Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Ok everything has a beginning. The universe is everything and everything happens within it. Just a thought . How did it start.

If Christian god made earth and everything who made him or if atheist how does something start without nothing. Nothing than something. But yet we are here, something had to happen. Think.

Report as

The evidence indicates this universe began through the rapid expansion and cooling of a dense area of matter and energy called the singularity- this is known as the Big Bang.

What caused the Big Bang is trickier- causality becomes rather meaningless at the quantum level. Experimental and mathematical evidence does illustrate quantum fluctuations would be enough for such an event.

Substituting "gods" for things we don't currently know is a fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance- it is what primitive man did when he saw lightning in the sky and declared it must be the wrath of the gods.

Helpful (8) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (34)
Report as
Skeptikitten does it again... I love how religious people spit on the Big Bang and evolution without knowing anything about either one.
Report as
I had someone say the other day that the Big Bang was just atheists trying to deny their god- apparently unaware it was postulated by a Catholic priest.
Report as
Haha. I've seen that one a couple of times.
Report as
This is an awesome answer. You know everything there is to know about this stuff, Skeptikitten.
Report as
But yet where did those areas of matter and energy come from.
Report as
Lol...theRhine...no one had yet to answer me on this.
Report as
Lol Maybe there is no answer
Report as
Energy is most likely eternal. It cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted to matter. Which is why the recent confirmation of the Higgs boson is so important- the Higgs field explains why things have mass.

@therhino-
You do realize that humans not knowing absolutely everything in the universe in no way indicates Bronze Age deities exist, correct? "We don't know yet" does not mean "Goddidit". Deferring to magic is easy- finding the REAL answer is hard.
Report as
But everything has to begin somewhere right so if mass can not be created or destroyed then does that mean it doesn't exist
Report as
No. At the quantum level causality is meaningless.

And no, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means all the energy and mass in the universe is all there ever will be- but that mass and energy can change form from one to the other. When something gains mass there is a net loss of energy in the system, and vice versa.

This is something I will never understand about My fellow Americans- they will reject scientific theories despite not even knowing what they are or the science behind them, not caring if basically the entire scientific community is in agreement.
Report as
I know what you mean
Report as
But it's a theory not fully fact there's not much proof but yet same for Christians so were almost similar in a way.... But some act like its fully proven and you need to test it and I'm pretty sure anyone has seen a universe being formed
Report as
Kitten,
1."energy is most likely eternal". It cannot be determined via math or empirical data the "likely hood" of a thing being eternal. Likely hood requires a context to measure from, but a phenomenon that is supposed to be eternal has no discernible point of reference to measure the odds of it being so by. Besides the concept of the mathematical possibility of "eternity"(infinity) the only reality that conceivably can be eternal is the God/Devine. That is, God being in an actual real state, whereas the mathematical symbol of "eternal" is void of being real unless it corresponds to what is real...in this case that conceivable reality is God. 2."bronze age deities", not a meaningful phrase as people believe and know God in today's scientific and information age long after the bronze age. 3."Appeal to ignorance" is only so assuming the things ascribed to be God (yet are as u suppose just waiting to be known by scientific inquiry) are actually in fact knowable via empirically deduced data. So unless u can prove that to be the case, u are committing circular reasoning as it begs the question as to how u can possibly know without being God yourself. 4. science certainly refines the notions of the "how" and "what" within an empirically knowable mode of knowing, but can never preclude, exclude or deduce "no God" and therefore If God is true, then "He" is not one of "gaps".
Report as
There is a mountain if evidence for all those theories and science does not deal with "proof" as it must be falsifiable. Proof is for mathematics.

Theories explain facts. They do not become "fully facts". Again, there is nothing above a theory in science. Theories are as proven as science ever gets. You do realize you don't have to directly witness something happening for the data to tell you it did, right? That's like saying we can't tell if the Civil War happened because no one alive today was there.
Report as
Omg to much reading
Report as
Science is not similar to Christian beliefs in any way- science must be objective, falsifiable, testable, and involve the natural world only. Christian beliefs are none of those things. We have mountains of hard data for scientific theories- none for religious beliefs.
Report as
Well I mean tell me what's some proof kitten of Big Bang theory I'm not saying your wrong I'm open to ideas
Report as
Dk- do you even realize how many times you had to beg the question in your text wall?
Report as
Large scale homogeneity, the Hubble diagram, the abundance of light elements, cosmic microwave background radiation and the fluctuations therein, the age of stars, the evolution of galaxies, time dilation in supernova brightness curves, the Tolman tests, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, red shift.

Report as
Kitten, do u realize how many times I have told u in the past that I acknowledge begging the question? If u don't care to analyze and respond directly to the specific points I bring up should I stop trying to discuss these topics with u? Otherwise it's hardly a "intelligent conversation".
Report as
Debate not conversation at least anymore
Report as
Kitten would you mind explaining what some of your examples are
Report as
Rhino,
Indeed! If I bring up very specific point to what she said, then I get a vague tu quoque response....discussion fails at that point. :(
Report as
Well I'm done with debate nice chat
Report as
Saying something is eternal implies time; one theory is that time and space did not exist prior to the singularity; if matter and energy are "eternal," they are bound by the limits of time and space, which is finite (that is, limited).
There are many good catholic priests in this field who have done excellent work, as well as many atheists who posit opposing (or even complementary) theories. It's a fantastic world of ideas, and the math is not suitable to my understanding; I do appreciate your expertise, but I am struck by the limits of any current theory to completely explain the necessary conditions for creation ex nihilio, coffee break notwithstanding...
Report as
Except no scientist is positing ex nihilo, shiny. In physics "nothing" is really a nonsense term.


@dk-
No, dear, you begging the question and admitting you are begging the question means your entire line if argument is invalid on its face. Saying "of god is real then x" when your god being real and having the qualities you posit are bare assertions.
Report as
@therhine-
Let's talk about Red Shift, since that one isn't very complicated.

Red shift is the shift of spectra from very distant galaxies towards the longer wavelengths- in other words, toward the red end of the spectrum. It is caused by the Doppler Effect, and shows other galaxies are moving away from us. The greater the distance, the greater the red shift- consistent with a rapid forceful expansion at outset.

Here are a few predictions made by Big Bang theory that have been quantitatively verified:
The universe is expanding as a whole.
The universe is a sea of radiation at a temperature just over 2.7 degrees Kelvin, a remnant of the superhot singularity.
We see an abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium.
We have just confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson, which causes the field that gives things mass.


There are many others, but I am not a physicist so I probably would not do them justice.
Report as
Skep-- nice, saying there is no meaning to the term "nothing," and thus think you have solved the problem.
The question is, why is there something rather than nothing? The answer you give: deny that there ever is a time when something did not exist, thereby deny the whole act of creation -- problem solved! Except wait, we have the Big Bang-- which is a description of creation (at least of the form as we know it) so wow, we have both sides covered, aren't we clever?
You still have not answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You can say there is no such thing as nothing, but logic cannot have you both believe in a time of something and believe in a time of nothing and believe in time - and not involve causality. Time entails causality-- you therefore are positing that time is eternal. Space is entwined with time: you are positing space is eternal. But we know both have a beginning, from the CBR. So it's not a solution.
Report as
Kitten,
Everyone (that includes you dear...or shall I call you mom?) begs the question. To ignore that or brush it aside is another one of you favorite quotes "special case pleading". The context of my begging the question is that of an ultimate reality(why there is something) not say a finite entity or experience. Therefore the question I beg (so to speak) is simply showing I have faith...in my case faith in God. U also beg the question by simply resting on the sphere of scientific inquiry alone (science brings understanding = empiricism is the only true mode of knowledge). Thank u for responding to a specific point this time. I numbered four points so as to make it easier to refer to. If you're not interested or don't understand my points, then just say so. :)
Report as
Shiny,
The problem of "eternal" was my response 1. above to her. Pointing out perhaps what u are saying but stemming from the problem of kitten calling energy a probable ("likely") eternal thing. How does one determine the likelihood of an element of the known universe to be eternal without simply assuming it?
Report as
This involves a trip to the dictionary to discover what eternal means. Of it means unbounded by time, it's one thing; if it means extending forever into the future of time, it's another.
Time is limited to space; they are bound. Space may exist, but not without time; likewise, time exists only with space. Since we know the beginning of space-time started 13.8 billion years ago, we know that nothing is eternal; it had a beginning. And current measurements (according to the deep space anistropic survey) of dark matter indicate that there will be a time when all matter ceases to cohere, and it's quite possible that space itself will dissolve. We really don't know enough at this juncture, but we do find indications that space and time began 13.8 years ago, and on this physicists are fairly certain; what existed before this is a mystery, as the CMBR is a "curtain", behind which no science can see. This is because the primordial baryonic soup (the "darkness on the face of the deep" from Genesis) absorbed all emissions as soon as they were created-- including light, electrons and so on. We really can't measure anything before this time, so all is guesswork and conjecture (speculation with evidence).
Report as
I wish I could edit my txt because I leave out "billion" here and "created" there and my predictive text sucks.
Report as
Shiny....i think its obvious u didnt mean 13.8 yrs ago. Lol
Report as
Shiny,
Right, I did have that thought in the back of my head as well, but simply assumed Kitten meant by "likely that energy is eternal" as having always been. Hey, don't beat yourself up on the typoes!...I am one of the worst! Lol. Off to work I go.....have a great week and keep pondering. :)
Report as
Add a comment...

The theory of the Christian's God is more believable in explaining how everything started. The fact that creation exists shows that there is a creator. Considering how big the universe is, the creator has to be much bigger for one to fully comprehend him and where he came from. That is why in our limited minds, we cannot fully understand the mighty creator and where he came from.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (15)
Report as
Actually it's less believable. Because although it may explain how everything was created or where it came from, it still lacks purpose. It lacks motive. It doesn't explain why this god did anything.
Report as
If everything must have a creator, then who created God?
Report as
Begging the question. Nature in no way indicates a creator.


I fail to see how "magic god says poof" is believable to anyone over the age of five.
Report as
Gopanthers but hats what I thought
Report as
Passage one...u r funny. How does big bang theory give us the "why" we r here?
Report as
Ya
Report as
Did I say that I believe in the big bang theory?
Report as
The Big Bang theory is HOW we came to be, not why. In the Christian theory of Creation, there is a creator. Therefore there must be reasons why the "creator" created everything.
Report as
But the Big Bang theory doesn't make very much sense like it starts with a mass and energy but where did it come from. Kinda hint to theory
Report as
In science, a theory is actually something that is true. It's something that's a fact. Philosophy and math have theories as being not proven every time.
Report as
The Big Bang theory only discusses how this universe started- it doesn't deal with the origins of the singularity. How can you claim something "doesn't make sense" when you don't even know what it is?
Report as
I understand what it is I know what you mean. And a theory doesn't mean it's a fact it's a bunch of ideas supposed to explain something
Report as
Actually it does. In science it does.
Report as
Wrong- theories EXPLAIN facts. So in essence a theory is also a fact. There is nothing higher than a theory in science- it is an explanation that covers all the evidence, is contradicted by none, and has been repeatedly tested and upheld. Gravity is a theory, the Big Bang is a theory, evolution is a theory, the heliocentric model of the solar system is a theory.

If you understand what the Bog Bang theory is, why ask where the singularity came from then claim it doesn't make sense? The Big Bang has nothing to do with where the singularity came from- it wouldn't matter if it was sneezed there by an inter dimensional slug, the Big Bang would still be valid.
Report as
No
Report as
Add a comment...

By atheism, everything doesn't start with nothing. Every atheist has a different opinion on how these things started. I think it's a continuous circle of life, and I can know this by seeing what happens around me. All life comes from other life. Whereas if the Christian god was true, then we would see species popping out of nowhere and bushes burning but they're not actually burning.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Some people unknowingly use a God to explain the things that are unexplainable. If something is hard to explain.... they create a God for that purpose. Sure helps doesnt it.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I think of it like this..
a cell in our body can't comprehend the vastness of our body.. it is a mere piece of something infinitely larger than itself
Replace
Cell with man
body with universe
Each human starts as a cell.. then two cells start an explosive expansion of growth
Each of us is a universe
And God in our universe

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (37)
Report as
actually a cell is an unconscious thing. it's just like a cow, i guess. i mean you can stare at a cow but it will never notice or do anything. it chews grass all day and does nothing else. why? because it doesn't hold a consciousness.
Report as
This statement leads me to believe you have never been around cows.
Report as
Ummmm ya cows are made of cells and they have reactions instincts there not mindless.
Report as
I didn't say they're not mindless. Not having a consciousness doesn't mean that you're mindles.
Report as
I mean you kinda said a cow and a cell are similar
Report as
I guess u have never seen a mad cow. They dont just sit but go after what they want. He he
Report as
Not really. It was a characteristic of the cell that is similar to the cow. Both of them share a similar characteristic. And actually I don't understand what this guy is saying. He says (not verbatim) that cells make up the human body but then he argues something about how god apparently created the cells. That doesn't make any sense. This is like saying that humans create cells. But we don't. Cells create us. They multiply and divide and group together to create tissues and these tissues perform even bigger functions that make up the human.
Report as
@lolo: it's called an animal drive. you don't really need a consciousness to have that.
Report as
Passage one- coming from somebody who was raised on a ranch, you are way off. Just because a cow doesnt eat with a fork, wear clothes et cetera, doesnt mean that it is not conscious. That is a ridiculously ignorant thought. I believe that blades was using what is called a metaphor, a very good one at that.
Report as
Man considers itself to have consciousness
Yet make weapons of mass destruction
to wipe all that consciousness out
THAT doesn't sound like much consciousness at all.. does it?
Much less more than a cow
Report as
It's like saying everything you do is a drive or going off a ill dogs remember if they like someone or not they may choose how they react to them
Report as
@actually, a very horrible metaphor. if you saw my paragraph above, you'd understand why.
@blades: consciousness means awareness. i don't think you even understand the definition of consciousness
Report as
Thank you Cloud..
I should have posted a
!Metaphor Alert!
Report as
actually it's a simile. you used the word like
Report as
Your welcome blades. No kidding, man.
Report as
I have no doubt that that would be your position/understanding passage
Report as
You said not conscious
Report as
Actually I don't understand your postion. You're trying to make the claim that everything came from god but the way you think of it, it was everything that made god. Humans don't make cells, cells make humans.
Report as
PassageOne- I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I thought it was an outstanding metaphor. It helps you to picture and understand the vast differences of something so seemingly insignificant in size that makes up something so big that it is un comprehendible. Just a way to picture it in your mind.
Report as
R we all not having enough fun on this fine fri. Night? Lol
Report as
Excuse me, simile.
Report as
It is my opinion MAN made god...
not the other way around
Report as
It could have been an amazing simile had it been for something that said life goes on. I mean, you can get rid of a few skin cells but they will grow back anyway. It doesn't mean you're not important because for a little while the other skin cells may have to take up extra work (your previous work and the work in order to divide into more cells).
Report as
Okay, then that I can understand. I thought you were saying something like how god created man, or at least arguing from the christian view.
Report as
I'm having fun and no one said anything about god your inferring that and you were saying in a way that animals do not realize there decisions
Report as
God kills dinosaurs
God makes makes man
man kills god
man makes dinosaurs
dinosaurs eat man
Report as
I'm not saying animals don't realize their decisions. What I'm saying is that they don't have the type of consciousness to know the consequences of their decisions. More or less, they live by drives rather than choices.
Report as
I used that METAPHOR
to explain the same question
Asked by my 6 year old daughter
I wasn't THAT difficult for her to understand
Report as
Like I said, it's a simile. You used the word like when comparing the two. Also, no offense you any child, but children will believe anything. I mean you don't have to actually make sense in order for a child to understand.
Report as
Ummm
Report as
Nice
Report as
Dude children have the ability to understand metaphor better than some adults... Its not like we're talking
a guy in a red suits comes down your chimney and drops off gifts..
My daughter does understand physical science... its not that complex
At least not as difficult to understand as a giant rabbit that drops off candy in a basket once a year
Report as
Passage I disagree with your understanding of
animal "instinctual" behavior
it is man that doesn't seemingly doesn't understand its behavior much less any other species

Report as
Man is no diffrent from animals we are animals
Report as
But we think we are different
and that is our downfall
intelligence without wisdom
Report as
I try everyday to have an intelligent conversation with my cat but its just not possible. I also try to get my cat to go get a job to help pay for her vet bills and food, or at least help pick up the house. Just wont happen. I thought tbese animals r no different than us?
Report as
What a wasp's nest!
Report as
Add a comment...

the universe has always been here just in a different form. Everything goes in cycles. There is no beginning or end just the beginnings and endings of different ages or cycles.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

By magic, of course!

Helpful (1) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Is there a who or why to this magic?
Report as
That's the point it's magic
Report as
Rhino, exactly! Either it's "magic" as in fake or illusion or it's real "magic" as in "God". I was using a bit of irony in the face of the nay Sayers of there being tue necessity of God. Either it's it's God or it's "nothing". The latter being an absurdity if the universe is in fact "something".
Report as
That should u Lolo as well.
Report as
Yep
Report as
Add a comment...

Okay, think about this equation, Nothing + Nothing = Everything, or Nothing + Something = Everything. The answer is pretty clear from a Mathematical viewpoint.

Helpful Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (27)
Report as
I'm sry that helped nothing that's like 0 + 0 = 1
Report as
no, rhino. that's like 0 + 1 = infinity. how in the world does nothing plus something create everything? it would create something, not nothing.
Report as
Its amazing God made it that way. :)
Report as
Lol. Okay guys here it is without the words. 0+0= 1 Thats incorrect right? You can't get something out of nothing. Now here is the other one. 0+1= 1. This is correct. Even if there is nothing, you add something to it and you will get something. The 1 is God.
Report as
what's even more amazing is that a god didn't make it that way.
Report as
that still doesn't prove anything. I mean, you said that something + nothing = everything. but this isn't possible. look back at my answer and you'll see why
Report as
Ya your right passage
Report as
thank you.
Report as
You r right, swirvin. And God is the only one who can make something out of nothing. Can anyone else?
Report as
True
Report as
I didn't realize that giving the characteristics that we WANT a god to have proved that he existed.
Report as
Uh, no one but theists are claiming something comes from nothing.

But it's cute how you guys claim "nothing" can never lead to "something"...unless your god is involved of course. Ah, Special Pleading Fallacy.
Report as
You both have points
Report as
Call it a fallacy or begging the question...is a moot point to me. Fact is...too many unknowns and non answers and we all agree on that. To me, makes logical sense of a divine creator. :)
Report as
Kitten, maybe u don't think so, but some of us who believe and know God actually want to know from u what u find as so unreasonable or "unlikely" about there being God. Please explain how it is "special pleading" to believe that God is the absolute source of "something". Just u saying something is a fallacy with out demonstrating how it necessarily is does nothing for us to understand or maintain a meaningful discussion...assuming your interested.
Report as
Thank you Lolo.
Report as
lolo, just because you can't come up with an answer other than a god, doesn't mean it's the only logical sense. besides, i find it rather funny because your god seems to follow every characteristic that you want him to follow
Report as
Dk-
It is special pleading to claim "x must always be true...except for my belief. Just because". You guys are claiming something can never come from nothing...except when your god does it. Just because you say so.

It's odd how you respond to every logical fallacy basically by claiming the fallacy should be valid. That you should be allowed to beg the question of make an argument from ignorance- again, just because.

And it is extraordinarily unreasonable to posit the intervention of magic deities whenever you don't understand something- particularly since you have no evidence to support your claim.
Report as
And the logical fallacies go round and round. ....on both sides. shall we play..."name that fallacy?" Questions get unanswered simply bc one would rather call it a fallacy than answer the question. Its all a joke to me. Science will never verify your needed evidence our spirit God. But, neither can it disprove.
Report as
There is no reason to believe in extraordinary claims unless you have extraordinary evidence Lolo. And you don't even have garden variety evidence.
Report as
I have plenty of evidence for myself. Just cant prove scientifically for u. I honestly wish i could. :) . And He can never be disproved.
Report as
Neither can any other god. Or unicorns for that matter. I don't see you believing in those.
Report as
I'll quote something that, to me, makes a lot of sense. "If faith is your pathway, then you can't distinguish between Hinduism, Judaism, or any others..."
Report as
I believe there is only 1 truth .
Report as
So does every other religious person on the planet. That's the point.
Report as
Kitten,
Perhaps this thread is dead now, I couldn't remember were i posted this comment to u and was busy, but I see your response now. U certainly raised a valid point to discuss however, that's not the question I was asking regarding "special pleading". Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. As far what u say is odd about what I've said about logical fallacies is concerned, I have never said my fallacies aren't fallacies, but only qualified you claiming I've committed one by pointing out that that it usually (maybe always, no way I can remember every instance) involves validating a premiss u yourself have that itself isn't determined to necessarily be true. In other words, inevitably it is rarely the case that only one of us is making a fallacious claim since every claim rests on some premiss that somewhere down the line of it's logical path will come to begging the question. My general point about all the "fallacy quoting" is that unless the entire scheme of one's though is fully understood by each other and all premisses have been determined to be true or false then it does little to determine there being God or not (this being the central theme to the discussions). It's too intricate for this format to really analyze each others full line of reasoning which is fine.
Report as
Kitten,
Now as far as the specific point u raise about the "special case" of God creating out of nothing goes. I agree it can be the fallacy of "special pleading" if two things are assumed as true. 1. If God is of the same nature and stuff of "things" (I.e. the "something" as in the universe). 2. That God is not real in the first place (a priori). Now many religious traditions do seem to place god(s) as necessarily of the "stuff" of the universe...I do not. The second qualifying factor that necessarily means that "special pleading" is occurring on my part merely involves begging the question for the one that simply writes God off from the get go. This is how logic is indeed needed and useful, it always hinges on other assumed premisses.
Report as
Add a comment...

Let me ask, when was the last time you saw something made from nothing?

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (12)
Report as
what's nothing got to do with it?
Report as
Everything!!!
Report as
Seriously, lolo, the way i see it, if I told you bigfoot was standing outside your door right now, you'd probably believe me
Report as
We have told you repeatedly that science does not say something comes from nothing.

In fact, YOU theists are the ones claiming that. Honestly, it's ridiculous how many times you people construct the same straw men.
Report as
In fact, physics tells us that "nothing" doesn't really exist.
Report as
Im trying to say...it all had to come from somewhere. Even energy. Im not discounting the big band or evolution. We can all agree that we don't know yet, right?
Report as
Nothing doesn't exist it impossible or at least impossible for us to explain
Report as
Just because WE don't see it
doesn't mean IT is not there
Report as
MY question passage, is...
If Bigfoot were outside the door
would he/she have consciousness
And... Are you going to bring up the loch nest monster?

Report as
Nothing isn't there's space it might count as nothing well no because there's light and time going to a place with no time or light or anything would be nothing
Report as
Passage...u cannot compare an object ....a possible finite being to an infinite being. No comparison.
Report as
Sorry, lolo, but your imagination doesn't count as an infinte being. and I can't believe y'all are still arguing over this. seriously, get some rest.
Report as
Add a comment...

The Big Bang, in my opinion. Think of this, one atom to our body is a vast difference. Billions and trillions of atoms make up our body, 1 greater being. What if our were universe was 1 single atom to a greater being?

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (9)
Report as
Then that means that we either have no free will or we do what we want with this greater being. Being since cells control what we are able to do, this means that we would be able to control what this greater being would do.
Report as
Look passage, you will have to forgive me but I am not in the mood for debating. I like to remain open minded and have fun with my thoughts. Not everything has to be logical and Technical.
Report as
And if my idea we were true, what if we did actually control this greater being and we are not aware of it. Do you think that atoms are really aware of the things that they allow us to do? Do you really think that atoms comprehend everything that we do?
Report as
Yes. I mean they are the ones that do it after all. They are the ones that are closely knit together and moving constantly to keep us doing everything. You try sitting next to a bunch of people in a crowded room and having to jump up and down in order to make an "Exercise Monitor" increase (not saying you need exercise).
Report as
Cloud your blackboard illustration...
though more than adequate for most
I'm sorry to say will be completely
missed by some... but great effort :)
Report as
Atoms being alive and real as in having a conscious? Wow....
Report as
Thankyou blades. I probably could have explained it in a little bit more depth, but I had my 4 year old son jumping my on back like a little monkey, so I had to make a short.
Report as
lolo: no, not really. actually atoms coming together are what creates a consciousness. well they can, it all depends on how they form together.
Report as
Indeed, passage. Although it would be rather interesting if each atom had a consciousness and was fully aware. Could you imagine?
Report as
Add a comment...

The current cosmology is as Skeptikitten has stated: quantum fluctuations caused a singularity to pop into existence. But laws of physics must have been violated, because while such fluctuations do indeed occur, they have known limitations of duration and size: duration measured in pico seconds, and size measured in electron volts. Nothing the SIZE of the proto-universe singularity (measured in the required electron volt order of magnitude) can endure LONG ENOUGH to become stable. It must wink into existence and wink out of existence before it can even be measured. Therefore, we have no good mechanisms for the origin of the singularity, and the most that science can currently produce is a theory (actually, several theories) that goes back to within a few seconds of the creation of the universe.
For more on the several theories of cosmology, see here: http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/beyondbb.html

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
The limitation we are stuck with is speed of light. The length of time the math gives us is so short, the universal singularity (expanded to size "n" so as to become real and expansionary has to be at least as large as a wavelength of whatever energy of light (the higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength, stepwise) but the length of time the quanta wink into existence is shortened by the same measure. This is good; otherwise, we would have random universes popping into existence and splitting this one asunder.
The proto-universe is not a geographic point ; it's got size, mass and rotation (energy). It has to become reified (made real) and stable for at least as long as it takes for the wavelength to travel from one side to the other, preferably even longer for life to occur; the math of cosmology doesn't allow enough time for this, the quantum fluctuation is too short, because the size of the fluctuation is so large (say trillions of trillions times trillions of electron volts) and its quantum brevity is so short (the higher the voltage the shorter the appearance).
Report as
shiny, I think you need to just calm down. I doubt you even know what you just said.
Report as
Wow, well the only thing that I have understood so far in my study is that science does not know of "nothing", only that there is "something" and that fundamentally assumes that there is in fact a real universe to study. Matter/energy and it's "origin" by nature puts the leading edge of science at the precipice of metaphysics. It seems very difficult to determine when we are dealing with science vs philosophy in this question, yet conceivably even if we could definitively say such and such point is where science takes us there will still remain the metaphysical question of whence do it come from and the existential question why fore did it come? Thanks for weighing in on the science side of things. :)
Report as
I spent too much time trying to understand Skep's position on this. Went to the library, talked to a professor, the usual. Not sure even my friend the professor is on it, but he says the math doesn't pencil for the answer to be quantum fluctuations, and again it presupposes the very thing you try understand the origin of, namely space-time. It's like saying, why is there an apple? Answer: 1 assume an apple. 2. See point 1. QED
Report as
Shiny,
Lol! Right! At this point of scientific investigation the only point of reference is the assumption of the point itself I.e. that there is something. The farthest range of what that "something" is seems to be nothing! Regardless I'll take the apple and enjoy it for what it is, but continue to know that all things have a source and if that source isn't God then she can call me an ignorant fool! Thanks for responding. :)
Report as
Add a comment...

This is a tremendous question that is difficult for any man to comprehend since we cannot understand how something can develop from nothing. You asked this question under the "Religious - Spirituality" category so I am going to answer this question from a religious point of view by reviewing the answer to "Did God have a beginning" because understanding this will help us understand the answer to your question more fully.

Did God have a beginning?

<<SEE PART 2 IN COMMENTS SECTION>>

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
<PART 2>

Ps. 90:2: “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.”

Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.

Report as
<PART 3>

Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.

Which is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?
Report as
The latter is more reasonable actually. Regardless if you understand any god, the fact is this god had to come from somewhere.
Report as
Good point. This is a long thought about question. But if you think about it if God was created then what created God? Something had to always be here. It's hard to comprehend but it's true. I choose to believe the Bible's account when it says that God was always here. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. What do you think?
Report as
No, I think you're incorrect actually. I don't think there was a god. And even if there was, something had to create him. If he was always here, then why did it take so long for him to create the universe? He was always existing, right? So a million times infinity years must've gone by while he was always existing. Since that's the case, why all of a sudden did he create life now?
Report as
That's question we do not know the answer to. I can tell you though that God is loving and wants to share his love with others.Life is loving. It's an opportunity we have to learn and do something with it. It's a struggle for man to comprehend the beginning because e not there. When man cannot comprehend it then they say it doesn't exist. In the end, there are always going to be people who do not believe.
Report as
Add a comment...

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite..The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
wow, that made no argument whatsoever. Actually whether god is outside the universe or within multiple dimensions of time, the fact still remains: what's inside the universe is still affected. he might not be, but the universe is. so if there is a god, then whatever he's done to the universe would have affected what's inside the universe and also the laws of the universe.
and actually, there is no observational evidence of which you say. i mean, it's not that the universe is eternal, it's the fact that the matter will always be the same within the universe.
and another thing, apologetics are the worse arguers in the world. i would not take what they say to be a fact.
Report as
And another question is how do you know all this? I mean, have you yourself ever been outside of time? Have you yourself ever been in multiple dimensions of time? Have you ever known any physical person to come back and tell you what it was like? Or any person at all who's ever been in these situations? You haven't. Thus, how can you just make the ASSUMPTIONS you're making? Because you're only trying to confirm your argument. What can be accepted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You accepted without evidence that if one exists outside time or within multiple dimensions of time they are unaffected by time itself, therefore I can reject it without evidence and say it is false.
Report as
Add a comment...

God was not created. He invented creation. Earthly laws like 'everything has a beginning' do not apply to God. He created those laws. He INVENTED them for us. He is not bound by the laws and concepts He created for out limited minds and understanding.
God IS
God always Has Been
God always Will Be.
He Was before the universe began
He Will Be when this universe is long gone.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
amen
Report as
IMAGINATION!!! the exact thing that stops us from seeing reality.
Report as
Passage,
Without imagination we wouldn't be human, nor would we have ever attempted what came to labelled "scientific inquiry" in the first place.
Report as
@Passage
Ignorance and blind stubborness is what keeps so many people from seeing the Truth.
Report as
@dk: actually i beg to differ on that one. without morality, we wouldn't be human. in fact as far as being human goes our morality is what separates us from the animals. we inhibit our basic animal drives, making us human. so yes we can be human without imagination. we just wouldn't have much to go by. and by imagination i meant the constant characterizing of this person's imaginary friend so the friend can do whatever this person wants it do do
Report as
Passage,
I'm not sure if we differ or not. I agree regarding morality however animals don't seem to have "imagination" at least in the sense of "what does this mean" or "why am I me". An "imaginary friend" of course connotes a non-real friend, however simply because we imagine a being supreme to us does not automatically mean it is non-real (fake). In fact we can't imagine anything unless it is rooted in something that is rooted in something we know from experience to be real. As in your example of an imaginary friend, we couldn't conceive of such a thing unless there weren't in fact actual friends that were real. In other words our imagination necessarily reflects (at the very least) aspects of real things.
Report as
no, our imagination reflects on what we want to hear and what we want to think
Report as
I agree with at as well. I was referring to the "object" or conceived "thing" of the imagination, not the motive behind the imagination. Although that is an interesting sub-topic itself.
Report as
Add a comment...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth God began to speak into existence his creation.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
BrotherObscura

out of chaos came a star then that star had a supernova and now here we are. through the creaton of the gods and now we are alive to thank them. isn't it amazing though that the big bang IS still happening. like literally at the edges of our universe the explosion is still moving

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer