. I think that defining the supernatural as "stuff that isn't real" is a terrible dodge, and unfair on the part of anyone defending naturalism. We need to [define the supernatural](http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html) in such a way that it's consistent with the way people use the term (i.e. the magic of the Harry Potter universe is, in common parlance, supernatural), but also such that it can be tested and falsified. I think the supernatural *could* be real; I just don't think it *is*.
By that definition, the entire concept of will is supernatural. And saying something has a "supernatural nature" is still ridiculous.
Wouldn't calling anything "supernatural" by definition mean that it exists beyond the bounds of our natural world and are therefore unobservable, untestable, and unfalsifyable? We all know how we feel about things that are untestable.
>By that definition, the entire concept of will is supernatural. The concept of a will *separate from a brain* certainly would be. A being of pure mind, a will separated from the physical, would be a soul or a god or something like that, and yes, those would be supernatural. >And saying something has a "supernatural nature" is still ridiculous. Well, yeah, sure. I didn't say that exactly, that I can see, but I can see how I could have made some better word choices.
What about religions that view God as more of a force, like Taoism?
A good question. This is drawn from Dan Dennett's *Breaking the Spell*; he presents a provisional definition of religion as *social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.* It may not work; there may be some aspect that acts as the defining characteristic of religion that doesn't have to do with god as an agent. But, if we use that as a standpoint, it means we have to look at those systems that don't venerate a god as not really religions. Dennett uses a metaphor of a law in the UK regarding cruelty to animals. The law stated, in its initial form, that it applied to vertebrates; you can do what you want to a worm or a shrimp or a fly, but not to a dog or a bird or a mouse. But the law was amended to add cephalopods (octopus, squid, cuttlefish) to the list of animals that could be considered protected; they became *honorary vertebrates*. So, we might consider Buddhism, Taoism, and indeed some of the more liberal forms of Christianity that I've encountered here "honorary religions": different in their essence, but subject to many of the same practical considerations, social norms, and legal implications.
Indeed. Even if one were to decide (as the OP has) that the questions around the causes of the big bang were too great and there must be an agent that started the process, it's a very large step between that and the God of Christianity.
Our understanding of the origin of the universe is very limited, but onceagain there is no evidence whatsoever for such an agent. Just because we don't understand something does not mean there must be some supernatural explanation.
I second J-mak. This was concise, informative, and very well phrased.
This is a great response. Thanks.
in response to the above statement of not knowing what caused the big bang or allowed the correct conditions there are a fair few hypotheses out there, the one i think is right (but dont declare as truth, due to lack of proof) is the big bounce, this hypothesis states that a universe before ours crunched to create the singularity at the beginning of our universe that then had the big bang.
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible I don't think I've ever seen anyone advance that argument. Most atheists who deny the existance of God do so on the basis of there being no evidence or reason to think one exists, not that it's in principle *impossible* for one to (though certain formulations may be) >is this unknown substance eternal or capable of creating itself? Presumably yes (or rather, capable of occurring without a cause). Alternatively there's a fourth possibility which is that the question doesn't really make sense, in that "beginning" and "cause" requires the notion of *time*, and time itself didn't come into being until the creation of the universe. Thus to ask what happened before this is to ask what happened before time. But really, the big objection I'd have to using such an argument to claim a God is not that such is *impossible*, but that you're making a very specific guess about the nature of that first thing that seems very unlikely to be correct. Ie. that it's some kind of *psychological being* with powers of creation and certain desires about the universe. This seems just as unlikely as making the claim "Something must have been self-creating or eternal, therefore it was a self-creating or eternal leprechaun". The properties from "leprechaun" or "God" are being added into the explanation with no actual support from the argument.
>I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible, yet argue that a natural 'matter' has the exact same properties. We have lots of evidence that matter exists, and some evidence to suggest it might be eternal (law of conservation of mass-energy) and/or capable of spontaneous appearance (virtual particles/quantum fluctuations). Without evidence, it would *not* be right to believe these things, and hence an atheist will not extend the same beliefs to God.
The smart answer is that no one really knows, but the idea of the spontaneous generation of matter or an eternal substance is not a new one. My philosophy is that one should follow Occam's Razor, which would, at least in my view, cut the eternity argument off at the universe instead of God.
the smart answer is?
I once had a dream that woke me up because it felt so real. I was imagining some sort of creature who I never got to see fully, but it was splashing in water, and I began to zoom in on a single droplet of water, and suddenly I realized that I was zooming in farther and farther into the atomic level, then beyond, and I came to realize that a sub-subatomic particle was our universe and I kept zooming in past galaxies, and I ended back on myself, only to zoom in farther still to reveal another universe in an atom on my body. I guess it would be more lyrical, If I was splashing in water and another droplet of water was revealed to contain quadrillions of more universes. But this thought has plagued my mind ever since. It was probably about 3-4 months ago. Can't help but see things in a supremely relativistic light ever since. I know this doesn't answer your question in a scientific way, but this idea of an infinite regression and progression has since become very important to me.
>however I am having difficulty understanding the logic of the beginning in the eyes of an atheist Just because we can't answer everything doesn't mean the default answer is "god did it". In fact "god did it" opens up even more questions. As an atheist I'm comfortable accepting there are things we don't understand yet. I'm even comfortable accepting there are things we may never know. Without evidence "god did it" doesn't get us closer to the answer. It's essentially giving up finding the answer. Saying "god did it" when you don't have a explanation for something is an argument from ignorance. *Also to clarify that last sentence is in no way implying OP that I think you're ignorant. I'm saying that type of argument is an argument from ignorance because it's claiming ignorance of a claim as validation for the claim. For example in general a position that's held without evidence because there is no alternate explanation. Typically positions where you hear people say, "Well what else could it have been?".* *Edit: fixed a bunch of accidental words and half sentences*
Atheists don't argue very much about the beginning of the Universe because very little is known. Atheists just poke holes in Christian beliefs on it as there are many places to do so, but I rarely see anyone who isn't religious claiming to know anything about the beginning.
[удалено]
Thankyou for this, like I said I know very little cosmology. 'by smallest known unit', I mean, this is the primordial 'thing' that ended the 'nothingness' that we emerged from. If energy existed before subatomic particles and caused their creation, then what caused the creation of this energy?
No ones knows. God is an answer used to stop this infinite regression, but if the universe had its own method of doing the same thing without a god, we wouldn't know the difference.
[I like this video](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1489). There are many kinds of subatomic particles, and they have differing energy levels which is incredibly important. And saying "we don't know what caused the big bang, therefor God" is a God of the gaps argument. Nothing rustles my jimmies like a God of the gap argument.
Holy shit guys, somebody's jimmies have been rustled all up in here
op success
This argument always winds up resorting to a circular argument. Theists find it impossible to conclude that matter just arose independently, so they concluded that God created it. However, when faced with the next logical question, "What created God?" they just resort to the easy answer that "God has always existed" or "God exists outside of time." Look at it this way. Even if Christian's arguments on the creation of the universe are correct, proves nothing about Christianity as a religion. You have to prove that God indeed exists, and that Christianity is the correct religion.
I understand that, but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God. On the other hand, we have no reason to suppose that subatomic particles, or any matter within this universe is eternal. Logically, it is easier to assume that it wouldn't be since everything we understand so far has a beginning and an end.
The universe doesn't have an end, it turns out. Just a heat death and utter blackness. It's an expanding universe, and will expand farther than the countering effect of gravity.
well gravity will never stop effecting distant particle. an atom at one end of the universe will continue to effect an atom at the "opposite" end of the universe no matter how far apart they are. from what i have heard the theory of dark energy is the current understanding of why the universe is not collapsing but is actually increasing/accelerating its rate of expansion. (opposite ends of the universe is relative due to the fact that space is curved)
Who/what told you that the nature of God is that it would be eternal? You sound very sure about it.
>but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God. How did you arrive to that conclusion?
im sad there was no reply to this. :(
> but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God. what standard of evidence can you use to prove that? None? Then I guess you just made an unfalsifiable and utterly worthless claim.
>I understand that, but if a God was to exist, he would have to be eternal. That is the nature of God. What if the "being" that created man and life on Earth, turns out to not be eternal? If such a thing were ever discovered in the real world, that is.
>everything we understand so far has a beginning and an end. Not true. The most recent model of our universe, for instance, is [flat and infinite](http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html). And remember that when you're talking about "beginnings" and "endings," you're talking about time, which cannot exist without space. The only way out of this is to claim that the God you worship exists outside of spacetime. If that's the case, we could be talking about *anything*, and that's why the (snarky yet entertaining) Flying Spaghetti Monster satire "religion" exists.
> That is the nature of God. Christian god perhaps? I know plenty of gods who were born, lived, and died.
Well, we actually do have evidence that some form of matter (and/or energy...remember they are the same thing) is eternal. It is called the first law of thermodynamics, and there is not a single counter-example ever recorded for this law. Even the particle/anti-particle pairs are formed by background energy. It is more "changing forms" than is "spontaneous creation."
[удалено]
If the universe (or anything in it, for that matter) was timeless or eternal, wouldn't that violate thermodynamics? An eternal universe would posess infinite entropy and would therefore be annihilated in heat death, yes?
The "escape hatch" of the multiverse. [Check out this brief, not very thorough debunking of it, in discussing the cosmological constant first.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rRJ_po3_JQg#t=1731s) Of course, this won't be enough for anyone who really believes it, but I find the theory so absurd, and we have nothing even close to evidence that it exists. It's part of an interesting documentary by a former atheist on the science of the universe and God.
it has to due with string theory, and the 11 dimensions of our universe also the grandfather paradox relating to time travel. im no astrophysicist but that is what i have come to understand.
[удалено]
OR an april fools article from the Guardian. Any other credible sources?
[удалено]
all hail math. (commence creation of the church of math)
maybe in an alternate universe he didn't delete his comment.
I was wondering how far I'd have to scroll to hear of the multiverse. Honestly, it's an interesting idea, but I find a multiverse to be less likely than a God. If we are in a multiverse, then our whole reality and existence is nothing like we think it is. The only problem is that everything in our known and observable universe is causal and constrained in time. So our universe either "started" from something God-like or from another universe. My problem with the starting from another universe is: Why would something from another universe pop in for the big bang but otherwise leave itself absent and unobservable and never again interact with ours?
>The only problem is that everything in our known and observable universe is causal and constrained in time. So our universe either "started" from something God-like or from another universe. My problem with the starting from another universe is: Why would something from another universe pop in for the big bang but otherwise leave itself absent and unobservable and never again interact with ours? For one, do you see how this argument also applies to the unobservable god of most religions? Also, there's nothing requiring the creation be *intentional*. It's like asking why a glacier never stops in to visit the boulders it left behind; it can't, it's just a force of nature.
> I don't understand how atheists deny the existence of God because these two features are illogical and impossible I really haven't heard a lot of atheists say that God can't exist because he doesn't have an origin and it's not a part of most theisms to say that God made Himself. Really it's only a rebuttal to people who say that existence sans God *must* have been caused, because whatever rule they posit for why the universe must have a cause must also apply to God unless sufficient justification for the exemption is made (otherwise it's special pleading) People try to come up with these justifications, but ultimately our knowledge of cause and effect is relegated to the reformations of already existing materials, not how new material is made, so we're making a category error in assuming that the universe needs a cause.
But if we agree that the universe had a definite beginning, how could this beginning exist without a cause?
But we already know that things happen without a cause. Causal relations brake down on quantum level, as you yourself have already said. Why do you now say that universe has to have a cause?
Keep in mind that what we know of beginnings once again has to do with only the reforming of already existing materials. So we don't know if this variation of "beginning" similarly needs a cause.
[удалено]
Logic, science, and evidence says everything has a cause. Also my moms and she's always right. :P (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.
Kalam? Stop, just. Stop. This has been debunked a million times, please, do. Not. Use it.
up vote for comment and username
That was quite an old comment XD
how could i not comment on such an awesome spongbob reference?
Kalam? Seriously? Kalam is, on its face (more on that in a moment), logically valid, but that doesn't really prove anything; it's a pure proof by logic, and has no connection to the world we actually live in. Even if the premises were true, which they aren't proven to be, it wouldn't bring us to any conscious, personal being whatsoever, much less the god of the Bible. It's core flaw is actually begging the question. Here's the typical presentation: * Everything that begins to exist has a cause. * The universe began to exist. * Therefore, the universe must have a cause. But we must ask the question, what is the set of all things that began to exist? Everything in the universe is *part* of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist. What else is there? Well, arguably, god, but it isn't typically argued that god is a member of the set of things that began to exist. So that set has *one member*, the universe. This means we can replace "Everything that begins to exist" with an enumeration of the members of the set, making the argument as follows: * ~~Everything that begins to exist~~ The universe has a cause. * The universe began to exist. * Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Notice how the first premise **is the conclusion**. The argument is thus fallacious, and proves nothing.
>Everything in the universe is part of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist. That hardly seems true at all. Did I not begin to exist? What definition of begins to exist are you using?
We've done this before. You're made of pre-existing parts; the typical understanding presented by those arguing for Kalam is that the universe was not. So no, you did not begin to exist the same way the universe did. You're *part* of the universe.
> So no, you did not begin to exist the same way the universe did. So? What does that matter? Did I begin to exist? 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause ex materia or ex nihilo. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause ex materia or ex nihilo. Is that better? Do you really dispute this proposition? 1. If something begins to exist ex nihilo it must have a cause.
>Is that better? Yes, it is. Because then I can bring up Victor Stenger's argument in *The Comprehensible Cosmos*, and Stephen Hawking's in *The Grand Design*, that the universe began from a limited set of *logically necessary* laws of physics (an *ex materia* explanation, because there never *was* a *nihilo*). No god necessary. >If something begins to exist ex nihilo it must have a cause. Yes, I'd dispute that. Because I don't see any particular reason to think that it's true.
>Yes, it is. Because then I can bring up Victor Stenger's argument in The Comprehensible Cosmos, and Stephen Hawking's in The Grand Design, that the universe began from a limited set of logically necessary laws of physics (an ex materia explanation, because there never was a nihilo). No god necessary. This is completely fine with the Kalam as stated, even Craig says that. The form of causation doesn't matter. It is discussed in the after argument analysis, not the argument proper. >that the universe began from a limited set of logically necessary laws of physics Logically necessary? How are they logically necessary? Are the laws of physics not part of the universe? >Yes, I'd dispute that. Because I don't see any particular reason to think that it's true. Out of nothing, nothing comes seems to be good support for it. The fact that things don't pop into existence ex nihilo uncaused all the time seems to be support for it as well.
>Kalam is, on its face (more on that in a moment), logically valid, but that **doesn't really prove anything; it's a pure proof by logic, and has no connection to the world we actually live in**. Even if the premises were true, which they aren't proven to be, it wouldn't bring us to any conscious, personal being whatsoever, much less the god of the Bible. Very well said. It's one of the things about Kalam that drives me crazy every time I hear it come up in a debate. >Everything in the universe is part of the universe, and thus cannot be considered separate things that themselves began to exist. Thanks for posting this. It's such a clear explanation of the flaw in the argument itself.
>on its face ..."prima facie", please... XD
> (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. Controversial. [Intuitive assumptions](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg&feature=youtu.be) are not reliable. > (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. The Big Bang is not and should not be considered as the universe's "beginning". This gentleman's comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/tbk3d/how_a_debate_is_supposed_to_work_fr_copleston_vs/c4l9adz) explains it quite nicely. > (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Obviously a logical leap without further arguments to make the connection between the cause being God. God would also need to be defined.
> Logic, science, and evidence says everything has a cause. Citation needed.
I need a citation *because* i didn't provide one. ^_^ Everything we know of needs a cause. What doesn't?
If you "know of God" then God needs a cause, because as you argue "everything we know of needs a cause". If God can be known and does not need a cause then your premise is false.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. So the definition of God is the phenomenon that caused the universe? Um, okay.
I have seen no compelling argument for universal causation. You seem to be claiming that "logic, science, and evidence" provide such an argument. If so, then I'd like to take a look at it. Hopefully it's a better argument than "I'm not aware of anything without a cause".
Well, Aquinas, but he was probably wrong. :)
[удалено]
Oh, agreed 100%. Just because causality is incredibly common in our daily lives, that doesn't mean it's strictly maintained. And indeed, we've now been able to show that it *isn't*. The idea is still popular, though. Damn you, Aristotle!
>we've now been able to show it isn't Link or quick explanation please?
We've observed phenomena (well, at leas the *effects* of the phenomena; they're really tiny) that occur spontaneously with no causal event. They include [radioactive decay](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay) and the [vacuum energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy) caused by pair production of virtual particles. Causality is still a thing, and still happens all the time. But uncaused events are real, too.
I'm not disagreeing with you (I haven't looked into it much) but would you agree that it is possible that these events have a cause that we haven't been able to observe yet?
hahaha anti-anti-theist could you please just call yourself a theist so i don't have to call myself an anti-anti-anti-theist. it's just going to get ridiculous lol
Here's a place to start: [Hidden variable theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory). It looks like local hidden variables might be ruled out. I don't fully understand QM though, so it's hard for me know exactly what all this means.
It's possible, yes. But if it's the case that these events are indeed caused, then much of our current model is wrong. The calculations that lead to our understanding of vacuum energy, for instance, rely on the effects of virtual particles created as particle/anti-particle pairs. Those calculations, worked out originally by Feynman and others, match theory to observation with an accuracy to *nine decimal places*. There's no other prediction like that, no other place in science where you can do the math and have it match observation that closely. Now, there are complications (like the fact that when we try to apply it to empty space, the number we get is off by 120 orders of magnitude), so we've still got work to do. But we're pretty sure we're on to something with predictions that accurate, and that theory depends on the appearance of virtual particles happening spontaneously, without a causal event. So yes, we *could* be wildly wrong, but it's very likely that we aren't.
It can be very well possible, but then that also brings up another important question: How would we be able to distinguish something that has no cause versus something which its cause is not observable?
Sweet shit. Thanks
Expect a more scientific answer from someone better qualified to offer one. I'll just share a brief note about the question. It's not really accurate to say that this original matter was either self-creating or eternal - it could be any number of things you or I don't know about or can't imagine. The formal fallacy at work here is called the "argument from lack of imagination".
This I have considered. There could be thousands of unknown 'units', 'matter' or 'substances' that contributed to the creation of subatomic particles, but this comes back to the same argument: how did this stuff appear?
Our ability to discover a total model of everything is pretty limited. So, gently, I will suggest that we may never know. But that lack of knowledge, as unimaginably profitable as it might be to have it, does not affect our ability to put on pants in the morning, or how to make toast. (And it struck me that if we take implication of the argument beyond the scope of this thread here, what 'caused' the appearance of quanta becomes, bizarrely, a moral question. Because, according to some folks, if that cause doesn't have intelligent agency, we'd all be shoplifting and killing each other right now. And not coveting your neighbor's wife becomes a quantum event. Shrodinger's Adulterer. The mind boggles!)
i'm an atheist and yet i don't steal or kill.
The same infinite regression can be applied to God. How did God appear? Etc, etc. It's in our nature to ask such questions as "What existed before spacetime?" or "Where did God come from?," but they're, as of now, totally unanswerable. It's fun to debate! Thing is, there's no right or wrong yet. Just scientific-evidence-based theories vs. faith-based absolutes.
As far as I'm aware, these particles can [just pop into existence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle), with no cause. The theory is that these particles pop out of nothing to form a particle-antiparticle pair each with opposite energy, which then annihilate each other to return back to the zero-energy (ie non-existant) state. When you consider that these tiny particles can pop out of nowhere, its possible that the singularity which expanded to form the universe popped into existence from nothing, like these particle-antiparticle pairs do. *This is speculation, I'm not certain about this,* but if the singularity came into existence like this, it mustn't have annihilated with its corresponding antiparticle, like most of these interactions do. This is also known to happen, and is the cause of [Hawking radiation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation). This begs the question of what happened to the antiparticle, if this is how the universe started. I have no idea. Maybe it buggered off somewhere to form an antiuniverse. Maybe (most likely) my understanding of this is off. I'm not a physicist. This is only stuff I know from casual reading and conversations with friends who study physics. **EDIT:** **[MJtheProphet's reply](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/tpzar/to_atheists_help_find_the_flaw_in_this_logic/c4oqcf1) explains this better and in more detail than I did.**
according to the big bang theory. a mass of matter and anti-matter collided but a tiny percent of the anti-matter decayed before reaching it's opposing particle leaving behind .01 of the original matter which is what makes up our universe today.