Do you believe the universe came from nothing

Zillah

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Perhaps the Big Bang is the END of the universe, and we are actually travelling backward through time. :cool:

At first I was like "Pff what meaningless..." and then I had a very zen moment where everything coalesced. That's pretty awesome. So assuming that the ultimate future of the universe is an infinitely spread out heatless wasteland...then the universe has always existed it's just been getting closer together and more energetic as time goes on.

Of course it begs the question, what happens after the Big Bang*


*In backwards time, of course

Tea_Bag

Zillah wrote: »

At first I was like "Pff what meaningless..." and then I had a very zen moment where everything coalesced. That's pretty awesome. So assuming that the ultimate future of the universe is an infinitely spread out heatless wasteland...then the universe has always existed it's just been getting closer together and more energetic as time goes on.

Of course it begs the question, what happens after the Big Bang*


*In backwards time, of course

but its not getting closer together, its growing at an alarmingly increasing rate. besides Andromeda, were moving away from all other galaxies at a rate that we'll be in deep dark space, alone, long, long before we get the technology to even imagine reaching them where they are now. throwing random theory's out there with no base to them is pointless.

marco_polo

Tea_Bag wrote: »

but its not getting closer together, its growing at an alarmingly increasing rate. besides Andromeda, were moving away from all other galaxies at a rate that we'll be in deep dark space, alone, long, long before we get the technology to even imagine reaching them where they are now. throwing random theory's out there with no base to them is pointless.

Em, I think he may not be being overlty serious?

Zillah

Tea_Bag wrote: »

but its not getting closer together, its growing at an alarmingly increasing rate. besides Andromeda, were moving away from all other galaxies at a rate that we'll be in deep dark space, alone, long, long before we get the technology to even imagine reaching them where they are now. throwing random theory's out there with no base to them is pointless.

Err, duh! We're going backwards.

Anyway you're so wrong about it being at an "alarming" rate. The very idea of being concerned that another galaxy may be too far away by the time we're bored of the Milky Way is just laughable.

paulhealy1991

the real question is which came first, the chicken or the egg?????:P

Zillah

paulhealy1991 wrote: »

the real question is which came first, the chicken or the egg?????:P

The egg came first because chickens are birds, birds evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs, ergo the egg came before the chicken.

Outkast_IRE

I believe there was matter and anti matter out of these two everything we know came to exist because as we know these two dont like each other very much and violent reactions are a given.
What created the matter and anti matter ? As far as im concerned this universe, galaxy or whatever could just be part of a molocule of something as simple as a blade of grass.
Something created it , have no doubt about that , nobody can ever deny that there is something greater out there than we can even comprehend right now .
I babble on but the best way to explain it to the lay person is ,
remember the bag of marbles at the end of men in black thats us a marble in a bag of marbles possibly in a game of marbles by other creatures.

I actually lay awake nights thinking about this stuff!!!!!!!!!

Outkast_IRE

Zillah wrote: »

The egg came first because chickens are birds, birds evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs, ergo the egg came before the chicken.

One camp holds that the egg must have come first. There were direct ancestors of the modern chicken which did indeed produce eggs. While most of those eggs produced genetic copies of the ancestral bird species, a few eggs may have contained enough genetic mutations to create the first modern chicken, albeit from two non-chicken parents. Therefore, the first modern chicken must have been hatched from a egg which no longer contained the genetic coding to reproduce the ancestral bird species.
Another camp suggests that the chicken came first. Through the concept of creationism, one could argue that God created all species of animals, including the modern chicken. There was no genetic mutation necessary; chickens reproduce themselves through the fertilization of egg cells, which would naturally mean the chicken arrived first on the planet and the egg is always going to be one generation behind.

ChocolateSauce

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I believe there was matter and anti matter out of these two everything we know came to exist because as we know these two dont like each other very much and violent reactions are a given.
What created the matter and anti matter ? As far as im concerned this universe, galaxy or whatever could just be part of a molocule of something as simple as a blade of grass.
Something created it , have no doubt about that , nobody can ever deny that there is something greater out there than we can even comprehend right now .
I babble on but the best way to explain it to the lay person is ,
remember the bag of marbles at the end of men in black thats us a marble in a bag of marbles possibly in a game of marbles by other creatures.

I actually lay awake nights thinking about this stuff!!!!!!!!!

Unless you lie awake at night doing experiments or writing universe-affirming maths, your opinions are pretty worthless, no offense intended.

Tea_Bag

Zillah wrote: »

Anyway you're so wrong about it being at an "alarming" rate.

why? are you not alarmed that the universe is expanding under a force we cant see/study or test. dark matter is still only a theory.

Zillah wrote: »

The very idea of being concerned that another galaxy may be too far away by the time we're bored of the Milky Way is just laughable.

noone said anything about being bored of the milky way.

and i will not appologise for having my horizons set further than you.
i believe that intergalactic travel may have been a possibility in the future if we werent moving away from most of them at the speed of light.

ChocolateSauce

Tea_Bag wrote: »

why? are you not alarmed that the universe is expanding under a force we cant see/study or test. dark matter is still only a theory.

It's been expanding for the last 15 billion years with no harm done in general. Dark matter is essentially an "x" or unknown that we invented to explain a fact that we observed, namely that gravity-wise the universe behaves as though there is far more matter in it than we can actually see. We call it dark matter because as far as we know, only matter can produce gravity.

Zillah

Tea_Bag wrote: »

and i will not appologise for having my horizons set further than you.

Oh dear, now you've done it.


Let me explain all the stupid things you've managed to state in a very short period of time:

- Dark Matter is not a theory. The phenomenon which is referred to as dark matter is a demonstrable fact. The explanation for that fact is not yet clear. It is also irrelevant to the topic because dark energy is stronger than the gravity of dark matter and hence has no bearing at all.

- We will not be in "deep dark space, alone", the Milky Way has somewhere between 200 and 400 billion stars. That's as much as 60+ stars per person on the planet.

- The very idea of being concerned with reaching another galaxy before we've done a great deal of exploration within our own galaxy is laughable.

- To even contemplate reaching another galaxy we would have to have faster than light travel, in which case the actual distance of the target point may be irrelevant.

- Other galaxies are already so far away that a few thousand years will make virtually no difference. Predictions on our rate of technological development would suggest that if FTL technology is possible then we are likely to develop it long before the rate of universal expansion is an issue.


Your horizons are no further than mine, it's just that mine are consistent with reality.

Flamed Diving

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

One camp holds that the egg must have come first. There were direct ancestors of the modern chicken which did indeed produce eggs. While most of those eggs produced genetic copies of the ancestral bird species, a few eggs may have contained enough genetic mutations to create the first modern chicken, albeit from two non-chicken parents. Therefore, the first modern chicken must have been hatched from a egg which no longer contained the genetic coding to reproduce the ancestral bird species.
Another camp suggests that the chicken came first. Through the concept of creationism, one could argue that God created all species of animals, including the modern chicken. There was no genetic mutation necessary; chickens reproduce themselves through the fertilization of egg cells, which would naturally mean the chicken arrived first on the planet and the egg is always going to be one generation behind.

You forgot about my equally valid theory. The chicken came first, and eggs don't really exist at all, due to an intergalatic government conspiracy. They just keep placing chickens around the place, when no one is looking.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Zillah wrote: »

At first I was like "Pff what meaningless..." and then I had a very zen moment where everything coalesced. That's pretty awesome. So assuming that the ultimate future of the universe is an infinitely spread out heatless wasteland...then the universe has always existed it's just been getting closer together and more energetic as time goes on.

Of course it begs the question, what happens after the Big Bang*


*In backwards time, of course

Hehe. Well, nothing needs to happen after the big bang, coz that's the end of everything!

Perhaps we humans will actually CREATE the universe at some point in the future! Maybe the whole thing was our fault all along!

I'm reminding myself of the last episode of Star Trek TNG: "All Good Things".

Outkast_IRE

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Unless you lie awake at night doing experiments or writing universe-affirming maths, your opinions are pretty worthless, no offense intended.

Well its an opinion, its better than just believing in nothing.I dont have to lie awake doing the math Hawking and many others do the math. As i said its an opinion and unless you prove otherwise its as equally valid as the next.

mickoneill30

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Hehe. Well, nothing needs to happen after the big bang, coz that's the end of everything!

Perhaps we humans will actually CREATE the universe at some point in the future! Maybe the whole thing was our fault all along!

That reminded me of this Asimov story.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
written 53 years ago but way ahead of his time.

dvpower

death1234567 wrote: »

If God created the universe where did God come from?

Its turtles all the way down.

Sam Vimes

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well its an opinion, its better than just believing in nothing.

That's a matter of opinion. Personally I believe in things if they can be shown to exist, not if I would like them to exist

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I dont have to lie awake doing the math Hawking and many others do the math. As i said its an opinion and unless you prove otherwise its as equally valid as the next.

I believe the universe was created by my mate Dave on Tuesday May 5th 2009 and anything before that is an illusion. Can you prove me wrong? And if not does that mean that my opinion is as valid as any other?

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I believe the universe was created by my mate Dave on Tuesday May 5th 2009 and anything before that is an illusion. Can you prove me wrong? And if not does that mean that my opinion is as valid as any other?

*tut*

It was Steve, on Monday the 4th of May.

Heathen.

Outkast_IRE

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion. Personally I believe in things if they can be shown to exist, not if I would like them to exist



I believe the universe was created by my mate Dave on Tuesday May 5th 2009 and anything before that is an illusion. Can you prove me wrong? And if not does that mean that my opinion is as valid as any other?

Well the problem there is you dont really believe it ... your just saying it to try and make some unknown point .........
Believe whatever you want to , if you believe your mate dave made it , good for you go worship at mighty daves feet if you so wish .

Mark Hamill

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well its an opinion, its better than just believing in nothing.

Not really, particularly when the opinion is wrong. Personally I think its better be convinced of any opinion you claim to have (ie not have one just for the sake of having one), but recognise (hell, embrace) that it may need to change if new evidence comes along.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I dont have to lie awake doing the math Hawking and many others do the math. As i said its an opinion and unless you prove otherwise its as equally valid as the next.

No two different opinions are ever equally valid.

Flamed Diving

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well the problem there is you dont really believe it ... your just saying it to try and make some unknown point .........
Believe whatever you want to , if you believe your mate dave made it , good for you go worship at mighty daves feet if you so wish .

Game, set and match, Vimes.

*applause*

Sam Vimes

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well the problem there is you dont really believe it ... your just saying it to try and make some unknown point .........

The point I'm making is that not all theories are as valid as all others and not being able to disprove something is not the measure of its value

JC 2K3

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

its better than just believing in nothing.

No it's not.....

Outkast_IRE

it is no point in arguing

Flamed Diving

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

it is no point in arguing

Indeed, it's better than not believing in not arguing.

Not.

Zillah

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

it is no point in arguing

Indeed, you're really really wrong. Arguing would be pointless. Of course firing off this one liner and running is also quite petty but I suppose it's better than the Creationist approach.

ChocolateSauce

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well its an opinion, its better than just believing in nothing.I dont have to lie awake doing the math Hawking and many others do the math. As i said its an opinion and unless you prove otherwise its as equally valid as the next.

First let me clarify, I was only referring to you opinions on the physically measurable universe, not any other topic.

You can have your own opinions but not your own evidence or facts. You made a claim about the universe ("something created it), and then hypothesised that it could be part of a molecule. What we know about molecules would disagree that it is possible. While we can't know for certain, what is certain is that lying awake in bed thinking about it doesn't give answers.

Finally, the option isn't a fifty/fifty split between differing opinions; some are vastly more realistic than others. You seem to consider that your men in black idea is on the same level as the multiple big bang hypothesis or the saddle-shaped universe; it isn't, it is a stoner-level notion.

its better than just believing in nothing.

It is this attitude that makes me think I wasn't too harsh (and I had considered it). It's a typical "I don't have an answer so I'll find one that's made up and sounds really thoughtful and stick to it."

Outkast_IRE

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

First let me clarify, I was only referring to you opinions on the physically measurable universe, not any other topic.

You can have your own opinions but not your own evidence or facts. You made a claim about the universe ("something created it), and then hypothesised that it could be part of a molecule. What we know about molecules would disagree that it is possible. While we can't know for certain, what is certain is that lying awake in bed thinking about it doesn't give answers.

Finally, the option isn't a fifty/fifty split between differing opinions; some are vastly more realistic than others. You seem to consider that your men in black idea is on the same level as the multiple big bang hypothesis or the saddle-shaped universe; it isn't, it is a stoner-level notion.



It is this attitude that makes me think I wasn't too harsh (and I had considered it). It's a typical "I don't have an answer so I'll find one that's made up and sounds really thoughtful and stick to it."

No i just use the men in black idea to explain to most people who have no interest or like for astrophysics .
And i do agree with what you say about molecules etc its unlikely its possible but its not impossible , with our current level of knowledge its hard to rule anything out , but yes some things
are more realistic than others.
If you were to ask me straight up i would say , i believe the big bang hypothesis , in the formation of matter and anti matter , And beyond the edge of the universe there is something else . I think that science is edging us closer to the answers and as new discoveries are made i will take stock of these and may change my mind .
Im not here for an argument , as far as im concerned its impossible to win any arguement because the evidence required to totally win any argument on this issue doesnt exist yet

karlog

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It is this attitude that makes me think I wasn't too harsh (and I had considered it). It's a typical "I don't have an answer so I'll find one that's made up and sounds really thoughtful and stick to it."

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

Turtwig

Little Mickey wrote: »

The very simple answer the original question is that nothing comes from nothing.

Emm If nothing came from nothing then how can you be here to ask this question??

Flamed Diving

karlog wrote: »

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

How can anything be proven?

He, like most people on here, believes in the most likely explanation for phenomenon, based on reliable evidence and logical conjecture.

In the absence of reliable evidence and consistent explanation, he does not guess at what it is, but states the phenomenon as a known unknown, awaiting further data/explanation.

Zillah

karlog wrote: »

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

Proof is a difficult thing. Suffice to say, I won't believe in anything until it has lots of evidence, and has more evidence than other hypotheses.

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

Proof is a difficult thing.

Yeah, like how does one prove the non-existence of the non-existent?:)

ChocolateSauce

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

No i just use the men in black idea to explain to most people who have no interest or like for astrophysics .

Non-mathematical astrophysics is a very easy to grasp subject, you shouldn't dumb down what you're trying to say. Furthermore, there is no room in astrophysics for the men in black-like idea, because astrophysics can only work within the confines of this universe; to speculate about what is outside it, or what came "before" it, is pointless from a scientific perspective.

Im not here for an argument , as far as im concerned its impossible to win any arguement because the evidence required to totally win any argument on this issue doesnt exist yet

I recommend you be a bit more sceptical then. What might be "beyond" the edge of the universe would be so outlandish any concepts we have about reality wouldn't apply. Also perhaps somewhat sadly, unless it is possible to travel faster than light, it is literally impossible to ever find out what the edge looks like.

[quite]i believe the big bang hypothesis , in the formation of matter and anti matter , And beyond the edge of the universe there is something else[/quote] The big bang has enough evidence now to be considered a solid theory. The vast majority of astro-physicists don't doubt it. Why do you actively believe there is something beyond the universe? What evidence have you to make that assumption? Why do you believe that instead of taking my stance, which is that it is an unknown? It seems to me you're making a leap of faith there.

karlog wrote:

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

I'll believe things, sure. Everyone believes things. Some ideas I'd believe more readily than others. What I won't do is claim to know things unless there is powerful evidence for them. As it stands, I don't know how the universe works. There are many theories with evidence for them, but none which is so solid that I would say "I know". From the modest reading I have done, I'm inclined to think the universe might be saddle-shaped and I'm sitting on the fence with regards to multiple big bangs for example, but I wouldn't say to anyone "The universe is saddle-shaped".

Most importantly, even for things I think I know, I'll never say "I can't be wrong", because I can't know that.

Little Mickey

Malty_T wrote: »

Emm If nothing came from nothing then how can you be here to ask this question??

Am, well now:
If you read the OPs question you would see that he/she is asking if you believe the universe came from nothing. If you read my previous posts you would see that I believe that the universe must have came from something - and I believe only nothing can come from nothing.
So to summarise for you again, I believe the universe must have come from something. But then we're left with the dilemma of where did something come from...

Turtwig

Little Mickey wrote: »

Am, well now:
If you read the OPs question you would see that he/she is asking if you believe the universe came from nothing. If you read my previous posts you would see that I believe that the universe must have came from something - and I believe only nothing can come from nothing.
So to summarise for you again, I believe the universe must have come from something. But then we're left with the dilemma of where did something come from...

Posted this awhile back in the So If God ... Thread in the philosophy forum

MALTY_T wrote:

Why does it have to start somewhere, our minds may tell us that things must have beginnings but what if somethings have no beginings?
What if it they just always there? (Seems more plausible than something from nothing)

My belief simply is this :
Why do I think things had to be created i.e come from somewhere?
Personally, I'd like to think that this isn't the first universe. In time we shall have the answers...:D

Flamed Diving

Little Mickey wrote: »

So to summarise for you again, I believe the universe must have come from something. But then we're I'm left with the dilemma of where did something come from...

FYP.

stevejazzx

There was always a something that does not work the way humans think things work. We're programmed to imagine causality but it obviously doesn't work becasue inifinite regress equals 'always existed'. What we are really asking is what was the nature of that which existed before our universe was created?

karlog

Well I'm surprised how far this thread has gone on. Out of all the posts read about where you believe the universe came from all we have is belief and for me it's belief in God. I dont seek to convince anyone to believe in God. Thats just stupid.

If we want to bring evidence into this, there is none. There is currently absolutely no reliable evidence for God. Evidence is part of scientific research and discovery. To get into a scientific argument about God's existence is pointless. The existence of the universe and the world does not necessarily prove there is a god. It doesn't really prove anything at all.

Many people have different concepts on what God is from a divine force to something as bizarre as a large white bearded man looking down on us from the heavens.


Sorry had to put a picture in

Scientists like Newton and Einstein believed in existence of God. Stephen Hawkins has also accepted that concept of something like a God is necessary to explain the ultimate origin of the Universe. They cant prove it. Thats just what they believe.

Whenever i have a conversation with someone who trys to convince me God doesn't exist i always just say prove it. They never give a good enough reason.

Zillah

^ That post is such a perfect example of stupendously broken thinking.

Argument from Authority, specious reasoning, shifting the burden of proof, wishy washy rationalisations. Ugh.

Flamed Diving

karlog wrote: »

Well I'm surprised how far this thread has gone on. Out of all the posts read about where you believe the universe came from all we have is belief and for me it's belief in God. I dont seek to convince anyone to believe in God. Thats just stupid.

If we want to bring evidence into this, there is none. There is currently absolutely no reliable evidence for God. Evidence is part of scientific research and discovery. To get into a scientific argument about God's existence is pointless. The existence of the universe and the world does not necessarily prove there is a god. It doesn't really prove anything at all.

Many people have different concepts on what God is from a divine force to something as bizarre as a large white bearded man looking down on us from the heavens.


Sorry had to put a picture in

Scientists like Newton and Einstein believed in existence of God. Stephen Hawkins has also accepted that concept of something like a God is necessary to explain the ultimate origin of the Universe. They cant prove it. Thats just what they believe.

Whenever i have a conversation with someone who trys to convince me God doesn't exist i always just say prove it. They never give a good enough reason.

No, he didn't. This is a constant lie told, even while he was alive. He wrote this letter, denying this:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated [thats you kerlog]. I do not believe in a personal god and i have never denied this, but expressed this clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

karlog

Zillah wrote: »

^ That post is such a perfect example of stupendously broken thinking.

Argument from Authority, specious reasoning, shifting the burden of proof, wishy washy rationalisations. Ugh.

Respect my belief!!!UGH!!!

Flamed Diving

karlog wrote: »

Respect my belief!!!UGH!!!

karlog = troll

karlog

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, he didn't. This is a constant lie told, even while he was alive. He wrote this letter, denying this:

Hmm didn't know that thanks for the observation.

Dades

Flamed Diving wrote: »

karlog = troll

I only see someone who isn't towing the company line.

Zillah

karlog wrote: »

Respect my belief!!!UGH!!!

Get better beliefs.

karlog

Zillah wrote: »

Get better beliefs.

What like your beliefs? Go on tell me what they are. You never know i might find them to be better:rolleyes:



Edit: I just remembered its pointless arguing with you

Flamed Diving

karlog wrote: »

Hmm didn't know that thanks for the observation.

So, this is a clear example of you unquestionably believing something you are told, without going to check the evidence.

Notice a pattern here?

karlog

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, this is a clear example of you unquestionably believing something you are told, without going to check the evidence.

Notice a pattern here?

Not really that's just a bit of biography of einstein which i overlooked. As for the origion of the universe there is no evidence. If your looking for evidence on how the universe is here, good luck on that wild goose chase pal.

The only pattern emerging here pointless post's being shot back and forward with no real points being made.