Something from nothing, the big bang, science has it all.

[Jumi]

Is that worse than saying that everything came from everything? The mystery inertia strikes again. Get your space helmets, everyone, were going in. I mean out. Whatever.

Why did it have to come from somewhere? If it came from somewhere, where was it before?

 

[Jumi]

Sure, there is nothing inherently illogical about this deity idea, imo. I tend to think of the Biblical Deity as self created, though. A creator Deity, implying He literally 'made' the matter He moved, for example in Genesis.

//I think that He created the matter, then the narration starts with His actions.

How did he come from nothing? Was there nothing before him? It's the same question.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why did it have to come from somewhere? If it came from somewhere, where was it before?

Because of the movement. A static state would imply everything always existing in the same quantity. This is really weird, yes, but we do observe a lot of movement, energy, there really isn't a reason to assume that it always remains ''even'', just floats around space. Well, i'm not aware of any reason to believe that.

 

[Jumi]

Because of the movement. A static state would imply everything always existing in the same quantity. This is really weird, yes, but we do observe a lot of movement, energy, there really isn't a reason to assume that it always remains ''even'', just floats around space. Well, i'm not aware of any reason to believe that.

There's no reason to assume it's destroyed. Matter is energy, energy is matter. Isn't that a beautiful thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

How did he come from nothing? Was there nothing before him? It's the same question.

I think we could say that, there was nothing before Him, yes. This is theology, of course. He didn't actually ''come from nothing''. As self created that would mean He always was, essentially.

 

[Lyndon]

If there was a Big Bang it was probably a previous Universe that imploded on itself, so it didn't start with nothing, it started with all the requisite parts, sub atomic particles etc. Whether God existed before the Big Bang is obviously impossible to even theorize, I think the Universe exists and God is above that, not God creating Black holes to suck up stars with planets quite likely inhabited by life etc, Raining comets and asteroids on earths that destroy 95% of life, IMHO those are the characteristics of the physical universe, not God which is beyond that.

 

[Jumi]

The difference is there is no scientific proof for source. Matter transforming to energy we experience every day. Other than that, on a philosophical level, maybe not as much as we'd think.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not really sure what your point is. The ''everything'' had to come from somewhere, the inertia had to come from somewhere, so how are you reaching the conclusion that theism or a religious explanation is somehow illogical here? I mean, you are saying everything always was, but this type of theory has no ''proof'', in anything that we observe. WE DO NOT ACTUALLY OBSERVE INERTIA COMING FROM ''NOWHERE''. It is always coming from ''somewhere'', just at far distances, so a point of source is not known.

Sure it did. Or maybe it always was. There's certainly no evidence that there has ever been nothing.

That's the point. Everything is everything. We have never recorded and instance of nothing, because we exist in the everything. As such, science has never stated that everything came from nothing.

Everything came from everything.

The gaps in knowledge certainly provide reason for faith in the supernatural, and I'm not saying that they are illogical. They're simply unsupported.
If you say "Well that gap in knowledge is where god did some stuff" then fine. The next obvious question is "what did god do, specifically, and how did he do it?" Likewise, what do you do with your argument for god when said gap in knowledge is filled? Do you just move on to another gap in knowledge and hope that faith can reside there?

Faith and theology and religion can throw some guesses on the table, but there's nothing to substantiate them other than desire, wishful thinking, bias, preference...whatever you want to call it. They aren't bad, necessarily. They're just baseless.

On the accusation that there is no proof that everything always was, can you cite an example of there every being nothing? If you cannot, then you cannot make the claim that nothing precluded everything. And there is plenty of evidence that everything always was. Matter changes form and function, and can vary in quantity and location, but it does not diminish.

Conservation of mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, as a caveat, there are some ongoing studies and some data which implies that our closed system of a Universe may not be closed at all, which would have much broader implications than just arguing about the Big Bang. This new data could also validate the Multiverse theory, or not. We just don't know yet. And that's cool.

I think it's a much more defensible stance to cite ignorance of a topic than to feign knowledge where there is none.

 

[`mud]

Stardust into stardust.
And a little bit of help in between.
~
'mud

 

[leibowde84]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something. Then goop on an asteroid came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere, with no purpose, but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing, remember, then hit earth, then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.

lol. Funny, funny stuff.

 

[dust1n]

I think the evidence that God/gods exist is greater than the evidence that the big bang actually happened. For one thing I would think more people believe in God/gods than the big bang, must be some evidence at least for those people that believe.

I think that's just evidence that humans have a far too inflated sense of knowledge.

 

[dust1n]

Yep, basically. It's selective hearing, you might say. They are selecting the data that supports pre-conceived theories, and hoping for matches. Classic case of confirmation bias.

Except this is wrong, considering observations like Hubble's Law (amazing evidence for Big Bang) predated the Big Bang theory some 40 years.

Hard to select data that supports pre-conceived theories, when the theories aren't even conceived yet.

 

[dust1n]

The big bang of today is closer to the steady state of yester-year than anything. Check out m-theory and branes.

Possible, but lacking physical evidence.

 

[dust1n]

If there was a Big Bang it was probably a previous Universe that imploded on itself, so it didn't start with nothing, it started with all the requisite parts, sub atomic particles etc...

This isn't substantiated at all.

 

[Tumah]

Possible, but lacking physical evidence.

Time solves everything

 

[dust1n]

Time solves everything

Perhaps, but unfortunately, I don't think we're going to be around by the time that level of technology necessary will be around.

 

[metis]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something. Then goop on an asteroid came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere, with no purpose, but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing, remember, then hit earth, then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.

There's a big difference between a scientific hypothesis versus stating something as fact that there is no objective evidence for.

 

[Mycroft]

Something from nothing, in fact, everything from nothing, but we can call it something. Then goop on an asteroid came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere, with no purpose, but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing, remember, then hit earth, then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...

Hey, if you want magical and mysterious, don't look to religion, look to science.

Most respectable scientists now do not believe that 'something came from nothing'.

 

[metis]

Most respectable scientists now do not believe that 'something came from nothing'.

I agree, and an example of how this can be misconstrued is Hawking's hypothesis that our universe came from "nothing"-- except gravitational waves.

 

[Parsimony]

Is that worse than saying that everything came from everything? The mystery inertia strikes again. Get your space helmets, everyone, were going in. I mean out. Whatever.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Science doesn't say where "everything" came from. That's still a mystery.