Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[lukethethird]

It must have had a starting point, no?

It blew it out of my ask me something easier.

 

[Father Heathen]

speculating isn´t searching, you clown.

Whoa. Calm down there, kiddo.

Are theories fact ( real answers), or just theories ?

A scientific theory is usually rejected by other scientists with other pet theories

I have no problem rejecting them as well

You probably shouldn't partake in the discussion until you have an actual understanding of what a scientific theory actually is.
Let me help you out:
What Is a Scientific Theory?
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
What Is a Scientific Theory?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It must have had a starting point, no?

Seems likely. Buggered if I know.

 

[Altfish]

By definition God is the only being who never was created or born, He always existed and will never die or non-exist. Right, please?
That is not the case with Universe. Right, please?

Regards

Again, that is what is known as 'special pleading' - i.e. the rules apply to everything else except my god.
It doesn't impress me, it is just not a satisfactory answer. Why can't the Universe have always existed and cut god out of it?

 

[Altfish]

Please quote from a Science Textbook that the subject of Who created the Universe, is under active research of the scientists. And if yes, under what discipline of science, please?

Regards

Physical Cosmology, is the study of how the universe began...
Cosmology - Wikipedia

 

[Altfish]

What do the non-scientists do, please?
Regards

Benefit from science's discoveries.

 

[Altfish]

Here we are again, ¨ scientists are working on where the universe came from ¨.

Scientists will never know where the universe came from. They will never ever get outside the universe to where the source of the universe is.

That's a very negative approach.
You could be correct but I doubt it... there are many things that people though science would never achieve....but science has proved them wrong.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Universe does not talk to anybody, but God conversed with many human being. Right, please?

Many people claim that some god speaks to them but they often disagree with each other, so at least most of them are wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong.

The obvious conclusion is that all of them are wrong. After all, if a god wanted to get its message to us, why whisper it into a few people's minds so it can easily be confused with all the false/mistaken messages, why not make it plain to everybody?

 

[PureX]

I'm very hap0py that satisfies you.
It doesn't satisfy me. If there is an unknown "God did it" is not a good answer.

Humans don't like the 'unknown' because they can't control it's effect on them. This makes us aware of our profound vulnerability. But the effects of the unknown are not just due to physical machinations, so science can only help us to deal with this in a limited way. And understanding the physics does not always ensure control, so we want more (more control) than this. Which is why so many people prefer to conceptualize the Great Unknown (God of the gaps) in terms of a personification. It helps them to feel that they have some sort of interactive control over it. You may not like this path, or choose it for yourself, but it is the more common path that we humans choose. And it will likely remain so for a very long time, because science cannot provide the kind of control that we humans are seeking.

 

[Altfish]

Humans don't like the 'unknown' because they can't control it's effect on them. This makes us aware of our profound vulnerability. But the effects of the unknown are not just due to physical machinations, so science can only help us to deal with this in a limited way. And understanding the physics does not always ensure control, so we want more (more control) than this. Which is why so many people prefer to conceptualize the Great Unknown in terms of a personification. It helps them to feel that they, at least, have some sort of control over it. You may not like this path, or choose it for yourself, but it is the more common path that we humans choose. And it will likely remain so for a very long time, because science cannot provide the kind of control that we humans are seeking.

"Humans don't like the 'unknown' because they can't control it's effect on them." may be true for you but scientists thrive on the unknown.
Inventing answers solves nothing.
I have no problem with people believing in gods if that helps them... Just don't try to influence my life.

 

[PureX]

But if that's the case, how can you accuse anyone of mischaracterizing God, and how can you denigrate "most" atheists for their approaches to the subject if all they're doing is acting on a conception that they feel works for them and there's no reason to believe that their conception is necessarily inaccurate?

The same way I can accuse us all of breathing. Misunderstanding "God"/reality is a significant part of the human condition. And there are many theists that do not understand this, and/or refuse to acknowledge it, as a great many atheists are happy to point out. But there are just as many atheists who do the same.

 

[Salvador]

Wow, do you do standup ?

The simulation hypothesis should be taken very seriously, it's no joke.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The same way I can accuse us all of breathing. Misunderstanding "God"/reality is a significant part of the human condition. And there are many theists that do not understand this, and/or refuse to acknowledge it, as a great many atheists are happy to point out. But there are just as many atheists who do the same.

But how can you "mischaracterize" something if the only conception you can have of it is personal? You can only accuse something of mischracterizing a thing if you have some idea of what the actual character of the thing is, so how can you do that if you admit your personal conception of God isn't necessarily accurate?

 

[PureX]

But how can you "mischaracterize" something if the only conception you can have of it is personal? You can only accuse something of mischracterizing a thing if you have some idea of what the actual character of the thing is, so how can you do that if you admit your personal conception of God isn't necessarily accurate?

Having no idea what the actual nature (characteristics) of a thing is pretty much guarantees that however we characterize it will be a mischaracterization. We can recognize and acknowledge this, or we can ignore and deny it. Yet the facts of reality and reason remain.

 

[shmogie]

The simulation hypothesis should be taken very seriously, it's no joke.

It just sounds like one

 

[PureX]

Many people claim that some god speaks to them but they often disagree with each other, so at least most of them are wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong.

You are assuming that God would say the same things to everyone, why? Millions of people have visited Michelangelo's sculpture "Pieta" and would say that it "spoke to them". That it changed them emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually. And yet there is no reason we should assume that the message they derived from it must be the same from one person to the next. If Michelangelo can produce a work of art that can inspire and reveal so much to so many, why can't God?

The obvious conclusion is that all of them are wrong.

I don't think that's an obvious conclusion at all, unless you assume an illogically biased premise: that God cannot reveal different insights to different people.

After all, if a god wanted to get its message to us, why whisper it into a few people's minds so it can easily be confused with all the false/mistaken messages, why not make it plain to everybody?

Why would you assume that such a divine message would have to be "one-size-fits-all"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please quote from a Science Textbook that the subject of Who created the Universe, is under active research of the scientists. And if yes, under what discipline of science, please?

Regards

Sorry? It is not a question of "who" but "what" and more important to scientists? How.

We'll leave "Who" for philosophers and to religious people who don't bother with pesky things like observations, and data, and telescopes, gravitometers or any of that silliness.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe in God and I don't celebrate in any event.

That's nice. Some do, some don't--- you did not specify which holiday I'll notice.

 

[Salvador]

It just sounds like one

I don't make fun of Christians who believe Jesus Christ's mother was still a virgin at the time of Christ's birth. Also, I don't make fun of those who believe in Christ's resurrection. So then, maybe Christians shouldn't be so eager to make fun of other people's beliefs.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Triangulation 2 points on the cmb and 1 on earth shows the angles to add up to 180 degrees (to 5 decimal places) indicating the universe to be flat. A flat universe is potentially infinite.

View attachment 26980

Cool! Of course, since the experiment is using light? It's naturally limited to the speed at which light travels, and the rate of expansion of the universe.

In the past, I've read that the Universe was expanding, but slowing down, or remaining a steady rate. But in recent observations, it appears that the rate of expansion is speeding up. I wonder how that effects the experiment you referred to?