The universe was made by/from nothing?

[correll28]

Is that honestly what aethiests believe?

[bokito1]

no one claimed that universe was made from nothing

go to school

[MajorTwang]

Is that honestly what aethiests believe?

No

The Big Bang Theory is robust back as far as the Bang itself, but what happened before goes into the realms of speculative cosmology, and I'm guessing it's going to be re-assessed quite soon.

There's no getting away from a Big Bang of some kind 13.7 billion years ago though

[AKR]

Is that honestly what aethiests believe?

God was made from nothing? Is that what theists/deists believe?


btw, atheism has nothing to do with any beliefs about the nature of the universe.

[thorton]

Theist - God always was, he was made from nothing
Athiest - The Universe came from nothing (This is what it comes down too, no matter what you believe as far as theories go (Big crunch, cyclic ect) before the bang we are speculating, we have no idea where "matter" came from or why).


Core of both arguments.

/thread

[MajorTwang]

God was made from nothing? Is that what theists/deists believe?

They tend to handwave it away by saying that God is eternal & transcends time. What evidence thay have for that assertion is not clear.

[ONtop888]

Theist - God always was, he was made from nothing
Athiest - The Universe came from nothing (This is what it comes down too, no matter what you believe as far as theories go (Big crunch, cyclic ect) before the bang we are speculating, we have no idea where "matter" came from or why).


Core of both arguments.

/thread

This. It's one or the other, take your pick.

[hooked4life]

Theist - God always was, he was made from nothing
Athiest - The Universe came from nothing (This is what it comes down too, no matter what you believe as far as theories go (Big crunch, cyclic ect) before the bang we are speculating, we have no idea where "matter" came from or why).


Core of both arguments.

/thread

No no no. Atheism makes no claims about how anything came into existence.

[correll28]

no one claimed that universe was made from nothing

go to school

I make argument, you immediately toss insults.


You're so well educated.


I understand the big bang and I may believe that, but couldn't it be possible that an all knowing all being spirit was the one to trigger it?


And good argument as far as who made god. I've always wondered that. The bible says "begotten not made" so basically God has always been

[hooked4life]

I make argument, you immediately toss insults.


You're so well educated.


I understand the big bang and I may believe that, but couldn't it be possible that an all knowing all being spirit was the one to trigger it?


And good argument as far as who made god. I've always wondered that. The bible says "begotten not made" so basically God has always been

Not trying to be insulting, but you're reading comprehension in this thread is very lacking. Read the replies again please.

[correll28]

They tend to handwave it away by saying that God is eternal & transcends time. What evidence thay have for that assertion is not clear.

There really is no evidence of anything. That claim is no worse than yours. And since time and space are the same, I absolutely believe that he transcends time.

[correll28]

Not trying to be insulting, but you're reading comprehension in this thread is very lacking. Read the replies again please.

Since I am agreeing and adding to the arguments I don't see how I've missed anything. Seems to me you're going out of your way to be insulting.

[ONtop888]

I make argument, you immediately toss insults.


You're so well educated.


I understand the big bang and I may believe that, but couldn't it be possible that an all knowing all being spirit was the one to trigger it?


And good argument as far as who made god. I've always wondered that. The bible says "begotten not made" so basically God has always been

The argument for God's existence is thAt He is immaterial and exists outside of the laws that dictate our universe and apply to material objects. It is not a proven assertion, it is an a priori, since no one knows if immaterial reality exists. Liewise, no one knows if other universes existed before our own, it is all speculation.

[b.spencer]

I understand the big bang and I may believe that, but couldn't it be possible that an all knowing all being spirit was the one to trigger it?


And good argument as far as who made god. I've always wondered that. The bible says "begotten not made" so basically God has always been

The Bible never actually uses the phrase "begotten, not made" anywhere. That is from the Nicene Creed, referring to Jesus Christ, I believe.

[correll28]

The Bible never actually uses the phrase "begotten, not made" anywhere. That is from the Nicene Creed.

My fault. Guess that would make a difference haha

[MajorTwang]

Athiest - The Universe came from nothing

In fact, the spontaneous generation of matter from nothing is a well established part of Quantum Physics. A particle & antiparticle can pop into existance from nowhere, and because there is an equivalent creation of matter & antimatter, the law of conservation of mass-energy isn't violated.

In the Standard Model of the Big Bang, the entire mass-energy of the Universe is balanced by the net amount of gravitational potential energy inherent in the universe.

Unfortunately, whatever the Big Bang was, it erased all traces of whatever went on before it. Time is something that is defined by the space of the universe - so technically there wasn't a 'before'. Even if there was something, it may have had it's own version of 'time'

[Queequeg]

Theist - God always was, he was made from nothing
Athiest - The Universe came from nothing (This is what it comes down too, no matter what you believe as far as theories go (Big crunch, cyclic ect) before the bang we are speculating, we have no idea where "matter" came from or why).


Core of both arguments.

/thread

This. It's one or the other, take your pick.

I disagree the atheist position is overly simplied narrow representing most the scientism position, likewise the theist poistion is equally narrow conceptually.

The problem is a false dicotomy between the concept of something and nothing fosters this opposing views.

[AKR]

They tend to handwave it away by saying that God is eternal & transcends time. What evidence thay have for that assertion is not clear.

And my response is that the energy of the universe could be eternal as well.

[MajorTwang]

There really is no evidence of anything. That claim is no worse than yours. And since time and space are the same, I absolutely believe that he transcends time.

At least Big Bang Cosmology constrains itself to the physical laws & mathematics which are known* to pervade the Universe.

* Or at least reasonably assumed until evidence to the contrary emerges

[bird72]

And my response is that the energy of the universe could be eternal as well.

energy of the universe????????????????? can you explain that????

[bird72]

I disagree the atheist position is overly simplied narrow representing most the scientism position, likewise the theist poistion is equally narrow conceptually.

The problem is a false dicotomy between the concept of something and nothing fosters this opposing views.

At least the theistic concept is based on cause and effect, something you can observe in our universe.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: as an atheist, I admit that I do not know. I do not enforce a theistic thought system because no theistic thought system is credible enough to warrant investment in. Within our realm of knowledge, based on observable laws, the Big Bang is credible enough to warrant investment in. I don't endorse it because it's scientific: I endorse it becaue it is credible and has evidence behind it to support it. Religion/belief in God is just wishful thinking in comparison to the scientific process.

If it makes theists feel any better, they can wax philosophical all day and try to line up the Big Bang theory with their religious tome of choice. They're still just letting scientists do all the work while they perform mental gymnastics to make reality fit their narrow worldview.

[hooked4life]

At least the theistic concept is based on cause and effect, something you can observe in our universe.

But the theists answer to cause is 'magic.' A scientific answer to an unknown cause is, "I don't know, I'll keep trying to find out.'

Which is better?

[bird72]

But the theists answer to cause is 'magic.' A scientific answer to an unknown cause is, "I don't know, I'll keep trying to find out.'

Which is better?

What you call magic, tomorrow could be science.......I go with ocan, universe needs a cause, you can call it Creator, God, Master, Energy, Alien, etc, regardless, there was a cause for our universe .



Which is better? the cause.

[thorton]

I disagree the atheist position is overly simplied narrow representing most the scientism position, likewise the theist poistion is equally narrow conceptually.

The problem is a false dicotomy between the concept of something and nothing fosters this opposing views.

Simplified is not necessarily bad. What it does represent though is the sheer folly of many people, both theists and atheists who take a position on the word of others. They consume there beliefs like plankton in an ocean not really caring where it came from since it taste good. Even a post such as that from Major Twang which pointed out some of the probably causes of matter which I left out is a very simplified version which could take up volumes of math and formulas to fully comprehend. Likewise the arguments surrounding gods existence can extent much further than "he is immaterial" yet people would disregard those due to the fact they support an end they do not support. The means have no meaning if the end is not believed. Likewise, if the end is believed without a knowledge of the means the person does not have an opinion or belief, they are nothing more than a parrot. I would find it very plausible if you took a handful of educated atheists and removed them from the power to google and wiki and asked them to explain in depth there belief on the existence of the universe or any other belief they hold true. See if they can, I doubt it. I would also say you could do the same to any number of educated Christians and ask them for a theological definition. Likewise they would be unable too. We don't sprout knowledge, we parrot ideologies and because of that, these simplified versions apply in general to the arguments put forth by most theists and atheists, because Queen, most of them have no clue what they are talking about anyway.

[AKR]

energy of the universe????????????????? can you explain that????

About as well as you can explain god existing for eternity. Why is the existence of an omniscient/omnipotent being more likely than an unconscious energy?

[hooked4life]

What you call magic, tomorrow could be science

Well, until "God did it" is science, it's still magic.

[bird72]

About as well as you can explain god existing for eternity. Why is the existence of an omniscient/omnipotent being more likely than an unconscious energy?

You believe energy cause universe?

[Queequeg]

At least the theistic concept is based on cause and effect, something you can observe in our universe.

You can't observe cause and effect that is the principle behind the problem of induction.

Also cause and effect are concepts in themselves and don't nessarily reflect reality in sensical way, but even if we entertain this idea of a causual universe we need to examine what the effect of special relativity has on this notion. If you do so you can see how a regression of causes dosn't make sense. Instead you must adopt an ecological web of events, with mutal dependancy. In such a instance, the labels of cause and effect are purely arbitary.

Regression of causes only makes sense following a Newtonian ideaology with a linear flow of time, which is not current thinking.

If you have a ecological web of events, asking what is before the big bang dosn't make any sense conceptually and you reach the limits of human conception. That is a temperal beings ability to conceive the non temperal.

This is the same flawed reasoning as to why you think that there must first be nothing and then something if you prescibe to atheism, you are apply conceptualised conditions of experience of this universe to objectivity beyond this universe. That is inherently a bad idea and why the two options give are a false dictomy

[Queequeg]

Simplified is not necessarily bad. What it does represent though is the sheer folly of many people, both theists and atheists who take a position on the word of others. They consume there beliefs like plankton in an ocean not really caring where it came from since it taste good. Even a post such as that from Major Twang which pointed out some of the probably causes of matter which I left out is a very simplified version which could take up volumes of math and formulas to fully comprehend. Likewise the arguments surrounding gods existence can extent much further than "he is immaterial" yet people would disregard those due to the fact they support an end they do not support. The means have no meaning if the end is not believed. Likewise, if the end is believed without a knowledge of the means the person does not have an opinion or belief, they are nothing more than a parrot. I would find it very plausible if you took a handful of educated atheists and removed them from the power to google and wiki and asked them to explain in depth there belief on the existence of the universe or any other belief they hold true. See if they can, I doubt it. I would also say you could do the same to any number of educated Christians and ask them for a theological definition. Likewise they would be unable too. We don't sprout knowledge, we parrot ideologies and because of that, these simplified versions apply in general to the arguments put forth by most theists and atheists, because Queen, most of them have no clue what they are talking about anyway.

Your post may be an accurate summary of what many posters here think but its not an accurate summary of the topic