How Can We Best Explain Our Existence ?

[Legion]

Legion, you poet, you.

 

I have a confession. I can explain my existence.

 

I exist because I’ve had my nutritional and environmental needs sufficiently met, and I have successfully defended myself from millions of malevolent micro-organisms and viruses and one time in junior high school from a bully named Craig. That is why I exist.

 

Don't forget the part about your parents doing it.

I don't like to think about my parents doing it.

[MagickMonkey]

I don't do much posting around here these days, but since you saw fit to (mistakenly) invoke the second law of thermodynamics, I'll step in here. If we're going to be accurate, which is what I do, the evidence of science shows us that the universe in it's Current State is indeed finite. What that does not say, is that the universe can't have always existed in some form or other, or that it can't have come from something else

 

 

Evidence that the universe had a beginning

 

http://english.pravd...596-beginning-0

 

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system.

 

http://www.mathpages.../s7-01/7-01.htm

 

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :

http://news.national...teuniverse.html

 

 

That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

 

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

 

http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html

 

[justify]The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[/justify]

 

http://www.thekeyboa...%20infinity.htm

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

 

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

 

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

 

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

http://wiki.answers....arity_come_from

 

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

 

http://thoughtlife.w...c-observations/

 

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

 

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

 

http://www.godandsci.../beginning.html

 

 

As it stands, the little evidence we do have about the origin of the universe point to a number of different theories, of roughly equal validity

.

 

that is false. The most accepted theory by the scientific community is the Big Bang theory.

 

The universe could have pinched off from an existing universe, and expanded as a self-contained unit. With regard to the second law of thermodynamics, only the energy present within this universe is finite, as far as we have observed. That need not be the case for outside of it. Whether or not the universe is infinite, that it's state has and will change is a given, and the loss of energy (heat death) need not be permanent.

 

Onces the universe is in a state of heat death, it cannot change, unless it would be a open system. But that is not what is most plausible. Einstein aknowledged this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, I'm not wasting my time with all of this. Perhaps even what I do is a waste of time, but here it goes?

 

 

"infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing."

 

How the fuck is infinite density synonymous to nothing? Infinite density simply means no space. Nothing means no matter. The big bang didn't start with nothing. It started with everything.

 

I think those who see nothing before the big bang lack imagination. I like my idea of negative time and space before the big bang. But I'm no physicist, and am perhaps totally full of shit in regard to any notion of negative time (time before the big bang where density approaches 0 as t approaches negative infinity)

 

So lets assume the big bang was the absolute beginning. That does NOT mean the universe was created. It's the beginning simply because time does not exist prior to the big bang. If you put a block on a ruler, and line up an edge of the block at the zero mark, you can say that the block starts at 0 and extends to however long the block is. That does not mean someone built the block at the zero mark.. Maybe there's a better way to explain this. There's nothing to indicate creation of matter and energy during the big bang. It was only the beginning of the expansion of space, allowing for the cooling of the universe and the approach of zero density as time approaches infinity.

 

There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense.

 

Well, not now that there is space for matter to occupy.

 

As it stands, the little evidence we do have about the origin of the universe point to a number of different theories, of roughly equal validity

.

 

that is false. The most accepted theory by the scientific community is the Big Bang theory.

 

There are several theories incorporating a basic big bang theory and different ideas about what the big bang means. Nice try, but you simply exposed your ignorance.

[Ouroboros]

Wow, I'm not wasting my time with all of this. Perhaps even what I do is a waste of time, but here it goes?

It is a huge waste of time. You're not debating with him, you're debating with the people he's quoting. He only add a few comments (2-3) to the whole post, the rest is taken from other sources, without getting the credits. He is a plagiarismus maximus. So, yes, it's a waste of time debating with this deceptive and unethical cretin.

 

At our school he'd be suspended for further investigations, most likely expelled indefinitely.

 

(See how nice I am! I give him a second chance even though he doesn't deserve it.)

[Legion]

See how nice I am!

 

If you're so nice then why do you have a beer drinking demon as your avatar?

[Ouroboros]

If you're so nice then why do you have a beer drinking demon as your avatar?

Hey! It's not a demon, it's a gargoyle. Gargoyles can be nice! Haven't you seen the TV series by Disney? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyles_%28TV_series%29

 

 

[MagickMonkey]

Wow, I'm not wasting my time with all of this. Perhaps even what I do is a waste of time, but here it goes?

It is a huge waste of time. You're not debating with him, you're debating with the people he's quoting. He only add a few comments (2-3) to the whole post, the rest is taken from other sources, without getting the credits. He is a plagiarismus maximus. So, yes, it's a waste of time debating with this deceptive and unethical cretin.

 

At our school he'd be suspended for further investigations, most likely expelled indefinitely.

 

(See how nice I am! I give him a second chance even though he doesn't deserve it.)

 

I imagine he resorts to these improper quotes because he really doesn't understand what the words mean. Of course, ideas about time not existing before the big bang kinda makes my head want to explode, unless I simply look at it as a number. But he tries to get by with claiming that science points to a creator, when he is totally clueless. I know I will not convince him, but I worry about someone else who might be on the fence reading this and falling for his bs. I guess I do not really need to worry for people who are truly looking for the truth.

[Ouroboros]

I imagine he resorts to these improper quotes because he really doesn't understand what the words mean.

Probably so. And he can't formulate ideas on his own. He can't synthesize his own ideas because, as you say, he can't comprehend the intricacy of the concepts.

 

Of course, ideas about time not existing before the big bang kinda makes my head want to explode, unless I simply look at it as a number. But he tries to get by with claiming that science points to a creator, when he is totally clueless. I know I will not convince him, but I worry about someone else who might be on the fence reading this and falling for his bs. I guess I do not really need to worry for people who are truly looking for the truth.

Yeah, but the reason why I think you're wasting time is because pretty much everything he wrote were exact, literal quotes from other people, so you're not really debating or discussing with him, but you're discussing other authors that are not here. He will just keep on quoting obscure texts to "prove" his point, the same way as some other Christians in the past kept on quoting the Bible as answers to everything. You won't get anywhere.

 

But you know, I won't stop you, and I admire that you still have the energy to do it.

 

Sometimes it can be good just for your own sake to do it. Even if it doesn't help him to understand science, even if you don't get any reasonable answers, and even if no one perchance doesn't read it, at least it gives you the opportunity to research the topics and learn from it. So, by all means, I'm not stopping you.

[MagickMonkey]

I imagine he resorts to these improper quotes because he really doesn't understand what the words mean.

Probably so. And he can't formulate ideas on his own. He can't synthesize his own ideas because, as you say, he can't comprehend the intricacy of the concepts.

 

Of course, ideas about time not existing before the big bang kinda makes my head want to explode, unless I simply look at it as a number. But he tries to get by with claiming that science points to a creator, when he is totally clueless. I know I will not convince him, but I worry about someone else who might be on the fence reading this and falling for his bs. I guess I do not really need to worry for people who are truly looking for the truth.

Yeah, but the reason why I think you're wasting time is because pretty much everything he wrote were exact, literal quotes from other people, so you're not really debating or discussing with him, but you're discussing other authors that are not here. He will just keep on quoting obscure texts to "prove" his point, the same way as some other Christians in the past kept on quoting the Bible as answers to everything. You won't get anywhere.

 

But you know, I won't stop you, and I admire that you still have the energy to do it.

 

Sometimes it can be good just for your own sake to do it. Even if it doesn't help him to understand science, even if you don't get any reasonable answers, and even if no one perchance doesn't read it, at least it gives you the opportunity to research the topics and learn from it. So, by all means, I'm not stopping you.

 

Thanks. I think I do still have the energy and it is kinda fun thinking about the big bang and all that, but I don't know that I have the time. I'm already behind on my Calc II homework. I imagine his strategy is to overwhelm us with info, and when we do not have time to respond, he'll claim we're stumped and claim victory. I think unless he starts synthesising his own ideas, I'll refrain from further response to his posts. Then again, it is somewhat easy to draw me into an argument.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks. I think I do still have the energy and it is kinda fun thinking about the big bang and all that, but I don't know that I have the time. I'm already behind on my Calc II homework. I imagine his strategy is to overwhelm us with info, and when we do not have time to respond, he'll claim we're stumped and claim victory. I think unless he starts synthesising his own ideas, I'll refrain from further response to his posts. Then again, it is somewhat easy to draw me into an argument.

You and me both, man. I have a calc class too. I guess you're ahead of me, but I did read calc 30 years ago, so I'm currently reading up on it, bottom-up.

 

My second class is biological anthropology, which is awesome, because it's basically a whole semester only learning about evidence that supports evolution.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

why should they be obvious ?

To leave no room for doubt. To ensure one true religion.

 

 

 

Only , if God does not exist, and people invent their God.

No, there could be some universal force, that all religions are invented as a attempt to understand. Some universal god maybe. Or maybe there is a just a first cause god, and all religions are lousy attempts at trying to comprehend that first cause god. Or maybe your right, there is no god, and gods are invented.

 

 

actually, no. That follows rationally from the inference, that the universe had a absolute beginning, and beyond your universe, no time, no matter, and no space existed. Therefore, the cause had to be timeless, eternal, beginningless, spaceless, extremely powerful, and personal. And it fits perfectly with the biblical account.

Okay on second thought I will grant you some of these, because if your right this would definitely have to be. That a god would have to be eternal(means always been around and always will be btw),and timeless. If I recall and if I didn't it was a typo, I didn't bold extremely powerful. But you miss out on your key claim, personal. Who says this god would have to be personal? Can't it just create and not be apart of its creation. You going to have to prove that one. I see no evidence as far as our existence and our history to say that, if there is a god it would be personal. There is the various problems of the problem of free will, suffering, evil, lack of evidence for miracles, to deal with.

 

 

 

scientific evidence.

Nope, if your evidence is correct(I don't think it is, but I am not really literate enough to debate in a viable way, so I am letting the others on here do it.) You miss out on the key attribute of being personal. The others would come with a one-god idea. Though I think the people who came up with the bible had different reasons for it. Like, where did we come from?, ohhh god. But where did god come from?, he would have to be eternal(You get the idea.) They weren't responding to some divine will, but creating a idea that made the most sense to them.

 

I am not here to proof God. But the bible describes God exactly, as our scientific knowledge predicts he should be.

Well you are trying to prove the existence of god. Even if the idea fits and is a working explanation. A working explanation doesn't always mean its a correct explanation.

[ilovemybrain]

Admitted "layperson" here: if I understand correctly, (and I think Dhampir touched on this) the Big Bang Theory doesn't claim that the matter/energy that comprises this universe was made from nothing. From all I've read, cosmologists claim that matter/energy has always existed in some form. Which seems way more plausible than that a very complex being always existed.

 

Also, I don't see how it would logically follow from the assumption of an creator, that it would be unchanging or personal. And if we assume it's the god of the bible, then there's the whole other can of worms regarding not only bible contradictions, but the differing views of the 30000 or so Christian sects...

[Guest Valk0010]

Admitted "layperson" here: if I understand correctly, (and I think Dhampir touched on this) the Big Bang Theory doesn't claim that the matter/energy that comprises this universe was made from nothing. From all I've read, cosmologists claim that matter/energy in some form has always existed in some form. Which seems way more plausible than that a very complex being always existed.

 

Also, I don't see how it would logically follow from the assumption of an creator, that it would be unchanging or personal. And if we assume it's hhe god of the bible, then there's the whole other can of worms regarding not only bible contradictions, but the differing views of the 30000 or so Christian sects...

I do know enough to know that, nothing can come from a vacuum, there has to be stuff that the big bang used when it started, since nothing can be created from a vacuum nothing. Physicist when they say nothing don't usually mean the vacuum nothing.

 

 

 

The guy this video is critiquing is the most common deceptor in that idea. The nothing begin vacuum nothing and all.

[MagickMonkey]

Thanks. I think I do still have the energy and it is kinda fun thinking about the big bang and all that, but I don't know that I have the time. I'm already behind on my Calc II homework. I imagine his strategy is to overwhelm us with info, and when we do not have time to respond, he'll claim we're stumped and claim victory. I think unless he starts synthesising his own ideas, I'll refrain from further response to his posts. Then again, it is somewhat easy to draw me into an argument.

You and me both, man. I have a calc class too. I guess you're ahead of me, but I did read calc 30 years ago, so I'm currently reading up on it, bottom-up.

 

My second class is biological anthropology, which is awesome, because it's basically a whole semester only learning about evidence that supports evolution.

 

Cool deal, Calculus is so cool. It's a lot of work though. I don't have the free time that I used to. I'm also taking Western Civilization, which is ok. I'm taking it as an online course, and I can already tell from the discussion posts that I've got some fundies in my class. Screwing with the fundies heads might actually make the class fun.

[Overcame Faith]

Admitted "layperson" here: if I understand correctly, (and I think Dhampir touched on this) the Big Bang Theory doesn't claim that the matter/energy that comprises this universe was made from nothing. From all I've read, cosmologists claim that matter/energy has always existed in some form. Which seems way more plausible than that a very complex being always existed.

 

Also, I don't see how it would logically follow from the assumption of an creator, that it would be unchanging or personal. And if we assume it's hhe god of the bible, then there's the whole other can of worms regarding not only bible contradictions, but the differing views of the 30000 or so Christian sects...

 

The whole discussion introduced by the OP is a subterfuge. He doesn't care how best to explain our existence. His mind is already made up and nothing any of us say will change his mind. He cares only about proselytizing Christianity. He hopes that some folks who are not quite sure what to believe about Christianity, who may be sitting on the fence at this point, will read his high sounding arguments and be convinced that he is correct. Logic and rationality don't fit into his agenda. What we say in counter to his silly arguments merely gives him the platform he wants.

 

Many of you have already noticed something very important. He ignores most of our refutations of his arguments and then simply repeats those same arguments that have been refuted again and again as if they are accepted facts. He is not engaging in a meaningful debate and he doesn't care.

 

I am finished with him and shall not address anything further he says.

 

Now a note to anyone who is reading this thread who is earnestly seeking the truth. Take the abmonition that our moderator, Ouroboros, warned about seriously. This guy is merely providing quotes from christian apologists without giving proper credit to them. If you have a question or concern, then feel free to post those questions and I can promise you that many people on this forum will respond to your questions in an earnest attempt to reveal the truth to you as best as we can. Don't depend on people like the OP.

[MagickMonkey]

Admitted "layperson" here: if I understand correctly, (and I think Dhampir touched on this) the Big Bang Theory doesn't claim that the matter/energy that comprises this universe was made from nothing. From all I've read, cosmologists claim that matter/energy has always existed in some form. Which seems way more plausible than that a very complex being always existed.

 

Also, I don't see how it would logically follow from the assumption of an creator, that it would be unchanging or personal. And if we assume it's hhe god of the bible, then there's the whole other can of worms regarding not only bible contradictions, but the differing views of the 30000 or so Christian sects...

 

The whole discussion introduced by the OP is a subterfuge. He doesn't care how best to explain our existence. His mind is already made up and nothing any of us say will change his mind. He cares only about proselytizing Christianity. He hopes that some folks who are not quite sure what to believe about Christianity, who may be sitting on the fence at this point, will read his high sounding arguments and be convinced that he is correct. Logic and rationality don't fit into his agenda. What we say in counter to his silly arguments merely gives him the platform he wants.

 

Many of you have already noticed something very important. He ignores most of our refutations of his arguments and then simply repeats those same arguments that have been refuted again and again as if they are accepted facts. He is not engaging in a meaningful debate and he doesn't care.

 

I am finished with him and shall not address anything further he says.

 

Now a note to anyone who is reading this thread who is earnestly seeking the truth. Take the abmonition that our moderator, Ouroboros, warned about seriously. This guy is merely providing quotes from christian apologists without giving proper credit to them. If you have a question or concern, then feel free to post those questions and I can promise you that many people on this forum will respond to your questions in an earnest attempt to reveal the truth to you as best as we can. Don't depend on people like the OP.

 

Ditto what Overcame Faith just said.

 

Also, if you want a balanced source of information, don't be afraid to consider what all sides of the argument say. Check out the apologist sites. Ask us what we think. Ask Christian apologists what they think. Keep a truly opened mind. The most important goal should be discovering the truth as best you can and seeing it for what it really is rather than what you or anyone else thinks it is. Don't be afraid to find out that the facts do not match your existing world view. Try to see through bullshit as much as possible.

[Ouroboros]

Cool deal, Calculus is so cool. It's a lot of work though.

Yeah. I know.

 

I don't have the free time that I used to. I'm also taking Western Civilization, which is ok. I'm taking it as an online course, and I can already tell from the discussion posts that I've got some fundies in my class. Screwing with the fundies heads might actually make the class fun.

Good for you. Keep on mess with their heads. One day they might wake up and realize how silly they were.

 

---

 

And to everyone, especially Overcame Faith, +1 to y'all.

[ilovemybrain]

No I'm perfectly aware it's proseletyzing bullshit. I have already looked at the apologists arguments for many years and am now reading science with actual data. I'm just sharpening my claws. I can see that he is just quoting the same crap over and over - I'm pointing out his flawed understanding of what cosmology claims. Methinks the OP has never heard of vacuum fluctuation (zero-point energy).

[ilovemybrain]

IMHO, this kind of troll is at least slightly better than a Justyna. There is an actual topic in question, rather than just "God is real cuz I hear him in my head, and you all secretly believe in him too I can't hear you lalala..."

[Ouroboros]

Methinks the OP has never heard of vacuum fluctuation (zero-point energy).

And methinks that he doesn't have a proper education. He should know how serious plagiarism is.

[MagickMonkey]

IMHO, this kind of troll is at least slightly better than a Justyna. There is an actual topic in question, rather than just "God is real cuz I hear him in my head, and you all secretly believe in him too I can't hear you lalala..."

 

Maybe since Justyna was banned, she created a bogus account and changed her methods a bit? Probably not, but the timing kinda raises a flag.

[Guest Valk0010]

IMHO, this kind of troll is at least slightly better than a Justyna. There is an actual topic in question, rather than just "God is real cuz I hear him in my head, and you all secretly believe in him too I can't hear you lalala..."

 

Maybe since Justyna was banned, she created a bogus account and changed her methods a bit? Probably not, but the timing kinda raises a flag.

We have had a consistent stream of people for awhile now. I sometimes wonder if there isn't some church somewhere who discovered this site and there sending in people one at a time.

 

Also, why did justnya if this is her, not do this when she was registered as her name.

 

This guy's modus operandi, is to sound really really smart and say alot of really lot of smart things. Not something that is really a god is real I feel him kind of approach.

[ilovemybrain]

Yeah I'm on the lookout for her "reincarnated" self too - I don't think it's real likely she'll leave us alone.

[MagickMonkey]

IMHO, this kind of troll is at least slightly better than a Justyna. There is an actual topic in question, rather than just "God is real cuz I hear him in my head, and you all secretly believe in him too I can't hear you lalala..."

 

Maybe since Justyna was banned, she created a bogus account and changed her methods a bit? Probably not, but the timing kinda raises a flag.

We have had a consistent stream of people for awhile now. I sometimes wonder if there isn't some church somewhere who discovered this site and there sending in people one at a time.

 

Also, why did justnya if this is her, not do this when she was registered as her name.

 

This guy's modus operandi, is to sound really really smart and say alot of really lot of smart things. Not something that is really a god is real I feel him kind of approach.

 

One would think churches would be scared to send folks our way. That could lead to deconversion. I remember when I was in high school, a sunday school teacher told us about being careful when trying to convert atheists. He told us about a youth group who set up a mock debate to practice their proselytizing skills, and the kid arguing from the atheists perspective ended up really becoming an atheist.

[ilovemybrain]

It's actually been kind of helpful to me. Every time I start to wonder a little bit if I'm mistaken, or missing out on something, I just go listen to the Christians and realize all over again what nonsense it is and how I SO don't want to be like them anymore. On the other hand, There is definitely limit to what we should put up with.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe since Justyna was banned, she created a bogus account and changed her methods a bit? Probably not, but the timing kinda raises a flag.

Most likely not.

 

Justyna lives in Southern California (only about 1.5 hours from where I live). Her IP#s are banned too. She can only register again when she's back in school. She would be able to register again from the school network. Unless she used some kind of proxy.

 

And the new guy lives in Brazil according to his IP#s.

 

(I have superpowers you know. )