Atheists: Alternatives to Creation?

[HOF44]

String theory has not been proven, hell, they don't even have the formulas completed yet. So it is NOT fact.

Alan Guth of MIT has mathematically proven that the universe cannot be past-eternal, it cannot have been around forever. He has already toured the Us, been peer reviewed and everything. Here is the abstract from one of his seminars:

Alan Guth

Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT

Eternal Inflation and Past Incompleteness

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of many singularity theorems. In this talk I will describe a recent theorem by Vilenkin, Borde, and me which uses a simple kinematical argument, independent of any energy conditions, to show that a cosmological model that is inflating-- or just expanding sufficiently fast-- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtained a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic.

Also, there is the little problem of the impossibility of traversing infinity. Can you count to infinity? No.

So if the universe has been around forever, it means that in order to get to today (call it 0), then it must have gone from negative infinity to 0. Clearly impossible.

He is working under the assumption that the Big Bang was created from a cingularity. Granted Brane Theory is in its early developement, but if it continues to withstand review it would dispute the idea of the BigBang coming from a cingulartiy. It is a very promising theory. The math behind it is solid, experimental confirmation is needed though.

If Mtheory and Brane theory do end up being a widely accepted proven theory it will turn our understanding of the universe on its ear.

[Gigantor]

He is working under the assumption that the Big Bang was created from a cingularity. Granted Brane Theory is in its early developement, but if it continues to withstand review it would dispute the idea of the BigBang coming from a cingulartiy. It is a very promising theory. The math behind it is solid, experimental confirmation is needed though.

If Mtheory and Brane theory do end up being a widely accepted proven theory it will turn our understanding of the universe on its ear.

I disagree with the math behind it being solid. That is not the case. I do agree that if the theory is confirmed, it will have major implications. Part of my frustration with atheists is that they speak as if string theory, multi-verses and the rest of these ideas are fact.

[jrockster21]

Actually, cause and effect are philosophical concepts. Scientific foundations include observation and correlation.

:applause: Thank you...I was unable to say that clearly, but that is what I meant!

[HOF44]

I disagree with the math behind it being solid. That is not the case. I do agree that if the theory is confirmed, it will have major implications. Part of my frustration with atheists is that they speak as if string theory, multi-verses and the rest of these ideas are fact.

I appreciate the open mind in regards to the theories possible implications.

What equations affecting the theory do you think are suspect?

[Mooka]

I disagree with the math behind it being solid. That is not the case. I do agree that if the theory is confirmed, it will have major implications. Part of my frustration with atheists is that they speak as if string theory, multi-verses and the rest of these ideas are fact.

Atheists? There are plenty of religious scientists who believe in these theories.

I don't always hear the string theory being presented as fact, but most of the scientists I'm around refer to the big-bang as a fact. There is some math behind some of the multi-verse theories, but if I understand them correctly, those theories are just possible solutions to some of the questions we're running into.

[HOF44]

Here is another good, not to complicated explanation of M theory and where it stands at the moment.

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

[PokerPacker]

Empty space = is something that exists, no?

actually, empty space is the lack of existance if i'm not mistaken

[webnarc]

Didnt happen.

:laugh: that killed me.

[Prosperity]

Some present the Kalam Cosmological Argument and it's supporting evidence as proof of creation. I find it a very reasonable hypothesis, here it is for your consideration:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1a) Cause and Effect

1b) Self-evident common sense

2) The universe began to exist.

2a) The General Theory of Relativity

2b) The Big Bang Theory

2c) The Impossibility of Traversing Infinity

2d) Mathematical Proof the Universe Cannot be Past-Eternal

3) therefore, the universe has a cause.

I'm just curious, could an atheist here please postulate the most plausible, coherent alternative hypothesis to creation? Thanks.

a few thoughts

1. That argument does not neccesitate a God

2. Why couldn't the universe have always existed, not in the form it is now, but generally have existed in someway. What mathmatical proof do you have?

3. If you want to use cause and effect as a premise, then why not something can't come from nothing? (there are argument against cause and effect btw, David Hume wrote a pretty good one)

4. If you do believe in cause and effect then how could there ever logically be a first cause?

5. You can not logically say something created itself.

[portisizzle]

Also, there is the little problem of the impossibility of traversing infinity. Can you count to infinity? No.

So if the universe has been around forever, it means that in order to get to today (call it 0), then it must have gone from negative infinity to 0. Clearly impossible.

I will stop at this point before reading further and PREDICT that Chrome will say "just because you can not understand infinity, that doesn't mean that I can't. Science CLEARLY understands infinity and can describe it quite well. Limits!!

My hypothesis is on the table....

Gigantor, this is my whole problem with ANY conversation with an atheist or agnostic who would prop science up as the means to ignor the theory of creation. In the case of trying to understand our universe current scientific theories ignor any concept of beginning by applying infinity. By doing so they are not bound by any answer that in any way would say "their was a beginning". This is because for something to have a beginning that it must have been created.

[PokerPacker]

why is it that you theists always ask us how the universe started, but never answer our questions as to how god started? if your cause and effect scenario applies to the universe, then it applies to god.

[HOF44]

why is it that you theists always ask us how the universe started, but never answer our questions as to how god started? if your cause and effect scenario applies to the universe, then it applies to god.

Very well put Poker.

[portisizzle]

I have a shoe. Three options.

1) The shoe, with all its detail and multiple materials, has always existed in its current form.

2) The shoe, though time and nature moulded and formed; was cut and crafted; joined and organized into the current form.

3) Something took individual parts, adhesive, plastic, leather, metal, thread, and created the shoe.

We know the shoe exists because it is here. On my foot. I just tied the laces. The form and function is perfect and seems to me to be inspired from something that knew a human body needed protection and traction.

So with this analogy, which answer do you take?

1) It always was?

2) It developed from the primorteal soup?

3) It was created?

THIS is a simple example of a shoe! Now how in the heck does a neutral, objective scientist NOT look at our universe and develop the SAME THREE THEORIES?

1) It always was.

2) Chaos begat order form and function.

3) It was created.

I get it! Because scientists are NOT objective. Where am I wrong?

[portisizzle]

why is it that you theists always ask us how the universe started, but never answer our questions as to how god started? if your cause and effect scenario applies to the universe, then it applies to god.

You make the argument of creation that much more compelling if indeed you subscribe to this point of view.

[Thiebear]

Exactly..

Q: How did the Universe start?

A: A super dense ultra blackhole dot exploded etc and created everything else..

Q: But what created the dot?

A: Don't know, still working on that one.

A: God Started the Universe.

Q: But who started God?

A: God willed himself into being...

Q: What? Whered the will/consciousness come from?

A: You have to believe and since you don't you wouldn't understand..

no more questions.... please disperse...

Q: But you owe us an answer..

A: Its in the Bible...

Q: Man wrote the Bible...

A: Yes but from God

rinse

repeat.

[AlexRS]

Here is another good, not to complicated explanation of M theory and where it stands at the moment.

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml

from the article:

Einstein once said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.” Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for the “tail” that would lead him to the “lion,” the fabled unified field theory or the “theory of everything,” which would unite all the forces of the universe into a single equation.

Sounds like that "single equation" is God.

[Thiebear]

from the article:

Sounds like that "single equation" is God.

Wheres his tail?

[PokerPacker]

I have a shoe. Three options.

1) The shoe, with all its detail and multiple materials, has always existed in its current form.

2) The shoe, though time and nature moulded and formed; was cut and crafted; joined and organized into the current form.

3) Something took individual parts, adhesive, plastic, leather, metal, thread, and created the shoe.

We know the shoe exists because it is here. On my foot. I just tied the laces. The form and function is perfect and seems to me to be inspired from something that knew a human body needed protection and traction.

So with this analogy, which answer do you take?

1) It always was?

2) It developed from the primorteal soup?

3) It was created?

THIS is a simple example of a shoe! Now how in the heck does a neutral, objective scientist NOT look at our universe and develop the SAME THREE THEORIES?

1) It always was.

2) Chaos begat order form and function.

3) It was created.

I get it! Because scientists are NOT objective. Where am I wrong?

the problem with your analogy is that shoes do not reproduce themselves, people do.

[portisizzle]

Allow me to amend this if I may.

Exactly..

Q: How did the Universe start?

A: A super dense ultra blackhole dot exploded etc and created everything else..

Q: But what created the dot?

A: Don't know, still working on that one.

A: God Started the Universe.

Q: But who started God?

A: No one started God.

Q: Then how did this all begin?

A: It was created.

Q: How do you know it was created?

A: Because something can not come from nothing.

Q: But their is anti-matter and particles jumping from other dimensions!

Q: OK, fine. Then how were these particles created?

A: Don't know, still working on that one.

Q: Why are you so dead set against creation?

A: Don't know, still working on that one.

[portisizzle]

the problem with your analogy is that shoes do not reproduce themselves, people do.

Exactly.

So who produced the universe?

[HOF44]

I have a shoe. Three options.

1) The shoe, with all its detail and multiple materials, has always existed in its current form.

2) The shoe, though time and nature moulded and formed; was cut and crafted; joined and organized into the current form.

3) Something took individual parts, adhesive, plastic, leather, metal, thread, and created the shoe.

We know the shoe exists because it is here. On my foot. I just tied the laces. The form and function is perfect and seems to me to be inspired from something that knew a human body needed protection and traction.

So with this analogy, which answer do you take?

1) It always was?

2) It developed from the primorteal soup?

3) It was created?

THIS is a simple example of a shoe! Now how in the heck does a neutral, objective scientist NOT look at our universe and develop the SAME THREE THEORIES?

1) It always was.

2) Chaos begat order form and function.

3) It was created.

I get it! Because scientists are NOT objective. Where am I wrong?

The logical problem with your analogy is you are trying to say that complex sytems or organisms must be created, they cannot arise from nothing. From your description of Gods capabilities if he/she/it does exist, how did he/she/it come together without being created? I would think God would definetly qualify as a more complex contruct than a shoe.

[portisizzle]

The logical problem with your analogy is you are trying to say that complex sytems or organisms must be created, they cannot arise from nothing. From your description of Gods capabilities if he/she/it does exist, how did he/she/it come together without being created? I would think God would definetly qualify as a more complex contruct than a shoe.

Indeed.

So then we are left with this.

Do you or do you not believe this statement: "that something can not come from nothing?"

1) If you do NOT believe this then you are defying all science and logic as we understand it. I am willing to entertain this thought.

2) If you do believe this then you must come to the conclusion that this "something" was created. "What or who" did then becomes the question. The question is not "IF" it was created.

[HOF44]

Indeed.

So then we are left with this.

Do you or do you not believe this statement: "that something can not come from nothing?"

1) If you do NOT believe this then you are defying all science and logic as we understand it. I am willing to entertain this thought.

2) If you do believe this then you must come to the conclusion that this "something" was created. "What or who" did then becomes the question. The question is not "IF" it was created.

I believe the universe has always existed. Even I did not beleive it, in the world of quantum mechanics something can come from nothing.

[tizzod]

The problem with a Creationist and an Atheist going head to head "debating" is, nothing ever gets accomplished. Each is dead-set in their ways and they just go round and round in circles and after much exhaustive debate, they find themselves right back where they started.

Hence the reason why I never get involved in said debates.

[portisizzle]

I believe the universe has always existed. Even I did not beleive it, in the world of quantum mechanics something can come from nothing.

Just remember, and I respect your opinion on this, that in the process of chasing the lion's tail that science is doing nothing more nothing less than revealing the lion. They are not creating the lion, per se.

Einstein once said, “Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.” Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for the “tail” that would lead him to the “lion,” the fabled unified field theory or the “theory of everything,” which would unite all the forces of the universe into a single equation.