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

I have come to the conclusion that all the energy of the universe cannot come out of nowhere, or have been given to us a by any "god". My answer is that, there was something before the big bang, and what resulted in the big bang was the outcome of the inevitable nature of the energy; and of the universe, to reach a minimum state of energy.

My second conclusion is that we cannot, physically or energetically know what existed before the big bang; from where we currently are: this universe. Because, whatever existed before the big bang was separated from us by the most energetic event this universe has or will EVER see: the big bang, an apotheosic and momentaneous arrangement of energy; not an explosion. Thus anything that existed before the big bang cannot exist in this universe or viceversa, we are shut off by the big bang; to summarize.

What happens if the universe is indeed an isolated system and it's entropy increases indefinitely? I am firm believer of the heat death. And to avoid saying that "god" exists beyond the big bang, my opinion is this: The fact that the physical and mathematical models we have developed to understand the transit of energy in our current universe cannot explain the flow or nature of the energy that existed and created the big bang, doesn't immediately means that a god did it; it simply means that we are: either too primitive and our minds cannot fathom the phenomena with mathematical models that need to be in paper to be transmitted. Or that with the neglectable amount of energy that has naturally transferred into us we cannot access the larger scheme of things: it's like going to a doctorate course without knowing how to read.

And up there lies a nice wall of text that summarizes in the best way I can my views on the universe...that no one will read because it's long and I don't have a ridiculously conspicuous image on my signature.

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Science" at that time was not what we recognize as science today. By our standards, the lack of predictive value makes the idea "un-scientific." Ironically, much like string theorythegerg

You're right, scientific standards change over time. That doesn't mean that we now understand that some of what was accepted by science in the past is now proven to be wrong.

One of the pivotal parts of anything that can be considered proper science today is predictive power: a theory must make predictions about what should be true that we do not yet know to be true, and those predictions must not be proven wrong. And if they are not proven wrong, then the theory is most likely on the right track; otherwise, it would not have been able to successfully lead us to new information. Nothing that has been widely accepted since the advent of the modern scientific method has ever been completely overturned; rather, it has simply been refined. For example, though we know today that the basic formulas in classical mechanics are wrong at relativistic speeds, that does not make it completely wrong; it simply requires adjustment in that special case. People need to get it out of their heads that there exist only two binary states of "right" or "wrong"; one statement can very easily be more wrong than another. Even back when people thought the world was flat, they were not completely wrong. They thought that that was the case based on the observation that the curvature of the Earth seemed to be zero; we now know today that it is not zero, but it sure is awfully close to zero.

Atheist is a very wide term . people in Scientology are atheists . Some atheist say that aliens started life on earth . You can also find theists with very different thoughts .

I could be wrong but if the universe always existed, inflation could be explained, right? So I don't think it's such a stupid theory

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I guess I will concede to that. I do however disagree with the notion of people saying "yeah and at one point people thought the Earth was the center of the universe". We have the instruments to measure these things now, and over the last 50 years it's stood the test of time and garnered more evidence to back it up substantially. thegerg

How can you disagree with that notion? It's fact. People did once believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that belief was supported by contemporary science. The point is simply this: Simply because something is "generally accepted" by science does not mean that it is truth and that other theories should be dismissed or ignored.

AH Xaos and Gabu beat me too it. What I get for running errands.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Science" at that time was not what we recognize as science today. By our standards, the lack of predictive value makes the idea "un-scientific." Ironically, much like string theoryGabuEx

You're right, scientific standards change over time. That doesn't mean that we now understand that some of what was accepted by science in the past is now proven to be wrong.

One of the pivotal parts of anything that can be considered proper science today is predictive power: a theory must make predictions about what should be true that we do not yet know to be true, and those predictions must not be proven wrong. And if they are not proven wrong, then the theory is most likely on the right track; otherwise, it would not have been able to successfully lead us to new information. Nothing that has been widely accepted since the advent of the modern scientific method has ever been completely overturned; rather, it has simply been refined. For example, though we know today that the basic formulas in classical mechanics are wrong at relativistic speeds, that does not make it completely wrong; it simply requires adjustment in that special case. People need to get it out of their heads that there exist only two binary states of "right" or "wrong"; one statement can very easily be more wrong than another. Even back when people thought the world was flat, they were not completely wrong. They thought that that was the case based on the observation that the curvature of the Earth seemed to be zero; we now know today that it is not zero, but it sure is awfully close to zero.

Bolded, this reminds of the Asimov essay "The relativity of wrong".

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

You're right, scientific standards change over time. That doesn't mean that we now understand that some of what was accepted by science in the past is now proven to be wrong.

HoolaHoopMan

One of the pivotal parts of anything that can be considered proper science today is predictive power: a theory must make predictions about what should be true that we do not yet know to be true, and those predictions must not be proven wrong. And if they are not proven wrong, then the theory is most likely on the right track; otherwise, it would not have been able to successfully lead us to new information. Nothing that has been widely accepted since the advent of the modern scientific method has ever been completely overturned; rather, it has simply been refined. For example, though we know today that the basic formulas in classical mechanics are wrong at relativistic speeds, that does not make it completely wrong; it simply requires adjustment in that special case. People need to get it out of their heads that there exist only two binary states of "right" or "wrong"; one statement can very easily be more wrong than another. Even back when people thought the world was flat, they were not completely wrong. They thought that that was the case based on the observation that the curvature of the Earth seemed to be zero; we now know today that it is not zero, but it sure is awfully close to zero.

Bolded, this reminds of the Asimov essay "The relativity of wrong".

That's not a coincidence. :P

That's not a coincidence. :P

GabuEx

Touche good sir. :P

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Because unlike the geocentric theory proposed thousands of years ago, the BB Theory has more than one notion supporting it. The BB Theory makes predictions such as the composition of the universe, and the uniformity of the back ground radiation. The Geocentric theory does none of this and can't even be considered "modern" science.

AH Xaos and Gabu beat me too it. What I get for running errands.

thegerg

You're right, the big bang theory has more modern science behind it. That doesn't change the fact that what was accepted by science in the past is now known to be incorrect.

Except that the "Science" of the geocentric model really isn't the same science we use today. As others have pointed out, it really lacks the predictive power of today's models, most noticeable the BB Theory which has been vindicated at several steps. That's the great thing of science, it's self corrective, however it needs the predictive power.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Except that the "Science" of the geocentric model really isn't the same science we use today. As others have pointed out, it really lacks the predictive power of today's models, most noticeable the BB Theory which has been vindicated at several steps. That's the great thing of science, it's self corrective, however it needs the predictive power.

thegerg

You're right. As I said before, standards change over time. That doesn't change that what was once accepted by science is now proven to be incorrect.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Except that the "Science" of the geocentric model really isn't the same science we use today. As others have pointed out, it really lacks the predictive power of today's models, most noticeable the BB Theory which has been vindicated at several steps. That's the great thing of science, it's self corrective, however it needs the predictive power.

thegerg

You're right. As I said before, standards change over time. That doesn't change that what was once accepted by science is now proven to be incorrect.

See my post. It addresses everything you're saying.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

You're right. As I said before, standards change over time. That doesn't change that what was once accepted by science is now proven to be incorrect.

thegerg

See my post. It addresses everything you're saying.

I did, and I don't disagree with any of it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

You're right. As I said before, standards change over time. That doesn't change that what was once accepted by science is now proven to be incorrect.

thegerg

See my post. It addresses everything you're saying.

I did, and I don't disagree with any of it.

Huh? Considering that it was written in opposition to what you're saying, I think you do. :P

as someone has said. this is not an atheistic vs. theistic question. this is a question of physics. the universe as we know it started with the big bang, as time essentially does not exist at points of singularity, so our timeline starts there.

that said. a pretty damn well known physicist has a novel idea (its very early and has had zero testing at all), Roger Penrose.

here is an article i just read yesterday on his thoughts on a cyclic model of the universe

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[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.

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.

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.

How does that last sentence even make sense? It basically amounts to saying that if no objective evidence is present, then the first explanation to be posited as truth should be accepted as such. Sorry, no. Like I said, atheists simply don't claim positive knowledge about the beginning of the universe, they know what can be reasonably verified through science and human experience, anything beyond that is simply left alone until science can make a positive claim to knowledge about it.

As to the rest, I'm just going to assume you either didn't read what I said or didn't understand it. You keep demanding an explanation, demanding a first cause, but you still have yet to present any evidence that there MUST be a first cause. There is no first cause observable in existence outside of our comprehension, and it's perfectly reasonable that a demand for first cause is simply a demand of the subjectivity of human comprehension, and not that there must actually be a first cause in the objective world. If you can provide a solid explanation as to why there MUST be a first cause then fine, but I see no reason to believe that a first cause actually exists.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Huh? Considering that it was written in opposition to what you're saying, I think you do. :P

thegerg

Either you don't understand what I am saying or your post was poorly written and does not convey your point.

Are you not saying that, because "science" has arrived at incorrect conclusions in the past, we should therefore not trust science today to have the correct answer?

Existance is just an illusion.magicalclick

That's literally impossible, if everything one perceives is an illusion then that individual still exists at least as an entity capable of perceiving that illusion.

try to wrap your heads around this... its hard to explain but ill try. this is what ive learned as an amatureastronomist.

before the universe as we know it existed (planets and stars expanding thru dark matter) it was supposedly contained in a single point. at this point there was no space. no massive area full of dark matter and dust.. nothing existed past the walls of the point of matter. so the universe as we know it (including space itself (the area between stars and galaxys)) was all contained in this area.

with the big bang it created an expansion vaccum (the lack of friction in matterless space) which could not be stopped. therefore the universe as we know it expanse at a second to second rate. now because its been expanding for such a long time its almost implausible to reach the ends of this expansion.. but there are theorys that state that past this wall is magnetic shockwave left from the initial reaction.

even more crazy then that is the fact that planets and stars stay spinning from the resistance of dark matter pulling against the expansion of physical matter creating a push/pull system. this friction is what works with gravity over time making all things rounded.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Are you not saying that, because "science" has arrived at incorrect conclusions in the past, we should therefore not trust science today to have the correct answer?

thegerg

No. Not at all.

Well what are you saying then?

The universe "always existing" is not an "atheist view." It is a proposed scientific model of the universe, one that up until recently, was highly unlikely to have been the case... but now evidence suggests that there are other universes out there (dark flow) and that the singularity that became the big bang was merely the result of something else (possibly another universe) coming to an end.

Not to mention the fact that the current model of the universe had a relative "beginning" with the big bang... but given cause and effect, nothing can be created or formed from nothing. Everything must have a cause, and thus, that makes conditioned/objective existence infinite... just constantly changing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

No. Not at all.

thegerg

Well what are you saying then?

Simply because contemporary science suggests an answer to this question, we shouldn't cease exploring the question or our understanding of the answer.

Oh, well then, no argument from me.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

No. Not at all.

thegerg

Well what are you saying then?

Simply because contemporary science suggests an answer to this question, we shouldn't cease exploring the question or our understanding of the answer.

Isn't the Planck Length the minimum amount of length possible? So anything smaller than that is nothing?

Isn't the Planck Length the minimum amount of length possible? So anything smaller than that is nothing?

Alacoque72

live your lives to the best of your abilities. believe in whatever you believe in. coz you'll never know the answers to life's questions anyway.rowzzr

Well, I suppose one would never know if they never aspired to know, really you're just creating a scenario for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Who is to say there haven't been multiple big bangs?

Who is to say there haven't been multiple big bangs?

sonicare

Who is to say there haven't been multiple big bangs?

Who is to say there haven't been multiple big bangs?

Applying 9th grade math isn't exactly advisable when trying to solve problems concerning the birth of a universe...

Maybe we don't exist at all and are just a very long complex dream of a higher powerSPBoss

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Maybe we don't exist at all and are just a very long complex dream of a higher powerxaos

*Drops teh dutchie and starts contemplating what would happen if the second law of thermodynamics were a lie!!!!*

Hey. You! Yeah, you!

.....entropy sucks...

*runs away*

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="SPBoss"]Maybe we don't exist at all and are just a very long complex dream of a higher powerJoshywaa

*Drops teh dutchie and starts contemplating what would happen if the second law of thermodynamics were a lie!!!!*

Hey. You! Yeah, you!

.....entropy sucks...

*runs away*

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 dragonmaster64

: )

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