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

[Jumi]

'Cup of tea', doesn't mean it's not ''reality''. It means a personal opinion. Could be correct, or incorrect.

Most of the time it's just gut feeling, like when you like some unhealthy food but still eat it because you want to. And when we put on weight or our heart fails because of it, it's because our feeling never matches up to reality.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

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.

 

[Marisa]

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.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FearGod]

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.

The usual question if God then who created God.

While we can't understand and we'll never understand it but there's no escape that God does exist.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Something from nothing,

In Physics, there is no such thing as nothing. There is no evidence that there has ever been "nothing"

in fact, everything from nothing,

Not true. See above.
The correct statement would be "everything from everything"

but we can call it something.

Because it was

Then goop on an asteroid

Transpermia - Transpermia - microbes hitch a ride between planets

Panspermia - Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both imply abiogenetic processes elsewhere in the Universe and not are the only hypothesis available.

came from nowhere which would have to be somewhere

It came from somewhere, which was somewhere.

with no purpose,

And?

but yet cause, but not really cause, rather inertia, from nothing,

Motion from the explosion of the everything is cause, lending inertia

then hit earth

You skipped the part about the Earth forming, just like every other celestial body.

then morphed into the plants etc. we have on earth...

Assuming transpermia.
If the organic building blocks were already here in abundance, then we would have had our own abiogenetic beginning.

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

Scientific explanations are, like, totally inferior to this:

 

[Desert Snake]

The usual question if God then who created God.

While we can't understand and we'll never understand it but there's no escape that God does exist.

Actually, scientists also keep stumbling over this conundrum as well, except there is no 'creator', everything sorta just 'is', 'was', whatever. It's pretty magical.

 

[`mud]

hey Jon,
Interesting summation !
~
'mud

 

[Tumah]

So it all was there forever or what do you think? Not a big fan of big bang, I'd prefer if there was a steady state universe, but what can you do, that's what facts point towards so far.

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

 

[`mud]

As I replied to Typist in another thread
Some here are confusing 'void' and 'space' as the same thing.
'Space' is the bath in which that the Cosmos exists, planets, moons, suns, stars, meteors, and whole galaxies.
'Void' is thought to be outside of the present inflation of the expanding Cosmos.
It is thought to have happened when the original big bang was created by something, maybe God.
But.....'Space' is not a 'void'.
~
P.S. I don't believe the single singularity ever happened,
nor do I believe in the big bang theory.
~
There have been many, many "big bangs", and resulting singularities,
the Cosmos is like a large pop-corn popper, never stops, never really started !
NuffStuff
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

In Physics, there is no such thing as nothing. There is no evidence that there has ever been "nothing"



Not true. See above.
The correct statement would be "everything from everything"

And that makes it less ''mystical''? Dude, ''everything from everything''? Was the inertia in this 'everything'', then decided to 'move' at some point? Where did that energy come from, if everything was already there? Once you attempt to explain inertia, explain the massive variation in inertia, necessary to implode this ''everything''. Where did the inertia for implosion come from?

Because it was




Transpermia - Transpermia - microbes hitch a ride between planets

Panspermia - Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both imply abiogenetic processes elsewhere in the Universe and not are the only hypothesis available.



It came from somewhere, which was somewhere.



And?



Motion from the explosion of the everything is cause, lending inertia



You skipped the part about the Earth forming, just like every other celestial body.



Assuming transpermia.
If the organic building blocks were already here in abundance, then we would have had our own abiogenetic beginning.



Scientific explanations are, like, totally inferior to this:

 

[`mud]

The 'inertia' is the 'everything'.
~
'mud

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Religious people like to try to use science to prove their beliefs correct.

Science, on the other hand, strangely, never try to use religion to prove their findings correct.

 

[Parsimony]

Since when does science say that everything came from nothing?

 

[jonathan180iq]

And that makes it less ''mystical''? Dude, ''everything from everything''? Was the inertia in this 'everything'', then decided to 'move' at some point? Where did that energy come from, if everything was already there? Once you attempt to explain inertia, explain the massive variation in inertia, necessary to implode this ''everything''. Where did the inertia for implosion come from?

It's substantiated, therefore it is less mystical. Nothing made a decision to move. Mass and potential energy provide everything required for action.

I don't know everything. Humanity doesn't know everything. But I(we) can make very educated guesses based on observations.
Observations have lead to the conclusions that we have. We didn't start with this idea that there was a Big Bang and then tried to prove it correct. That's simply what the data suggests. There's also data suggesting that our universe is just one in an infinite undulating succession of universes. And there's nothing mystical about it. It's just data.

If existence simply is, as suggested by my last assertion, then the only required for existence, in any universe, is gravity and a few elements. Gravity, hydrogen, and helium, for example, are entirely capable of producing stars, as I'm sure you know. And when stars burn through all of their fuel and begin to collapse, heavier elements are created in the process. The evolution of heavier elements from hydrogen and helium isn't magic or mysticism. It's evidenced in the 800 octillion examples that you can look up and observe every single night of your life, barring cloud cover. Those two elements, in enough quantity, can "create" or produce everything that we know to be reality.

Simple question - if you compressed all of our existence into a microscopic space, would that space contain nothing? It certainly wouldn't take up as much space as the previous version of existence, but would the compressed existence contain nothing?

No. Of course not. That compressed existence would contain everything.

The argument has never been made that everything came from nothing.
As I stated before, everything came from everything.

 

[`mud]

hey Disciple,

Thank you mushily, remember....momentum always follows inertia, and of course.......
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

It's substantiated, therefore it is less mystical. Nothing made a decision to move. Mass and potential energy provide everything required for action.

I don't know everything. Humanity doesn't know everything. But I(we) can make very educated guesses based on observations.
Observations have lead to the conclusions that we have. We didn't start with this idea that there was a Big Bang and then tried to prove it correct. That's simply what the data suggests. There's also data suggesting that our universe is just one in an infinite undulating succession of universes. And there's nothing mystical about it. It's just data.

If existence simply is, as suggested by my last assertion, then the only required for existence, in any universe, is gravity and a few elements. Gravity, hydrogen, and helium, for example, are entirely capable of producing stars, as I'm sure you know. And when stars burn through all of their fuel and begin to collapse, heavier elements are created in the process. The evolution of heavier elements from hydrogen and helium isn't magic or mysticism. It's evidenced in the 800 octillion examples that you can look up and observe every single night of your life, barring cloud cover. Those two elements, in enough quantity, can "create" or produce everything that we know to be reality.

Simple question - if you compressed all of our existence into a microscopic space, would that space contain nothing? It certainly wouldn't take up as much space as the previous version of existence, but would the compressed existence contain nothing?

No. Of course not. That compressed existence would contain everything.

The argument has never been made that everything came from nothing.
As I stated before, everything came from everything.

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''.

 

[Desert Snake]

Since when does science say that everything came from nothing?

Is that worse than saying that everything came from everything? The mystery inertia strikes again.

 

[Lyndon]

I don't know that I believe in a God that created every atom in the Universe. I think of God as working more with what already exists, with an ability to "create" life by influencing the evolutionary process. Could God create an object out of thin air, without putting all the constituent parts together from pre-existing material, I tend to think not. Could God influence atoms to join and move, I think quite likely Yes.

 

[Desert Snake]

hey Disciple,

Thank you mushily, remember....momentum always follows inertia, and of course.......
~
'mud

I'm not arguing with you. Inertia, however, is it's own problem. So is matter, of course, but I don't mind giving that to the other team.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know that I believe in a God that created every atom in the Universe. I think of God as working more with what already exists, with an ability to "create" life by influencing the evolutionary process. Could God create an object out of thin air, without putting all the constituent parts together from pre-existing material, I tend to think not. Could God influence atoms to join and move, I think quite likely Yes.

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.