A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING {creation ex nihilo}

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Believing in something you will never be able to test, cannot arrive at logically and cannot even meaningfully understand requires a lot more than "a certain amount of faith".

You have essentially decided to believe in something for no other reason than you are told it is true by a person you respect. That's not any more rational than a person 4000 years ago believing in the gods because the local wise man tells him to.

Originally posted by Digi
I disagree, because I do understand and trust the scientific methods of testing that are used to reach such conclusions. Simply understanding that there's a logical underpinning to the process eliminates absolute blind faith.

Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Things are not as bad as you think. That is true for both science and religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Even if a particular scientist contorts the truth to suit his/her purposes, scientists often advance their careers by pointing out the mistakes of others. In fact, this is how most of our progress is made. People are fallible, yes. But the system itself strives for veracity, and is self-correcting in this fashion. So you're missing the forest for the trees. Science is not dogmatic and rigid, and therein lies its strength. My faith in science is not blind because I understand and trust the process. If I were merely placing my trust in an individual person, then you would have a point.

Also, you're using global warming for your own purposes. For every person trying to further an agenda (and they do exist, I'll grant that) there are ten more on either side who just legitimately believe in opposite sides of the story. That is a case where the scientific community is torn, and the appropriate response from lay people is "we don't know," not to assume our own version of the truth. In such cases I wholeheartedly agree with Sym that we shouldn't just take one side or the other, or purport to know the truth. But where no controversy exists, that the world is round for example, we can safely place our trust in it until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

It should also be noted, since I am discussing this with you, that in a case where we can't know something for sure, or where a scientific consensus does not exist, we shouldn't just insert a theistic answer to the question and take that as an answer. That's simply substituting a theory with some evidence for a theory with none.

They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding.

this is how you explain what nothingness is. its nothing, not a vacume of space but nothing at all not even reality not even a infinit empty space or energy, not even existance, its nothing. (beyond our minds to concieve).

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so this is a video of astrophysicist lawrence kraus explaining in a very lucid and scientific way how our universe came from nothing. explaining where were headed and commenting on the role of relegion{or lack thereof}. its just over an hour long at an event where christopher hitchens/dan dennet etc spoke too. hosted partly by richard dawkins. i must say its a WONDERFUL hour and every1 shud check it out and not be daunted by the time period.

enjoy.

YouTube video

Title is a little misleading leonheart

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
this is how you explain what nothingness is. its nothing, not a vacume of space but nothing at all not even reality not even a infinit empty space or energy, not even existance, its nothing. (beyond our minds to concieve).

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, but in current scientific understanding there's no such thing as the "nothing" you describe. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

in a comic a celestial noted that man kind would have to evolve billions of years to even concieve most of the stuff of the universe
also by your definition, matter always existed
how can something always existed?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so? we hardly understand the universe. it could take thousands of years before we even truly understand the universe. better yet we have to evolve 1 millions years before we can even concieve those things🙂
.

in a comic a celestial noted that man kind would have to evolve billions of years to even concieve most of the stuff of the universe
also by your definition, matter always existed
how can something always existed?

If it can't be created or destroyed, then it would HAVE to be that way. It seems obvious to me.

Second law of thermodynamics. All roads lead to failure and entropy, even the ones designed by 1000's of "scientists" (what the **** kinda carreer choice is that anyway?)

Such as the email leak earlier that exposed alot of the global warming scandal.

You don't know what their hiding. You don't know if anyone is telling the truth. Are your ears hardened to the specs of truth by dogmatic "fact" pushed down your throat by all forms of authority in power today? A good example is the fact that they can recreate fossil fuels, for cheap, as well. They have been able to do it since the 90s. How much have you heard about that?

Another good example is the KMC response to the exposure of the global warming scandal, as it was quickly covered up so that no-one else would question.

The scientist could be giving you a whole other reality to base your lives on while they keep the true one hidden.

Might I present to you: galileo's captors, the catholic church. Now, i know you're going to laugh and say religion censored g's findings on astrology, but consider today's government.

Do you know how we got out of the great depression, for instance? Do you know that you are a piece of property belonging to the banks that bought america out and that your birth cirtificate is proof of purchase?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What do you mean "how can something always existed"?

If it can't be created or destroyed, then it would HAVE to be that way. It seems obvious to me.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
wtf?🤨
that statement contradicts another science one that "nothing can be of infinit age" also i watched a dvd in my astronomy class were the stricly said matter had to come to existence at some point in time

Did the DVD happen to mention how or why?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Did the DVD happen to mention how or why?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes, but its to complicated for me to remeber better yet explain, but it has something to do with the universe not having infinit matter or infinit energy and nothing can be of infinit age.
you know one of those dvds of a old boring scientist explaining things....

Originally posted by Mindship
Confusion can result from lack of consistent definitions. Basically: the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age. But there are unification theories which postulate a "multiverse", ie, a far vaster context in which our Hubble volume occurs. This could well be the infinite Something Which Always Was. Or, far more sublime, the infinite SWAW could be "Consciousness As Such" or "God" (whatever these may mean). Or it could just be "energy" in the most basic sense, which always was. The important thing, IMO, is that SWAW is a simpler proposition than Something which has a beginning. And science tends to prefer the more simple to the less simple, at least as a starting point.

But we know pretty much for certain that the matter around us isn't infinitely old, protons and neutron decay after a finite amount of time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But we know pretty much for certain that the matter around us isn't infinitely old, protons and neutron decay after a finite amount of time.

Originally posted by Mindship
...the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age...

Don't make me double-guess my own pontification, dagnabit.

Oops. 😮

It does, however, mean that there was manner of "creation" event at some point in our past even if the universe is infinitely old. Either energy had to become matter or the laws of nature had to change to make matter impermanent.

Of course, neither is "ex niholo" or necessarily created by a god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oops. 😮

It does, however, mean that there was manner of "creation" event at some point in our past even if the universe is infinitely old. Either energy had to become matter or the laws of nature had to change to make matter impermanent.

Of course, neither is "ex niholo" or necessarily created by a god.

There does not have to be a point of creation. From the point of the multiverse, the big bang could have been just an event.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There does not have to be a point of creation. From the point of the multiverse, the big bang could have been just an event.

And event that... created, our universe.

Alternately our universe always existed but we know matter can't be infinitely old because its components decay thus it had to be... created, at some point.

You're looking for the connotation of this being a special or mystical event. That's irrelevant. Based on our understanding of reality there must be a point when reality as we know it (or at least matter as we know it) was created, formed, begun, whatever.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And event that... created, our universe.

Alternately our universe always existed but we know matter can't be infinitely old because its components decay thus it had to be... created, at some point.

You're looking for the connotation of this being a special or mystical event. That's irrelevant. Based on our understanding of reality there must be a point when reality as we know it (or at least matter as we know it) was created, formed, begun, whatever.

I see, you are using the word "created" in the common meaning. Like a vase being created from clay. However, in a religious forum, the word "creation" has a different meaning, in most cases. Also, when scientists say the universe was created from nothing, they simply confuse the issue even more.