how did the entire Universe come from nothing?

401 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
You keep using "science" as a

You keep using "science" as a noun. There is no "science." You can not hold onto it. You can not smell it. You can not taste it. You can not see it. Science is a process. A way of gathering, categorizing, and evaluating information. Human kind and indeed most animals on the planet have always done this. So where is this "Start to Science" you speak of. Where is this "beginning.?" I have already demonstrated that science is explained by its results. Science is done because it works. It puts men on the moon, cures diseases, builds computers and cell phones, and helps to explain the world around us by building models. But it is not a "thing." It is a method of inquiry into the world around us. If you think you have a better way to do things, lets hear it.

Please show us the Origin of Science.

Sheldon's picture
It's when theists or deists

It's when theists or deists insert their deity of choice into a "gap" in our understanding of the natural physical universe. It's a fallacy in informal logic, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up, it's most often used in apologetics to reverse the burden of proof.

David Killens's picture
quantummechanist if you

quantummechanist if you understand and respect science as much as you describe, then you know that we do not have all the answers. Yet.

So let's please not take the easy short-cut and assign everything to a deity. It takes more work than that to understand (and hopefully control) this universe.

I am familiar with the theory that at the beginning of this known universe there should have been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Most was annihilated by each other, but a small fraction of matter survived, leaving only what we observe. So instead of closing the book at this point and just assign a god to whatever happened, let's actually keep investigating and find out what really happened.

https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

But this question may be close to being answered, researchers at the Large Hadron Collider have revealed a tantalizing hint.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-source-asymmetry-antimatter.html

And before we can progress much further, you are asserting that the universe came from nothing. Please prove.

Nyarlathotep's picture
quantummechanist - But there

quantummechanist - But there mass is conserved the product of the masses are doubled so therefore it is impossible for the universe to have come out of nothing...but it is physically impossible for them to have a have come from 0...

It is possible if the positive energy (tied up in the mass) required to create the particles is offset by the creation of negative energy (of the same magnitude).

/e: Since it seems you know a little more than the average would be apologists, I'll leave you with a little more: the conservation of energy is often expressed in English as: energy can not be created or destroyed. That is probably the best way to put it into words for the common person on the street, but it isn't exactly right. Precisely it is the constraint: dE/dt = 0. You might notice that what I said will preserve that constraint.

Nyarlathotep's picture
quantummechanist - ...let's

quantummechanist - ...let's say there is say there are n amount of possibilities that what I said is true so I have a 1/n chance of being correct...

That sounds a lot like what is sometimes referred to as the naive definition of probability; something we see quite often---without justification---from would be apologists. Since you have aspirations of pursuing this stuff academically, I highly recommend not picking up bad habits like this.

quantummechanist's picture
thanks for that mate

thanks for that mate

Sapporo's picture
If it is possible for

If it is possible for something to exist without a creator, it is possible for something to exist without a creator.

Sheldon's picture
Dear fucking god, how many

Dear fucking god, how many theists are going to start separate threads using argument from ignorance fallacies. Not knowing how the universe originated doesn't validate any claim or belief.

xenoview's picture
Can you prove your god is

Can you prove your god is real, what objective evidence do you have?

Before you say your god created anything, you have to prove it's real.

Cognostic's picture
What makes you think the

What makes you think the universe came from nothing? That seems like a really strange idea. Have you ever seen nothing? Can you prove "nothing" is real? How do you get from something, all that there is, to nothing? It is the Religious that make the assertion "Something can not come from nothing." Not science. This is a Religious Apologetic that leads to the "God of the Gaps." We don't know how the universe got here, it could not have come from nothing, therefore "GOD." This is an argument from ignorance fallacy that leads to the god of the gaps.

Randomhero1982's picture
This right here! Well said

This right here! Well said Cognostic!

I've lost count how many times I've asked one of these lot to identify or evidence actual 'nothing'.

Furthermore, asking them to demonstrate a causal link from natural cause and effects to 'GOD did it!!!' is equally futile.

quantummechanist's picture
I have a question for you

I have a question for you @randomhero1982, do you agree that there is more than one universe with different laws of physics?

Sapporo's picture
quantummechanist: I have a

quantummechanist: I have a question for you @randomhero1982, do you agree that there is more than one universe with different laws of physics?

Laws of physics are universal, so it doesn't make sense to talk of other universes with different laws.

Randomhero1982's picture
If we're discussing

If we're discussing cosmological theories such as the multiverse, then I would agree that theories do allow for the possibility that the laws can be different in various regions of space.

However, this is on scales much larger than what we can observe.

I would also say that the most sensible and honest answer is, we don't know.

admin's picture
quantumechanist - you seem to

quantumechanist - you seem to be laboring under the belief that emptiness is "nothingness" and that nothing can be created from this nothingness without a pre-existing god figure. But I can suggest a possibility  -- and it's just one of many, many possibilities -- of how something could have come into being in this universe where there was nothing before.

Mathematically it has been "proven" than there are many dimensions, and that our universe occupies only one of them. Now suppose in an adjacent dimension, an object of incredible mass -- a black hole, say -- exploded with such enormous violence that it actually tore a hole in the fabric of space separating that dimension from this one. The explosion, briefly shared between the two dimensions, blew matter into this dimension with a phenomenal force before the tear finally repaired itself. Billions of years later, we humans, with only a vague idea of what happened, called it the Big Bang. The point is, the universe started up from there, and no god of any kind was required.

So don't think there aren't hypotheses that can be extrapolated that would lead to the formation of this universe without  a god. There are actually many.

quantummechanist's picture
1/0 =undefined, if there was

1/0 =undefined, if there was nothing to begin with, then there was no probability that the universe would exist. nothing is zero regardless

Nyarlathotep's picture
quantummechanist - ...if

quantummechanist - ...if there was nothing to begin with, then there was no probability that the universe would exist...

There is a non-zero probability for any system to tunnel into any other system, so long as both systems have the same conserved values. One way to dispense with this possibility, is to show that nothing and the universe have different conserved values.

Cognostic's picture
You are still in the magical

You are still in the magical land of "IF." "IF" is not real. There is no evidence for anything called "nothing." Not now, not ever. There is only the point at which our physics breaks down and we must admit to ourselves that WE DO NOT KNOW. Why is that so frigging hard for you to grasp? You do not get to invent magical silliness to explain the unknown. It's really simple.

David Killens's picture
The common theme

The common theme

I don't know, therefore god.

Sky Pilot's picture
quantummechanist,

quantummechanist,

"how did the entire Universe come from nothing?"

Do you know how stars are formed? Basically they are globs of celestial hydrogen that go nuclear. So this glob is just hydrogen and over time it cooks up a variety of new elements. So where did those new elements come from? They came from celestial hydrogen. And the celestial hydrogen came from a variety of elemental particles. And those elemental particles came from quantum foam. And before that the quantum foam came from nothing. The problem is that we can not understand the properties of that nothing, which might be something after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

It is estimated that there is over 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. If each galaxy occupied 1 cubic foot of area the 200 billion cubic foot sphere would be over 7 miles in diameter. Now imagine our galaxy in one cubic foot of space in a sphere that is over 7 miles in diameter. Then pick out our very small planet in that one cubic foot. Think about that for a minute.

Now consider the fairy tale about Allah, who is concerned with having all of the muslims visit Mecca. That speck would be microscopic in the 7 mile diameter sphere.

Your God might have made sense to ignorant 7th Century desert Arabs but it is pathetic in the 21st Century among reasonably intelligent people.

quantummechanist's picture
Ok, so quantum foam came from

Ok, so quantum foam came from nothing, we call it nothing because we haven't gotten to finding the cause yet. But my point is where did that 'nothing' come from ultimately? There must have been a cause.

Btw to call Allah(may he be exalted) a fairy tale is a very irrational, as is atheism.
May i ask, why do you completely deny the existence of God when you can't disprove his existence even by logic, while logically monotheists can deduce that there must be a God.
Did you know that the sum of an infinite series 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8..........to infinity is actually -1/12?
That seems inconceivable, but actually if you look at it logically of course by deducing mathematically you actually discover this is true. The point i'm trying to make here is logically, we deduce that God exists .No atheist ever not richard dawkins the late steven hawkins, none of you can disprove the existence of God, so therefore it is very irrational to say there can't be a God. Hence saying Allah is a fairy tale is irrational and is based purely of pride and arrogance. Allah says in the quran 2:18 "Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path]." Even in spite of me giving you absolute logical reasoning you probably won't adhere to it.
Last thing science couldn't have created itself.

xenoview's picture
You can't logic god into

You can't logic god into existence.

You have to provide objective evidence that your god is real. That evidence has to exist outside of your mind. The evidence from your mind is subjective.

quantummechanist's picture
Ok, but then your logic that

Ok, but then your logic that God doesn't exist is also subjective because it's in your head. Its not scientifically proven that God is not real so therefore your view is in your head and therefore objective.

xenoview's picture
I don't believe in any gods,

I don't believe in any gods, because of a lack of objective evidence. No one has yet to show me objective evidence that a god exist. I searched for many different gods, but never found any objective evidence for their existence. The closest I came to objective evidence was worshipping the planet we live on.

So you have the burden of proof that your god is real. Show me some objective evidence it's real.

LogicFTW's picture
@quantummechanist

@quantummechanist

Ok, but then your logic that God doesn't exist is also subjective because it's in your head. Its not scientifically proven that God is not real so therefore your view is in your head and therefore objective.

Uh did you do a typo? How can you in the first sentence say: "subjective is in your head", and in the very next sentence say "is in your head and therefore objective"

Or are you trying to accuse xenoview of taking a subjective idea in his head and make it objective? If so, you are still hung up on the problem of ideas and reality. It is you (and many other theist) that take the subjective idea of god, and try to make it objective, xenoview is pointing out you cannot do that. Not without actual objective evidence in reality to point out that the subjective god idea in your head actually exist in reality.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Nyarlathotep's picture
LogicFTW - Uh did you do a

LogicFTW - Uh did you do a typo? How can you in the first sentence say: "subjective is in your head", and in the very next sentence say "is in your head and therefore objective"

That is the best part (I noticed it too): that we can't tell if he is just contradicting himself, or if it is a typo. That speaks volumes, IMO.

quantummechanist's picture
yeah meant to say subjective

yeah meant to say subjective

Randomhero1982's picture
It a called being a good

It a called being a good bayesian.

xenoview's picture
My believing in zero gods, is

My believing in zero gods, is subjective, not objective. Your belief in a god is subjective.

Objective evidence has to exist outside of the mind.

Cognostic's picture
You need to get off of this

You need to get off of this "God does not exist" kick. The only one around here that cares whether or not your God exists is you. It is not scientifically proven that god is not real. God is an unfalsifiable claim. It is imaginary. The god hypothesis is a null hypothesis without facts, evidence or information to prove it true. If you are going to assert that your god is real, you must provide the facts and evidence to support that claim. It is not up to anyone to disprove the claim. That is not the way the world works. You are engaged in "Special Pleading." You want evidence but do not require evidence for your claim. WRONG BANANA BREATH! Prove your version of god to be real or drop it. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.