Some Athiests believe the universe always existed.(calling all athiests/theists)

It has been proven that the universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion every day. So tomorow it will expand even more and so on. But if you went back in time this expansion would decrease each day until you reached a point called a singularity, this shows a begining which disproves the athiestic view of the the universe always existing.

This is a counterargument that i came up with for this argument. The counter argument is in the the spoilers. If this counterargument is true is their anyway to come up with a rebuttle for this counter argument? A cookie goes to the first person who succesfully does so. Thanks : )

**Please dont bring outside information to this unless you have a theory to disprove the counterargument. What im trying to say is try to make this less philosphical as it already is (if that makes sense).

[spoiler] however you can still say that, that point can still shrink the more you go back in time. and it will continue to decrease. You can look at it in terms of asymptotes in math, (lets assume theres a vertical asymptote at 0) as you approach 0 the number will get smaller and smaller but will never hit 0. what im trying to say that if you keep shrinking that point it will keep getting smaller and smaller but it will never truly disappear or cease to exist no matter how far back you go. which then shatters the idea of it having a beginnig. which then reinstates that the athiestic view of the universe always existing still holds true [/spoiler]

: )

Just because the universe as we know it started with something (big bang) it doesn't mean there was nothing before it.

at the end of the day, however, no one knows for sure, and knowing won't really accomplish anything except give one side bragging rights. I am ok with that

this shows a begining which disproves the athiestic view of the the universe always existing.dragonmaster64

How is that an "atheistic view"?

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

So noone can disprove it? im trying to make an argument myself using as much logic as possible.dragonmaster64

Disprove what? No one knows.

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]have you guys even read my first post : P im asking if you guys can disprove what i said in the spoilers.thegerg

Yes, we've read it. As I said earlier, your post was poorly written and doesn't make much sense. It wasn't too clear what you wanted.

What you wrote as a spoiler simply explains what a singularity is, an infinitesimally small point in which all matter and energy from the universe exists. However, it's not approaching zero, it's approaching one. What you wrote isn't a disprovable argument that points towards an eternal universe or has anything to do with a debate on religion.

itt: no one knows what the f*** OP is on about, including TC

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]have you guys even read my first post : P im asking if you guys can disprove what i said in the spoilers.dragonmaster64

But your idea isn't true, it's just unsubstantiated conjecture. I could say the singularity popped out of nowhere and therefore the universe is finite, and it has as much evidence as your idea (ie: none). Since we can't tell what happened before the singularity no idea can be disproven because there's no evidence of what happened in the first place.

ALL theories pertaining to the beginning, are impossible, so neither atheists or theists are nuts,.... and they're both nuts.

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]can you expand on what you said on it approaching one? your saying that if we keep going back your saying its approachign one?thegerg

What you're taling about is a singularity. A singularity is a single point in which all matter and energy is contained. If we ever achieve less than a singularity, we have reached zero. Singularity is singularity, there is not one that is smaller (or shrinking) than another. If the universe is able to continue shrinking, as you have proposed, it is not singularity.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]can you expand on what you said on it approaching one? your saying that if we keep going back your saying its approachign one?dragonmaster64

What you're taling about is a singularity. A singularity is a single point in which all matter and energy is contained. If we ever achieve less than a singularity, we have reached zero. Singularity is singularity, there is not one that is smaller (or shrinking) than another. If the universe is able to continue shrinking, as you have proposed, it is not singularity.

Just because it's expanding now doesn't mean it always was. Again, you're just make assumptions.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]can you expand on what you said on it approaching one? your saying that if we keep going back your saying its approachign one?dragonmaster64

What you're taling about is a singularity. A singularity is a single point in which all matter and energy is contained. If we ever achieve less than a singularity, we have reached zero. Singularity is singularity, there is not one that is smaller (or shrinking) than another. If the universe is able to continue shrinking, as you have proposed, it is not singularity.

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

Espada12

That's not true at all, atheists do not posit that something appeared out of nothing, simply that they don't know exactly where that something came from. Personally, I dismiss the entire notion of first cause until someone can provide solid evidence that such an event must have occured. Existence is completely devoid of the so-called first cause, everything we see is simultaneously a cause and effect with no observable first cause according to the laws of thermodynamics. Still we struggle for a first cause, to us it seems there must still be a first cause logically, but this is according to our own internal logic. In reality, our conciousness operates according to the transcendental aesthetic and the world as we perceive it must conform to the limitations of the transcendental aesthetic. I believe one such limitation is that of permanence, where in nature everything is in a constant state of change and transferrence, in our own consicousness we find an exception. It is our own comprehension that demands permanence, and we accept this permanence as a rule of nature even though it is not a rule of nature but of consciousness, we impose our own static nature upon a kinetic world. First cause is really just a subset of this, we demand a beginning because the permanent nature of our comprehension demands it, but that demand does not make such a beginning an objectively valid phenomena.

oooh!!!! you caught me out. guess there is a god then.

[QUOTE="dragonmaster64"]this shows a begining which disproves the athiestic view of the the universe always existing.BiancaDK

How is that an "atheistic view"?

Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. NintendoNite

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

At the end of the day either something appeared out of nothing, or God did it. Both views are similarly stupid depending on which camp you are in.

theone86

That's not true at all, atheists do not posit that something appeared out of nothing, simply that they don't know exactly where that something came from. Personally, I dismiss the entire notion of first cause until someone can provide solid evidence that such an event must have occured. Existence is completely devoid of the so-called first cause, everything we see is simultaneously a cause and effect with no observable first cause according to the laws of thermodynamics. Still we struggle for a first cause, to us it seems there must still be a first cause logically, but this is according to our own internal logic. In reality, our conciousness operates according to the transcendental aesthetic and the world as we perceive it must conform to the limitations of the transcendental aesthetic. I believe one such limitation is that of permanence, where in nature everything is in a constant state of change and transferrence, in our own consicousness we find an exception. It is our own comprehension that demands permanence, and we accept this permanence as a rule of nature even though it is not a rule of nature but of consciousness, we impose our own static nature upon a kinetic world. First cause is really just a subset of this, we demand a beginning because the permanent nature of our comprehension demands it, but that demand does not make such a beginning an objectively valid phenomena.

As far as I can tell it's the only explanation atheist got. If they refuse to believe in first cause but then say they have no explanation of their own, then it leads me to think they rather believe the universe was always there or that something happened out of nothing. There's no point in saying "it wasn't God" if you can't tell me what it truly was.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. ihateaynrand

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. NintendoNite

wtf are you talking about. thats not an atheistic view. that is a theist view. your whole post is bs. Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. NintendoNite

You should probably read this.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"][QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Just stop. It's bad enough having to correct all the theists who come out with crap like that.ihateaynrand

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. thegerg

Actually, he's right. A strongly supported theory=/=fact.

Not to start a war over this or anything but nothing is fact. Theory is the closest we can get though.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"]wtf are you talking about. thats not an atheistic view. that is a theist view. your whole post is bs. Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. metroidfood

You should probably read this.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"][QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Perhaps you could take a course on the scientific method, in which they might point out to you just how stupid phrases like 'it's only a theory' are.ihateaynrand

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"]Also, being an atheist myself, the big bang theory is only a theory. No one knows for sure if it is true. NintendoNite

something like that existed? yeah right power of god created it, and how did it start dont say the bigbang

whats wrong with the phrase "its only a theory?" A theory is just that. A theory. Unless it becomes a SCIENTIFIC LAW, then thats a whole different story. SIT DOWN SON!NintendoNite

Theories are the highest one can achieve in science, to say it's only a theory really shows how scientific illiterate you really are. Evolution is a theory, Evolution will never become a LAW.

To say it's "just a theory" is really just a tactic to steal credibility away from said theories, when in reality the scientific definition is starkly different from the common usage of the term.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="NintendoNite"] stop what? I have taken an astronomy course and while there is observations that MIGHT suggest that the universe is expanding, we really dont know for sure until we can gather more evidence. That is what science is all about. Being able to find the truth while discarding any OUTDATED ideas. The big bang theory may become a discarded theory in the near future just as many theories in the past have. So sit down SONthegerg

It was also once generally accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Just sayin'.

[QUOTE="NintendoNite"][QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Just stop. It's bad enough having to correct all the theists who come out with crap like that.HoolaHoopMan