Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes. .

yet, time and time and time again, you fail to show that you actually do....!

 

[Road Warrior]

That I can see, but to uses the word theory rather than hypothesis is giving in to their ignorance and using their language.

Awesome. Are you currently in college? I'm genuinely curious.

Back to Multiverses, I offer this:
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-stephen-hawking-master-multiverse.html
Quantum theory predicts a multiverse

At our universe's origin, the macroscopic world dominated by gravity and described by Einstein's warping of space-time merges with the microscopic world of particles, ruled by quantum theory.

To describe what happens at the Big Bang, these two very different perspectives on the world must be combined into a single unified framework.

But quantum theory predicts probabilities for different outcomes. In the quantum theory of particles these could be probabilities to find a particle in one place or another. Applied to cosmology, however, the outcome is an entire universe!

So, any quantum theory of the Big Bang will thus predict a variety of different universes, each with its own evolution. Together these form a multiverse, a superposition of many worlds, existing in parallel.

The hologram at the beginning of time

Drawing on new developments in string theory, Stephen and I developed such a quantum model of the Big Bang.

String theory predicts that our universe is fundamentally a hologram that reveals itself only in the most extreme conditions, such as those at the Big Bang.

This is a bit abstract, but a hologram is a kind of change of dimension in which all information in a volume of space is projected and encoded on a surface. We used the notion of holography, developed in string theory, to project out the dimension of time in the earliest stages of evolution of our universe, and to describe these in an entirely timeless fashion.

In doing so our theory avoids the breakdown of Einstein's theory of relativity at the Big Bang, because we lose any notion of time on our way towards it.

In control of the multiverse

Shortly before his passing I sensed Stephen strongly felt holography gave us the grip on the multiverse he had always searched for.

We are certainly not down to a unique universe, but our description of the Big Bang as a hologram implies a significant reduction of the multiverse, down to an ensemble of universes which evolve in a way similar to ours.

With characteristic and unmitigated enthusiasm, Stephen declared we were at last in control of the multiverse – and he liked being in control.

Perhaps we are. But much more research is needed to decode the hologram at the beginning of time to fully apprehend the new view of the universe that it conceals.

 

[Audie]

FWIW, you may want to talk to an unbiased scientist about your "absence of evidence" ideas.

IWVLON

 

[Road Warrior]

yet, time and time and time again, you fail to show that you actually do....!

Dude, now you're just trolling. What do you think others will regard that as as signal of being?

 

[Road Warrior]

IWVLON

Shall I translate that for you?

TANSTAAFL

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Thanks. Perhaps. We're all somewhat biased to a degree, I just strive to keep my bias down as little as possible. That said, I may not always be able to see my posts in the same light as others. OTOH, obviously my posts irritate the angry Atheist believers just like many of my posts irritate the Bible-thumping theist believers. Hopefully the majority of readers will view my body of posts and not just a single post or small group of posts.

FWIW, you may want to talk to an unbiased scientist about your "absence of evidence" ideas.

You might begin with NOT projecting your own BIASES into what others are saying.

What? Your BIAS prevents you from doing that?

yeah....

 

[Wandering Monk]

Awesome. Are you currently in college? I'm genuinely curious.

Back to Multiverses, I offer this:
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-stephen-hawking-master-multiverse.html
Quantum theory predicts a multiverse

At our universe's origin, the macroscopic world dominated by gravity and described by Einstein's warping of space-time merges with the microscopic world of particles, ruled by quantum theory.

To describe what happens at the Big Bang, these two very different perspectives on the world must be combined into a single unified framework.

But quantum theory predicts probabilities for different outcomes. In the quantum theory of particles these could be probabilities to find a particle in one place or another. Applied to cosmology, however, the outcome is an entire universe!

So, any quantum theory of the Big Bang will thus predict a variety of different universes, each with its own evolution. Together these form a multiverse, a superposition of many worlds, existing in parallel.

The hologram at the beginning of time

Drawing on new developments in string theory, Stephen and I developed such a quantum model of the Big Bang.

String theory predicts that our universe is fundamentally a hologram that reveals itself only in the most extreme conditions, such as those at the Big Bang.

This is a bit abstract, but a hologram is a kind of change of dimension in which all information in a volume of space is projected and encoded on a surface. We used the notion of holography, developed in string theory, to project out the dimension of time in the earliest stages of evolution of our universe, and to describe these in an entirely timeless fashion.

In doing so our theory avoids the breakdown of Einstein's theory of relativity at the Big Bang, because we lose any notion of time on our way towards it.

In control of the multiverse

Shortly before his passing I sensed Stephen strongly felt holography gave us the grip on the multiverse he had always searched for.

We are certainly not down to a unique universe, but our description of the Big Bang as a hologram implies a significant reduction of the multiverse, down to an ensemble of universes which evolve in a way similar to ours.

With characteristic and unmitigated enthusiasm, Stephen declared we were at last in control of the multiverse – and he liked being in control.

Perhaps we are. But much more research is needed to decode the hologram at the beginning of time to fully apprehend the new view of the universe that it conceals.

I am well past college age. Professor Brian Greene covered the multiverse in The Elegant Universe. As I understand it, there are actually several hypotheses on what the multiverse looks like. Professor Brian Cox believes it is flat. Greene has suggested that there may be infinite numbers of universes, but this is only ONE POSSIBLE outcome of the math that lead to the multiverse hypothesis in the first place.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Dude, now you're just trolling. What do you think others will regard that as as signal of being?

Me? Trolling? That would be your continued use of Straw Man against what I actually wrote-- which you repeatedly REWRITE into some sort of weird Belief Thing.

Seriously? Have you tried actually reading what people write, instead of projecting what you WANT them to have written?

No?

Well....

 

[Road Warrior]

I know exactly what it means: The construction of a FALSE STATEMENT from someone's actual statements.

Or deliberate (or accidental) miss-interpretation of someone's statements.

you are guilty of BOTH.

So are you going to fess up and admit that discussing things outside the Natural Universe are, indeed, both logical and sensible?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Disbelief is a belief. It is certainly not neutral. The second the Atheist adopts the position of disbelief, there are evidentiary assumptions being made, a stance adopted and an evidentiary burden being assumed.

As long as this burden is not satisfied just how can anyone deem their position to be rational?

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you disbelieve in unicorns?
If you disbelieve in unicorns, is the burden of proof on you to show that unicorns don't exist, or is it on a person claiming that unicorns do exist?

According to the rules of logic, the person claiming the unicorn exists has the belief and the burden of proof. Not believing that unicorns exist is not a belief. It's a lack of belief.

 

[Road Warrior]

WHAT? Sheesh, man... you make the most IRRATIONAL LEAPS OF PROJECTION I HAVE SEEN, for someone that isn't a theist....

Disagreed, but you, sir, are certainly proving yourself to be a typical forum Atheist who is exactly the polar opposite of a Bible-thumping theist.

Evidence:
1) Typing in all caps to push one's point of view.
2) Trolling, derailing and name-calling when others disagree.
3) Pushing one's beliefs in a highly emotional manner.

Examples:

You might begin with NOT projecting your own BIASES into what others are saying.

What? Your BIAS prevents you from doing that?

yeah....

Me? Trolling? That would be your continued use of Straw Man against what I actually wrote-- which you repeatedly REWRITE into some sort of weird Belief Thing.

Seriously? Have you tried actually reading what people write, instead of projecting what you WANT them to have written?

No?

Well....

 

[We Never Know]

I am sure it is not how you meant it. But it is now
it translates to the audience.

As for this absence of evidence" thing there is no
absolute rule for it.

Nobody has been able to find a living mammoth.
The lack of evidence for their survival into the present
certainly is very strong evidence that they are now
absent from the biosphere of planet earth.

Proof? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes.

Now, if by any chance you actually have some
evidence that they live on, by all means
present it.

Likewise, if you have evidence for "god", great.
Present that too.

Meanwhile, that absence of any evidence for living
mammoths, or your "god" are in fact evidence for
their absence. Add Batboy's secret lab on the moon
as another "evidence of absence" thing.

Not proof, mind you, but pretty darn good evidence.

I find arguing about gods rather pointless. With that said...
- does science study the natural or super natural(if it exists)?
- is science qualified to study the super natural(if it exists)?
- would it know what evidence to look for for super natural(if it exists)?
- we wouldn't know what to look for if something was super natural, above/beyond natural?
- evidence for super natural(if it exists) could be right in front of us without us knowing
- super natural(if it exists) is above our realm of understanding so we wouldn't know it if we crossed it.

 

[Road Warrior]

I am well past college age. Professor Brian Greene covered the multiverse in The Elegant Universe. As I understand it, there are actually several hypotheses on what the multiverse looks like. Professor Brian Cox believes it is flat. Greene has suggested that there may be infinite numbers of universes, but this is only ONE POSSIBLE outcome of the math that lead to the multiverse hypothesis in the first place.

Awesome. So, unlike @Bob the Unbeliever, do you believe it's both logical and sensible to discuss the existence of something outside the Natural Universe? Yes or no, please. This is the crux of the conversation.

 

[Audie]

Shall I translate that for you?

TANSTAAFL

Nope
IIWVLON means
"it is worth very little or nothing", re your
confused ideas about absence of
evidence.
But hey, like I said, I wont try to correct you
again. If you want to be a clown be one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Awesome. So, unlike @Bob the Unbeliever, do you believe it's both logical and sensible to discuss the existence of something outside the Natural Universe? Yes or no, please. This is the crux of the conversation.

Still waiting for your evidence that something outside of literally everything, is even possible...

Until you can do that? It remains irrational to assume such a thing. North of the North Pole.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Disagreed, but you, sir, are certainly proving yourself to be a typical forum Atheist who is exactly the polar opposite of a Bible-thumping theist.

Evidence:
1) Typing in all caps to push one's point of view.
2) Trolling, derailing and name-calling when others disagree.
3) Pushing one's beliefs in a highly emotional manner.

Examples:

So I refuse to write in a droning monotone?

I use caps out of laziness, I suppose I should use italics in order to soothe the thin skin of strawman projective people such as yourself.

Would that make it better? No?

As I thought. I did deliberately capitalize "bias" because you falsely claimed to be without bias...

And you continued to project your extreme bias onto my statement(s), over and over and over...

 

[Wandering Monk]

Awesome. So, unlike @Bob the Unbeliever, do you believe it's both logical and sensible to discuss the existence of something outside the Natural Universe? Yes or no, please. This is the crux of the conversation.

Multiverse is a hypothesis about the Natural Universe and as time goes on we may have the tools to falsify it. The existence of atoms was proposed over 2000 years ago, but only recently have we had the tools to 'see' one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So are you going to fess up and admit that discussing things outside the Natural Universe are, indeed, both logical and sensible?

Are you going to admit that you continue to miss-characterize what I wrote or not?

It is illogical to discuss anything existing outside of literally everything that there is.

Unless you can show such things are possible.

 

[Audie]

I find arguing about gods rather pointless. With that said...
- does science study the natural or super natural(if it exists)?
- is science qualified to study the super natural(if it exists)?
- would it know what evidence to look for for super natural(if it exists)?
- we wouldn't know what to look for if something was super natural, above/beyond natural?
- evidence for super natural(if it exists) could be right in front of us without us knowing
- super natural(if it exists) is above our realm of understanding so we wouldn't know it if we crossed it.

A a lot of people have tried to study a variety of
supernatural ideas.

People make all manner of claims as to what
they can do, but they never can do them under a
microscope, so to speak.

If they could, that would be just terrif evidence.

That they cannot is also evidence, if not, you know, proof.

"Evidence" might be in front of us but it if is undetected,
then it is not evidence.

There is no logic that I can see in your last sentence there.


- super natural(if it exists) is above our realm of understanding so we wouldn't know it if we crossed it

Assuming that it would be "above our realm of
understanding" in no way means we'd not know it
if it occurred in front of us.

Levitate for us, summon daemons, turn a
staff into a serpent, and we will certainly feel
we have seen the supernatural.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Multiverse is a hypothesis about the Natural Universe and as time goes on we may have the tools to falsify it. The existence of atoms was proposed over 2000 years ago, but only recently have we had the tools to 'see' one.

IF someone can demonstrate a method to "go between universes"? THEN, the Universe would automatically include all "universe(s)", would it not?

The root of the word "universe" is pretty much everything that there is.

The introduction of "multi-verse" is semantically problematic, as a result.

Which, I suspect, is why the word "membrane" was substituted.