According to the Atheistic concept of the universe the "primal egg" which exploded in the big bang provided all the raw materials out of which the universe of today evolved. But where did this "primal egg" come from?

There are two explanations given for the origin of this "primal egg":

It formed from the gravitational collapse of the previous universe, and
It came into existence spontaneously according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
Yet neither of these attempts to explain the origin of the universe are satisfying. Both assume the pre-existence of the natural laws, time, space and energy. Where did these come from?

The Atheist will answer this question by saying that the natural laws have always existed or that they sprang into existence before the big bang. But these answers are beyond anyone's ability to know using empiricism and the scientific method — it is an answer given on faith.

But why would an Atheist feel compelled to resort to using faith if all things that exist can be explained using empiricism? If the Atheist must use faith in order to answer some of the more difficult questions, doesn't this prove that faith itself exists as a thing unto itself?

But what do the laws of nature tell us about faith? Science does not even speak of such things as faith even though it certainly exists. Therefore, science does not and cannot explain all that exists. In other words, there are things that exist and are observable which are beyond the ability of science to explain. To deny this is to deny the existence of that which we can clearly observe. 

Therefore, science does not and cannot explain all that exists. In other words, there are things that exist and are observable which are beyond the ability of science to explain.

I agree with you 100% on that, and you will find that all scientists do too. That is why they continue to search for the answers and make new discoveries. All the galaxies are moving away from each other as observed using telescopes, all the evidence shows that they are expanding from a huge explosion. What happened before the explosion, why this happened and where did the material come from? Nobody knows yet, but scientists are working on it using particle accelorators, quantum mechanics, relativity equations etc.

Do you think you have the answer?
It is ok to say we dont yet know but we are getting there.

It seems to me that it is only the religious who claim to know everything there is to know about our existence. This is such a shame because there is so much more to learn.

respects

mantraa:

I agree with you 100% on that, and you will find that all scientists do too. That is why they continue to search for the answers and make new discoveries. All the galaxies are moving away from each other as observed using telescopes, all the evidence shows that they are expanding from a huge explosion. What happened before the explosion, why this happened and where did the material come from? Nobody knows yet, but scientists are working on it using particle accelorators, quantum mechanics, relativity equations etc.

Do you think you have the answer?
It is ok to say we dont yet know but we are getting there.

It seems to me that it is only the religious who claim to know everything there is to know about our existence. This is such a shame because there is so much more to learn.

respects

Actually it seems to me that you are fond of lying because even the bible did not write every detail on how the world was created, meaning there is plenty we dont know about and are still learning.
I have never seen a christian claim to know everything about our existence. We've had enough of dirty, dishonest, despicable and repulsive lies from the likes of you.

We've had enough of dirty, dishonest, despicable and repulsive lies from the likes of you.

I sincerely hope that one day you will awake from the bronze age god delusions forced upon our ancestors by european slavemasters.
Goodnight and sleep well my brother.

respects

mantraa:

I sincerely hope that one day you will awake from the bronze age god delusions forced upon our ancestors by european slavemasters.
Goodnight and sleep well my brother.

respects

As usual, brushes aside addressing his lies. I'd rather bronze age god delusions than outright intellectual dishonesty and 21st century pseudo-scientific delusions forced on you by european slavemasters. Face it, if ALL europeans agreed today that God existed, you goons wont have a choice but to agree . . . shows how much of a "free mind" you truly exercise.

I wish you well too my brother, harsh words notwithstanding.

@ Mantraa

Do you think you have the answer?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,

@ Davidylan,

Face it, if ALL europeans agreed today that God existed, you goons wont have a choice but to agree . . . shows how much of a "free mind" you truly exercise.

Therefore, science does not and cannot explain all that exists. In other words, there are things that exist and are observable which are beyond the ability of science to explain.

Unlike religion science has not yet stopped looking for answers

Atheists:

Unlike religion science has not yet stopped looking for answers

Are you a scientist?

Are you a scientist?

Engineer

Are you a scientist?


Engineer

You guys are funny

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,  Wink

Just because something is written does not mean that it is true. Where is the evidence to support the above statement? Remember that it was written by human beings around 3000 years ago and that was the best explanation they could come up with at the time. Also remember that writing was still a fairly new invention and was the only way of making a permanent record of your thoughts. Only a very few people had the skill of writing and reading what was written. Most people were farmers, peasants and slaves, and had no way of questioning the validity of what was written. And if you did question it you would be called a heretic and burnt at the stake in public, creating an atmosphere of fear, submission and exploitation.

Nowadays, with our knowledge of the world from plate tectonics, to cosmology, and evolution, we can see that the genesis story in the bible is false and written by people who knew very little about our universe compared to what we know today.

davidylan:

Actually it seems to me that you are fond of lying because even the bible did not write every detail on how the world was created, meaning there is plenty we dont know about and are still learning.
I have never seen a christian claim to know everything about our existence. We've had enough of dirty, dishonest, despicable and repulsive lies from the likes of you.

The problem is that the writers of the creation account do NOT know how any thing was created. . . the only ascribed the existence of what they saw around them to their warrior and tribal deity. . .

davidylan:

Actually it seems to me that you are fond of lying because even the bible did not write every detail [/b]on how the world was created, meaning there is plenty we dont know about and [b]are still learning.
I  have never seen a christian claim to know everything about our existence. We've had enough of dirty, dishonest, despicable and repulsive lies from the likes of you.

The Bible did not provide ANY DETAIL on how the world was made. It only made pronouncements like;

kolaxy:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, 

And we are to take that as the details of the creation of the universe, it did not even go on to give us the description and essence of what a god is.

Then the content of the earth and everything within sight (remember sight of the ancient Mesopotamian author)  was created by "and God said". Now is there any details in that. We were not even told in what language god was speaking, the exact sounds god spoke and the other persons, things or beings god was speaking to. Also how many Gods were there in the beginning. and that is what some people will call details.

When are religionists especially the Abrahamic Variation ever in support of learning. Infact they kept civilization in ignorance for a better part of 17 millinia. They are opposed to learning, to them everything a man needs to learn is already contained in their book handed down by their god, and others not within can only be learned from revelation directly from their god. Searching for any other knowledge like the origin of the universe or man is sheer rebellion leading to hell.

wirinet:

When are religionists especially the Abrahamic Variation ever in support of learning. Infact they kept civilization in ignorance for a better part of 17 millinia. They are opposed to learning, to them everything a man needs to learn is already contained in their book handed down by their god, and others not within can only be learned from revelation directly from their god. Searching for any other knowledge like the origin of the universe or man is sheer rebellion leading to hell.

Not all religionists are fundamentalists.

The bible's written words never killed or enslaved anybody. . . Humans did that.

IMO religion can be very healthy. Mature religion, though, and not straight up blind faith in superstition. It is that blind faith in superstition that allows for most of the problems I think you have with the whole religion thing.

All I'm saying is being religious doesn't necessarily make u superstitious, IMO.

wirinet:
Infact they kept civilization in ignorance for a better part of 17 millinia. They are opposed to learning, to them everything a man needs to learn is already contained in their book handed down by their god, and others not within can only be learned from revelation directly from their god. Searching for any other knowledge like the origin of the universe or man is sheer rebellion leading to hell.

What would they want to learn for, wiri! Does their book not say that "On the day that they learn they shall die"? [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:17&version=NIV]Genesis 2:17[/url] And if their book says so is that not "God said so". Funny thing is how what really happens when they learn is the opening of their eyes! But that has been placed in the devil column [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:5&version=NIV]Genesis 3:5[/url]

The take that Jesus Christ dude with his "It is written"! [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:1-11&version=NIV]Matthew 4:1-11[/url]. A learner, right! An eater of the Fruit of Good and Evil, who knows the twixt of the twain! No wonder he died, after the angels had ministered to him! And if only people could understand.

kolaxy:

According to the Atheistic concept of the universe the "primal egg" which exploded in the big bang provided all the raw materials out of which the universe of today evolved. But where did this "primal egg" come from?

There are two explanations given for the origin of this "primal egg":

It formed from the gravitational collapse of the previous universe, and
It came into existence spontaneously according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
Yet neither of these attempts to explain the origin of the universe are satisfying. Both assume the pre-existence of the natural laws, time, space and energy. Where did these come from?

The Atheist will answer this question by saying that the natural laws have always existed or that they sprang into existence before the big bang. But these answers are beyond anyone's ability to know using empiricism and the scientific method — it is an answer given on faith.

But why would an Atheist feel compelled to resort to using faith if all things that exist can be explained using empiricism? If the Atheist must use faith in order to answer some of the more difficult questions, doesn't this prove that faith itself exists as a thing unto itself?

But what do the laws of nature tell us about faith? Science does not even speak of such things as faith even though it certainly exists. Therefore, science does not and cannot explain all that exists. In other words, there are things that exist and are observable which are beyond the ability of science to explain. To deny this is to deny the existence of that which we can clearly observe. 

That's a load of nonsense.

First, the Big Bang theory (which is upon what this thread is supposed to be based) isn't an atheistic concept, so much as it is secular in its scientific scope. Many theists accept it as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, while several atheists reject it or are agnostic or apathetic towards its merits.

Second, what the hell do eggs have to do with the big bang theory? Yes, I know it you may have meant it metaphorically, but it just came out all wrong, didn't it? In any case, no the big bang theory doesn't state that the big bang resulted from a previous universe - that's the "Big Bounce".

Further, no, explanations for beyond the big bang don't "assume the pre-existence of the natural laws, time, space and energy." In fact, from can and has been observed, classical laws break down as we approach Planck time; time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space.

Third, knowing these things are not beyond the scope of human abilities. While some of them are known, found or/and theorised through mathematical and simulation models, some are found through the study of the behaviour of space and objects out there.

Finally, um, I don't know where the Bleep you get your ideas from, but science doesn't deny the existence of faith. There's no doubt that faith of different levels and tempers exist. Your straw-men in your op have been pretty silly, to be frank.

KAG:


Time was started by the big bang and may have even began after the inflation of space.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. Time is an intangible, non-contingent and eternal entity. It cannot be created by an explosion of anything or any description.

It's reference point in fact cannot be this universe and the big bang, - what if there are other universes out there? Would we state that time does not exist there? ? ?

What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?

Deep Sight:

I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. Time is an intangible, non-contingent and eternal entity. It cannot be created by an explosion of anything or any description.

Nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote? Time is in fact tangible and contingent. Irrespective of one's scientific take on time, accepting it as anything other than a factor within our universe is unfounded. That is, from a scientific (and even metaphysical) point of view, whether one views time as a dimension or a human construct in lieu of change, it is contingent on the universe - our universe.

It's reference point in fact cannot be this universe and the big bang, - what if there are other universes out there? Would we state that time does not exist there? ? ?

Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen.

To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together.

What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?

What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet?

KAG:

Time is in fact tangible

Really? I hope you know the definition of the word "Tangible". Because it means something that you can touch. Can you touch time?

You went further to state that time is contingent. Do you think that time is something that can fail to be in existence at any point? What really do you understand by the word "time"?

If i might ask you a question. If you belive that the Big Bang created Time, you of course also belive that it created space.

Therefore:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Into what has it been expanding all this while?

Of course it has been expanding into empty already existent space, because space, like time, is a non-contingent and infinite quantity.

GBAM!

KAG:


What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet?

GBAM Again!!!

Finite thinking. Limiting yourself based on language formulas, good grief!

What about numbers?

What comes before zero in numerics?

Yes. . . -1, -2, -3, up to infinity. . . never ending sequence. . .

Get it? ? ?

@ Deep sight

Quote from: KAG on Yesterday at 10:48:59 PM

What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet?


GBAM Again!!!

Finite thinking. Limiting yourself based on language formula, good grief!

What about numbers?

What comes before zero in numerics?

Yes. . . -1, -2, -3, up to infinity. . . never ending sequence. . .

Get it? ? ?

Good one

Deep Sight:

Really? I hope you know the definition of the word "Tangible". Because it means something that you can touch. Can you touch time?

That, or it means, given the context of what I wrote:

"Tangible: 2 able to be grasped by the mind. 3 real or definite (Dictionary: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=Tangible&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search). You're welcome.

Can time be grasped by the human mind? Is it real? I say yes.

You went further to state that time is contingent. Do you think that time is something that can fail to be in existence at any point? What really do you understand by the word "time"?

It is dependent on the existence of space in the universe, and if one, for some reason, refuses to subscribe to the findings of Einstein, Lorentz, et al. then it is, at the very least dependent on entropy. Hopefully, those should give you an idea of what I mean by time at its most basic and general.

If i might ask you a question. If you belive that the Big Bang created Time, you of course also belive that it created space.

Therefore:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Into what has it been expanding all this while?

Of course it has been expanding into empty already existent space, because space, like time, is a non-contingent and infinite quantity.

GBAM!

I accept that the the big bang occurred beyond time and that space came about as a result of inflation. There was no creation; just occurrence. The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe.

Finally, space is contingent as well. I don't think you know the science you're trying to argue against here.

[quote]What was there before the big bang? Metaphorically speaking in human terms - one second before the Big bang was still a point in time, no?

What letter comes before the letter "A" in the English alphabet?

GBAM Again!!!

Finite thinking. Limiting yourself based on language formulas, good grief!

What about numbers?

What comes before zero in numerics?

Yes. . . -1, -2, -3, up to infinity. . . never ending sequence. . .

Get it? ? ?


[/quote]

Oh dear, talk about completely missing the point! There was a reason I used the analogy. If numbers had what I was describing, I would have used them. Since it appears my point may have been too subtle, I'll be more explicit. Asking what time there was before the big bang is akin to asking for the letter that appears before the letter "A" in the English alphabet. The question simply makes no sense in that given paradigm. There is no time beyond the big bang because spatial dimension and change would have only begun after the big bang and inflation.

By the way, I'm hoping you now realise that your numbers debacle is a red herring.

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big Bang simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big bang, no?

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

I am bold enough.

Are you.

Deep Sight:

^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

  1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big Bang simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

What is this "totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc", of which you speak? Where is the evidence or data for it? Time may very well be a construct of the human mind, but as it stands the evidence points to something existing independent of views and, instead, dependent on space.

  2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big bang is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "bang" that occurs is a bang within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the bang that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

Yawn. I wrote this earlier as a response to you:

"Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen.

To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big bang because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together."

In any case, space is inseparable from our universe. The universe wouldn't be expanding into space. If there is anything beyond our universe, it would be branes, not space.

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

If I'm given good reason to change my understanding, then yes. SO far all you've offered are gross misunderstanding and homilies. I think I'll stick with the science community and the evidence on this one.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big bang, no?

Yeah, I understand that it's easier to debate someone when you don't bother to read what they wrote, but it's just bad form to make it so plain. Here's the response I wrote earlier. You can read it now:

"The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, [then] it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe."

Just so you understand, no, there doesn't have to be a space into which it has to expand. Space itself is caused by the expansion of the universe. It is within the universe.

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

Let's. I say stars are cause by pixie dust. What say you? Elves?

I am bold enough.

Are you.

I'm bold enough to at least engage with what you write and not ignore things - especially the most egregious ones - you have written. Are you bold enough to actually understand the science and concepts that at play here? This is not just "let's spite 'Einstein and co', spout rubbish, pat ourselves and feel we've accomplished a day's work". You can start by presenting a concrete argument with evidence for an infinite, extra-universe "totality of time", or whatever.

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

Einstein disagreed with Quantum Mechanics.   He probably would have frowned at the big bang theory.

try again

@ Kag - i'm sleepy now, will return to expatiate tomorrow.

I am very interested in this discourse.

Cheers.

Can anyone with common sense, much less claiming to possess scientific knowledge, expect an orderly universe to have come out of an explosion?

What is the probability that a hurricane can pass through a junk yard, and produce a brand new Boeing 747?

@ KAG -

I'm back.

Please to facilitate our discourse, can you assist with a clear definition of this word as you understand it:

"Space".

P.s. I normally do not ask for definitions, i prefer to offer them myself, or assume an understanding, but in this case, we will have to start from the most basic conceptualizations, given the vast differences in our views.

Cheers.

Interesting ,

Deep Sight:

@ KAG -

I'm back.

Please to facilitate our discourse, can you assist with a clear definition of this word as you understand it:

"Space".

P.s. I normally do not ask for definitions, i prefer to offer them myself, or assume an understanding, but in this case, we will have to start from the most basic conceptualizations, given the vast differences in our views.

Cheers.

This is adequate: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space)

bawomolo:

Einstein disagreed with Quantum Mechanics.   He probably would have frowned at the big bang theory.

try again

While he did disagree with several postulates of quantum mechanics, he wouldn't have - didn't - frown on the big bang theory.

Bobbyaf:

Can anyone with common sense, much less claiming to possess scientific knowledge, expect an orderly universe to have come out of an explosion?

What is the probability that a hurricane can pass through a junk yard, and produce a brand new Boeing 747?

An expansion. Order can be produced from an explosion, though.