• Atheists' view of world creation?
    259 replies, posted
[QUOTE=latin_geek;33139146]It's a possibility deriving from another.[/QUOTE] So?
Universe has so many secrets and it's sad I will die before finding a lot of them.
[QUOTE=Capitalist Dog;33136899]Science can be easily compared to religion. It is composed of theories and facts. One could say the Christian bible is also composed of theories and facts, or any other "holy" book.[/QUOTE] No, it can not be compared to religion in any sense. That is completely and totally false. Religion generally requires you have faith (which is to believe in something without any evidence). Science does not require you to believe in something without evidence, in fact everything in science is based on proving an idea with evidence. A scientific "theory" is the highest level an idea can go in science. Scientific theories and scientific laws are two completely different things. Theories never become scientific laws and laws never become theories. The christian bible is not full of theories (it is full of lectures and sermons), and again, this is showing how you're misrepresenting the word "theory". In common usage, people will use the word "theory" as if it means "to take a guess at something". In a scientific context, a theory is a well supported idea with mountains of evidence behind it. A theory like the Theory of Evolution is not an opinion, it's not a guess, it's a solid fact that is as much of a solid fact as gravity is. Unsupported claims such as earth being 6000 years old and created in 6 days do not get equal weight against scientific fact in a discussion. tl;dr: No, science is nothing like religion. You're using the wrong definition of the term "theory" as if it means it's some type of guess, and it's not. A theory in science is as much of a proven fact as you can possibly get. The Big Bang and Evolution will never be able to get higher classification than a theory, it is the highest possible level of a scientific idea.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33134891]The big bang is long-gone history. No need to go prove it, since we can't go back to a place where any big bang would occur. SO! How can we trigger a new big bang? We need an extremely hot and dense state for our Universe to be in.. hmm.. How in the fuck? Maybe like in Futurama, once the universe is 100% of dark matter which would be the end of time, it will glitch and go boom.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why they made the Large Hadron Collider? To "re-create" the Big Bang?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33134891]The big bang is long-gone history. No need to go prove it, since we can't go back to a place where any big bang would occur.[/QUOTE] You can prove it without having a time machine. There are many good reasons to try to prove something in the past. I mean would you say finding dino bones are useless because we can't go back in time and ride them?
[QUOTE=Noble;33139603]No, it can not be compared to religion in any sense. That is completely and totally false. Religion generally requires you have faith (which is to believe in something without any evidence). Science does not require you to believe in something without evidence, in fact everything in science is based on proving an idea with evidence. A scientific "theory" is the highest level an idea can go in science. Scientific theories and scientific laws are two completely different things. Theories never become scientific laws and laws never become theories. The christian bible is not full of theories (it is full of lectures and sermons), and again, this is showing how you're misrepresenting the word "theory". In common usage, people will use the word "theory" as if it means "to take a guess at something". In a scientific context, a theory is a well supported idea with mountains of evidence behind it. A theory like the Theory of Evolution is not an opinion, it's not a guess, it's a solid fact that is as much of a solid fact as gravity is. Unsupported claims such as earth being 6000 years old and created in 6 days do not get equal weight against scientific fact in a discussion. tl;dr: No, science is nothing like religion. You're using the wrong definition of the term "theory" as if it means it's some type of guess, and it's not. A theory in science is as much of a proven fact as you can possibly get. The Big Bang and Evolution will never be able to get higher classification than a theory, it is the highest possible level of a scientific idea.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid this guy is right. [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] The party's over, let's go home guys
The way I see it, we just don't know. There's a good chance it all started at the big bang, I'm sure a dedicated scientist can go into details about it. But why did it happen? Where did everything come from? Why does physics work in exactly the way it does? Like, why 12 particles of matter? Why not 13? We don't know everything, and it seems wrong to me to assume things. And science is still working on figuring it all out. Whether a God kicked off the big bang or our universe is just one in a sea of universe-bubbles, nobody knows for sure. But they're working on it.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;33139865]The way I see it, we just don't know. There's a good chance it all started at the big bang, I'm sure a dedicated scientist can go into details about it. But why did it happen? Where did everything come from? Why does physics work in exactly the way it does? Like, why 12 particles of matter? Why not 13? We don't know everything, and it seems wrong to me to assume things. And science is still working on figuring it all out. Whether a God kicked off the big bang or our universe is just one in a sea of universe-bubbles, nobody knows for sure. But they're working on it.[/QUOTE] Why not is a really stupid question to ask. You could ask how, which can be answered, but why not makes no sense. If it was 13 you'd ask, why not 12?
Of course it is. What I mean is that any number seems possible, so how did it come to be exactly 12? I suppose you're right, but the original question wasn't "why not" but rather "why 12". Fuck it, just forget all that. What I mean is that we don't really know exactly why reality is put together the way it is. At least as far as I know.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33133546]If I remember right, there's an anomaly in which basic matter is spontaneously formed (yes, from nothing). This allows the creation of (over a lot of time) large amounts of matter and anti-matter.[/QUOTE] This isn't an anomaly, it's something that Quantum mechanics predicts perfectly. [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;33134891]The big bang is long-gone history. No need to go prove it, since we can't go back to a place where any big bang would occur.[/QUOTE] But we can see where the Big Bang occured, because of the time light takes to propagate. This is literally what the cosmic microwave background is, we can see the Bang as it happened. [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;33135126]You see, I think each of our existences have some significance to the workings of life itself.[/QUOTE] I think it doesn't, your move. (do you see the problem here) [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=No_0ne;33136573]Nothing even a fraction as old as the universe exists without a cycle of renewal. I believe that the universe has always existed, but undergoes a cycle of collapsing on itself and exploding to form a new universe.[/QUOTE] This is unsustainable as entropy wouldn't decrease with each renewal. Eventually you'd get a homogenous mass. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics[/url] [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitalist Dog;33136899]Science can be easily compared to religion. It is composed of theories and facts. One could say the Christian bible is also composed of theories and facts, or any other "holy" book.[/QUOTE] A scientific theory and a religious "theory" are two very different things. The latter could be better described by the word "hypothesis" really. For a better explanation, see this: [url]http://notjustatheory.com/[/url] It's about evolution in particular, but it applies to other things as well. [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=J-Dude;33137390]As to what's outside the Universe... Well, consider how many times humanity was ever correct in assuming that something we discovered was the only one of its kind. First we assumed that our Sun was the only Sun, and that our world was the only world. Then, once we figured out what a galaxy was, we, of course, concluded that our galaxy was the only galaxy. In these assumptions, we've proven to be about as wrong as any creature could be.[/QUOTE] This is cargo-cult philosophy. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong[/url] [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;33139603]Scientific theories and scientific laws are two completely different things. Theories never become scientific laws and laws never become theories.[/QUOTE] Slight correction there: Laws can be derived from Theories. eg you can derive Kepler's Laws of Planetary Orbits from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation. [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33139960]Why not is a really stupid question to ask. You could ask how, which can be answered, but why not makes no sense. If it was 13 you'd ask, why not 12?[/QUOTE] This is wrong. It's really just a rephrasing of the question.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33133512]Sure, but again, we're talking about imaginative things. You must understand that just because they are in a journal, they aren't set in stone. The Big Bang theory was imagined, and then scientific pieces were able to fit into the theory.[/QUOTE] No, the Big Bang was a hypothesis; using different pieces of evidence to support it, it gained a large amount of support in the scientific community. Also, every one seems really up in arms about the idea of something that comes out of nothing. I'm fairly sure that this is a common thing, based on some whacky quantum mechanics. This is called Pair production, where a particle and it's opposite (for example a proton and an anti-proton) are spontaneously created. Normally they annihilate each other, but in some instances, one particle is destroyed and the other isn't.
[QUOTE=Garik;33139148]Religion: God has always existed. Science: Before universe was nothing and something popped out from nothing. They're both mindfucks and impossible to disprove/prove[/QUOTE] Well see its more that science is saying "we don't yet know what happened before the universe existed" rather than "nothing existed and then something popped out from nothing". Saying "we don't know" isn't making a claim of any sort, and doesn't require any burden of proof. Saying "God has always" existed is a claim of certainty, and the burden of proof is on the person making this claim to prove it's true.
[QUOTE=macerator;33140522]I'm fairly sure that this is a common thing, based on some whacky quantum mechanics. This is called Pair production, where a particle and it's opposite (for example a proton and an anti-proton) are spontaneously created.[/QUOTE] You still need to have the initial energy though. [editline]5th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=AK'z;33137308]I personally don't find much interest into submitting to the scientific thought, because I know I won't live long enough to experience anything worthwhile with it.[/QUOTE] what you can reap the benefits of scientific thought within a day
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33140669]You still need to have the initial energy though.[/QUOTE] It is postulated by certain people that, based on a certain hypothesis, you don't need any input for this to happen, because the universe is a closed system with a net energy of zero. In such a system, 'everything' logically should result from initial conditions of 'nothing'. [url]http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html[/url] I remember also seeing a really long talk where some dude goes really in-depth into the idea but I couldn't find it.
[QUOTE=J Paul;33140815]It is postulated by certain people that, based on a certain hypothesis, you don't need any input for this to happen, because the universe is a closed system with a net energy of zero. In such a system, 'everything' logically should result from initial conditions of 'nothing'. [url]http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html[/url] I remember also seeing a really long talk where some dude goes really in-depth into the idea but I couldn't find it.[/QUOTE] Who ever wrote that article completely misunderstands how gravity works, especially this quote: [quote]You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.[/quote] [i]No, you fucking moron,[/i] it's because the ball gains [i]potential[/i] energy when you raise it in the gravitational field, and this energy is then [i]converted[/i] into kinetic energy when you drop it. This is not a hard concept, and I am flabbergasted that someone would make such a claim. Well, either that or they've just phrased it in a really weird way. The guy who wrote this is a professor of astronomy so of course he knows how gravity works. Either way it leads to misconceptions.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33138481]Why can't the wall of atoms have been made by a deity?[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer or coclude anything any better than thinking that the wall is just made out of atoms, it just brings up new questions. So yes, Occam's razor. And to me a deity isn't really a possibility. In the end a deity doesn't answer anything and it's just based on faith, there's no rationality behind it. I have never even understood the concept of faith when it comes to religion, it's just a huge bandwagon. Why would all these people believe in the same thing if there isn't any proof to back it up? You'd think everyone would believe in a different things if there isn't any real reason to have the same belief. More on topic, I don't think there is a beginning or an end, just an infinite cycle of big bangs. I can't really come to terms with everything being created out of nothing. And if there never was a beginning, there is no need for a creator of any kind.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33138456]I only really look at life as a symbol.[/QUOTE] What does this actually mean?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33140954]Who ever wrote that article completely misunderstands how gravity works, especially this quote: [i]No, you fucking moron,[/i] it's because the ball gains [i]potential[/i] energy when you raise it in the gravitational field, and this energy is then [i]converted[/i] into kinetic energy when you drop it. This is not a hard concept, and I am flabbergasted that someone would make such a claim.[/QUOTE] I'm sure Stephen Hawking has perfectly good reasons for referring to gravity as negative energy, but I don't understand them. Really I don't completely understand any of this.
What if the universe is actually just loads of cardboard pictures of stars and planets that people move when we're not looking that emit radiation.
[QUOTE=leontodd;33141495]What if the universe is actually just loads of cardboard pictures of stars and planets that people move when we're not looking that emit radiation.[/QUOTE] We can see them moving though! :eng101:
As for the "why do atoms behave the way they do" question, the answer would be the 4 "fundamental" forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. (Look them up; they're quite interesting.) Of course, one could then ask why those exist, and that question just has no end. But it's not religion's place to try to answer scientific questions or declare them unanswerable.
It is a "watch, without a watchmaker"
Dust, Dust has mass, Mass has gravity, dust attracts other dust. This commences a snowball effect that continues to pull more and more together until you get what we have today. (If it sounds stupid, I'm 14)
lets say we use "The infinite monkey theorem" if you give materials and chemicals 4.5 billion years, you will most likely get results
[QUOTE=ManicMarauder;33144301]lets say we use "The infinite monkey theorem" if you give materials and chemicals 4.5 billion years, you will most likely get results[/QUOTE] Don't forget infinite universes, either.
[QUOTE=Garik;33139148]Religion: God has always existed. Science: Before universe was nothing and something popped out from nothing. They're both mindfucks and impossible to disprove/prove[/QUOTE] I prefer to take the apathetic agnostic approach to religion: If God DID create the universe, then alright, cool, I don't really care. If God doesn't exist and therefore DIDN'T create the universe, then alright, cool, I still don't care. On the topic of universe-creation though, I personally believe in the cyclical model. That is, the universe begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, only for everything to explode in a Big Bang right after the Singularity is achieved.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;33148554] On the topic of universe-creation though, I personally believe in the cyclical model. That is, the universe begins with a Big Bang and ends with a Big Crunch, only for everything to explode in a Big Bang right after the Singularity is achieved.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that the universe is constantly expanding; exponentially. It shows no sign of slowing down, let alone reversing, indicating that a big crunch isn't likely to happen.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33139114]Why exactly is it impossible. In fact we actually do know how the world was created. Left over material from the sun formed the planets including are own. Oh and we kind of do know what happens when you die. You no longer have a functioning brain or any organs for that matter so all your senses and abilities go away.[/QUOTE] Ah, so when your life ends. All "happenings" end and so your few years in a part of an eternal life was pointless. You've got to judge things more broadly than just "it all stops". Because that's common sense, and I'm bored. [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33140258] I think it doesn't, your move. (do you see the problem here) [/QUOTE] I don't have a problem with you not following my train of thought. I create my own, and so do you. Whatever keeps us interested and thinking is what matters. [editline]6th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33141069]What does this actually mean?[/QUOTE] You know what a symbol is?
[QUOTE=AK'z;33148729]You've got to judge things more broadly than just "it all stops". Because that's common sense, and I'm bored.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously saying that it's okay to base your views on speculation?
[QUOTE=Jookia;33148846]Are you seriously saying that it's okay to base your views on speculation?[/QUOTE] Yes. Individuality is key.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.