It's official: God didn't create universe

[Dexter Sinister]

...I think I'd pop off from sheer boredom if all the answers were to be suddenly found.

My sentiments exactly, that's why the "many more layers" appeals to me too. I think the method and process of scientific discovery is one of the greatest inventions of the human mind, and it's something that will not, and should not, ever come to an end. Lovely graphic of the Mandelbrot set BTW, where'd you find that?

 

[MHz]

Like merging two black holes is quite easy and quite 'gentle' in that something resembling one remains, as in this vid.
YouTube - Computer Simulation of Two Black Holes Merging

What difference in 'sound' would that be from what is considered as noise from the 'big-bang' today?

Edit to add, if a galaxy is needed to create a black-hole and all galaxies are moving away from each other (at the moment) then how could collisions take place at a great number with bodies that fall outside what would be considered to be 'clusters'?

If you are into fractals get the Mac program mentioned in this documentary.

 

[Kreskin]

Here's my theory.

Hawking's professional football career is nearly over, and he ain't no spring chicken. Maybe he's preparing for the final exit with a view to, perhaps, a hostile takeover of the God position. It has been a long time since an agnostic or atheist had that post. He'd be like the Obama of our Universe.

 

[JLM]

Here's my theory.

Hawking's professional football career is nearly over, and he ain't no spring chicken. Maybe he's preparing for the final exit with a view to, perhaps, a hostile takeover of the God position. It has been a long time since an agnostic or atheist had that post. He'd be like the Obama of our Universe.

Hmmm? I think Hawking is only about my age.

 

[Bcool]

It is just my opinion:
There are many many things that we do not know and understand in the world and the universe. Human like a piece of dust in the world . I think that even many scientists have made some consequence about the origin of the universe, but so far no one can confirm that it is truth. Of course, people will continue to explore it, and the debate will not be end. I believe that God is the author and master of the universe. We need to ,must to love the earth where we live. Don't destroy it anymore.

Like the song "Dust In The Wind", hmmm? :smile: Yes I agree, speculation & debate amongst scientists will no doubt continue for a very long time indeed with many surprises along the way I suspect.

While I do not share your religious views re the origins of the universe, (I have no religious beliefs), I can certainly share your feelings about how precious this earth of ours is and we must do what we can to protect it.

I hope you're enjoying the forum and I'm very happy to see you posting. :thumbright:

Here's my theory.

Hawking's professional football career is nearly over, and he ain't no spring chicken. Maybe he's preparing for the final exit with a view to, perhaps, a hostile takeover of the God position. It has been a long time since an agnostic or atheist had that post. He'd be like the Obama of our Universe.

:notworthy: ROTFLOL

My sentiments exactly, that's why the "many more layers" appeals to me too. I think the method and process of scientific discovery is one of the greatest inventions of the human mind, and it's something that will not, and should not, ever come to an end.

Never, never, ever! Mind you, I should caution you that you are responding to a post from a person who happily spends time conducting experiments on training ants as to where they may eat and where they may not: successful; whether crane flies can learn to swim: they can't; whether ravens will go along with being bribed to crack open oyster and clam shells on our neighbours' roofs - never ours: they will; presently working on trying to understand the physical construction of the extremely large, blue dragonflies we have here that enables them to duplicate the same flying manouvers whilst hunting of a humming bird despite their having a totally different construct.

Work in progress: an explanation for the apparent sudden discovery of perspective in art in the 15th century. Puzzling in that Plato talked of light and shadow giving form to substance, but in all cultures in totally separate locations - South America, North Africa, etc., both B.C. & A.D. before contacts were made - no perspective in their art. But architectural skills and artistry were, in most cases, both beautiful & impressive. So what happened? Alien art lovers suddenly came whizzing in in the 15th century & fixed a world wide vision anomaly and whizzed off again? Puzzling, but someone has the explanation.... I don't think I'm going too far off topic here, hope not - it may not be the Big Bang, but still science IMO, well sort of.... Not too boring I hope?

______________________________________

 

[Ariadne]

The universe started somehow ... something happened for us to be here. Maybe Hawking doesn't like the word "God", but there has to be a name for the cause of existence. A lot of things (e.g.: salvation) have been attributed to the perceived human enigma that some people consider to be the origin of existence, but that's religion, and nothing more than an emotional method for controlling the population (or ensuring their health, like in the case of eating pork[ie: trichinosis]).

What does Hawking call the beginning of existence; the origin of the universe?

The video about Creationism V Evolution skewed time such that Dinosaurs were alive only a couple of thousand years before the Bible was written. The behemoth in Job 40 is a hippopotamus, not a dinosaur. Religion is bizarre when it comes to brain washing beliefs.

Whatever Hawking wants to call the beginning of existence, whether it be God or some new physics term he likes, makes no difference. I doubt he can deny that it happened and that it deserves a name.

... I should caution you that you are responding to a post from a person who happily spends time conducting experiments on training ants as to where they may eat and where they may not: successful; whether crane flies can learn to swim: they can't; whether ravens will go along with being bribed to crack open oyster and clam shells on our neighbours' roofs - never ours: they will; presently working on trying to understand the physical construction of the extremely large, blue dragonflies

Do you have pictures?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The universe started somehow ... something happened for us to be here. Maybe Hawking doesn't like the word "God", but there has to be a name for the cause of existence.

Not necessarily. The universe may have always existed, the Big Bang might have been a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing cosmos that created our particular corner of it, it may be one of many bubbles coming in and out of existence in a huge foamy multiverse, where the constants of nature and the laws of physics are different in each one, some have the right conditions and endure long enough for life to arise, some don't... Those are just some of the possibilities that emerge from the weirdness at the fringes of theoretical physics.

 

[gerryh]

From what the article states, part of why he feels that way is the existence of other planets which could support life. That doesn't seem like a very 'scientific' or 'genius' reason for deciding that God didn't start it all. It sounds like a very human desire to be special to God, or to walk away if we're not.

Yup...... and I reiterate:

This, really, is on the same level as the creationists statements. Definitive statements about things we don't know definitively.

 

[Ariadne]

Not necessarily. The universe may have always existed, the Big Bang might have been a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing cosmos that created our particular corner of it, it may be one of many bubbles coming in and out of existence in a huge foamy multiverse, where the constants of nature and the laws of physics are different in each one, some have the right conditions and endure long enough for life to arise, some don't... Those are just some of the possibilities that emerge from the weirdness at the fringes of theoretical physics.

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of something having always existed. I understand that things changed over time, and here we are, but I'm kind of stuck on there having to be an originating moment, a time when it all began ... a cause where nothing became something.

 

[Kreskin]

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of something having always existed. I understand that things changed over time, and here we are, but I'm kind of stuck on there having to be an originating moment, a time when it all began ... a cause where nothing became something.

But that also goes for God as well. When did He/She start that gig and how?

 

[Cliffy]

The question is can material reality come out of pure consciousness. I believe it does.

 

[Liberalman]

God created a planet called B iatch when translated to earth

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of something having always existed. I understand that things changed over time, and here we are, but I'm kind of stuck on there having to be an originating moment, a time when it all began ... a cause where nothing became something.

I understand that, it's hard to imagine the infinite and I'm no better at it than anyone else, but presumably that cause must exist before the event where nothing became something, then we need to think about where that cause came from, and where the cause of that cause came from, and so on, in an infinite regress. A lot of people stop at the first cause and call it something like the uncaused first cause, or identify it as a deity if they're religiously inclined, but that just deals with one inexplicable thing by postulating another one, which doesn't really explain anything. Not a fruitful line of inquiry.

 

[Bcool]

Do you have pictures?

Of what or which? Dragonflies or?

Going off-topic again I guess. Want to PM me if interested?

 

[Bcool]

I understand that, it's hard to imagine the infinite and I'm no better at it than anyone else, but presumably that cause must exist before the event where nothing became something, then we need to think about where that cause came from, and where the cause of that cause came from, and so on, in an infinite regress. A lot of people stop at the first cause and call it something like the uncaused first cause, or identify it as a deity if they're religiously inclined, but that just deals with one inexplicable thing by postulating another one, which doesn't really explain anything. Not a fruitful line of inquiry.

It's sort of like a universe sized house of mirrors in a way, is one of my quixotic ways of thinking about it. Reflections of light, which equals energy, which converts to matter at some point, constantly being bounced at.... well, the speed of light & in the process being duplicated in the countless numbers of times we do not have the capacity to count.
As for something from nothing... So wonderfully human of us that we cannot permit this to be so except by "supernatural" means. Not the same thing, but once I learnt of them I found the concept of quarks endearing and sort of explanatory of how the concept of not knowing how or what, etc., does not make something not possible. Here are two scientists in the early sixties extrapolating that 'something' had to exist because hadrons did; hadrons could be proven to exist physically by then but what they consisted of could not be seen but had to be present. Their science created the only possible solution which were quarks: elementary particles and fundamental constituents of matter. At the time of the two scientists theory, the only evidence for their existence was the need for them to exist! But science, on the whole, accepted that they did. It wasn't until four or five years later that their actual physical existence was first observed!
As if that wasn't enough, the additional endearing part to me is the naming: there are six types of quarks, but they're not classified as 'types' they're classified as 'flavours'. Lovely! :love4: It gets better! Each flavour got a name: up; down; charm; strange; top; bottom.

Naturally I used the name Charm Quark for quite a while. LOL

For anyone interested, interesting stuff at: 7d Physics - Wikiversity

So, for those who remember, AFAIC the universe is unfolding as it should. :smile:
_____________________

 

[L Gilbert]

Re: It's offical: God didn't create universe

Not really. Here's a pretty good summary of the issues and what we know so far:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_universe_can%27t_come_from_nothing

"Nothing" is not a physical system, the rules don't apply. We don't actually know what "nothing" is, we have no experience of it. But it IS true that something can come from nothing, as is stated at the link above, quantum fluctuations are empirically validated.

How can you state that something can come from nothing when you don't know what nothing is? How can something you don't know anything about be creditede with making anything? Like people attributing the making of the universe to a bit of fiction. That sounds to me like a leap of faith. Magical even. lol

 

[MHz]

Re: It's offical: God didn't create universe

Like people attributing the making of the universe to a bit of fiction. That sounds to me like a leap of faith. Magical even. lol

Such is the state of our best science, to date and as far as they can imagine time extending foreword. OMG

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: It's offical: God didn't create universe

How can you state that something can come from nothing when you don't know what nothing is?

Context is everything. That was nothing in the sense of no cause, it's been observed directly. It accounts for Hawking radiation and the Casimir effect.

 

[mentalfloss]

I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of something having always existed.

..but I'm kind of stuck on.. a cause where nothing became something.

So.. are you confused about something always existing or not? Because if you can't conceptualize an infinite past for somethingness, then it should technically be more plausible for you to accept a finite somethingness.

Regarding nothingness as a cause - to some degree, our own choices are a direct result of nothingness. We think of something we can do, from a possible future that does not exist yet, and then we act. The nothingness of that possibility caused something to happen.

That said, as others have mentioned, if there was a god, he would have to qualify as 'something'. So, if he would have always existed as per this 'infinite somethingness', then the same could be said of the universe even if it was his creation. Otherwise, as per 'finite somethingness', both he and the universe would have erupted from nothingess.

Found this if it helps (or doesn't)..

To claim that the universe could have begun, say, 2 seconds earlier is to imply that there is some measure of time that is outside and independent of the universe. However, since the first moment of time, by definition, marks the beginning of time, there can be no such independent and external measure of time.[3]

Viney thus declares the debate between the finitist position and the infinitist position on time to be a stalemate, since the former is no less paradoxical than the latter.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_finitism

 

[gerryh]

It's sort of like a universe sized house of mirrors in a way, is one of my quixotic ways of thinking about it. Reflections of light, which equals energy, which converts to matter at some point, constantly being bounced at.... well, the speed of light & in the process being duplicated in the countless numbers of times we do not have the capacity to count.
As for something from nothing... So wonderfully human of us that we cannot permit this to be so except by "supernatural" means. Not the same thing, but once I learnt of them I found the concept of quarks endearing and sort of explanatory of how the concept of not knowing how or what, etc., does not make something not possible. Here are two scientists in the early sixties extrapolating that 'something' had to exist because hadrons did; hadrons could be proven to exist physically by then but what they consisted of could not be seen but had to be present. Their science created the only possible solution which were quarks: elementary particles and fundamental constituents of matter. At the time of the two scientists theory, the only evidence for their existence was the need for them to exist! But science, on the whole, accepted that they did. It wasn't until four or five years later that their actual physical existence was first observed!....................................

another example of what the average joe takes on faith to be true.