Evidence that universe created itself

[Flash]

Where is the intelligence coming from?

I don't know.

However, I went to Engineering School. Got an advanced degree. Took a lot of science, math and engineering course. Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing.

This moron Krass is an avid atheist and he has been trying for a long time to prove that something can be made out of nothing but he has nothing of substance. Just an unproven silly ass theory.

 

[zaangalewa]

In two spacial dimensions the surface of a sphere is either a point, or a ring, a circle. The boundary is the 3rd spacial dimension. ...

The surface of a sphere (2 dimensions on a 3 dimensional object) is for a 2 dimensional object boundless. One of the first modells of the universe in context of the theory of relativity uses a similar model - the Minkowski space (today called "spacetime"). A 3 dimensional object on the 3D-surface (=space) of the 4 dimensional spacetime is in a similar situation. Someone (=3D-object) is able to travel through the Minkowski-space in one straight line and arrives after he travelled through the whole universe in the same position from back where he had started once into the other direction. Same is a 2 dimensional object able to do on the surface of a sphere. Both (a sphere and the Minkowski space) are a closed system = systems with a positive curvature <=> a triangle has more than 180°.

 

[Leo123]

Deep question there OP. Scientists have yet to quantify that. The Euro Space Agency Planck created a map of the oldest light in the universe which is 13.8 billion years.
"Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means scientists can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there."

How Big is the Universe?

How big is the universe around us? What we can observe gives us an answer, but it's likely much bigger than that.

www.space.com

We are in infancy in studying the universe. If one accepts the above then the next question is...Where does this 'sphere' exist? Beyond that, is it really a sphere? We cannot assume that our vantage point (Earth) will give us an accurate representation. Not only that, one has to consider there may be other dimensions we do not have the capability of observing. Of course, another question is: What came before the Big Bang? How about: What is inside a black hole? OR is a wormhole a connection to another parallel universe?

Time to practice a little Zen maybe.....Maybe the universe just "is"......

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know.

However, I went to Engineering School. Got an advanced degree. Took a lot of science, math and engineering course. Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing.

The idea "god made everything out of nothing" is about 1700 years old. Augustinus from Hippo found this solution on theological reasons. He said the mighty creating word of god is a timeless word. And he said it makes not any sense to ask what was before time was created, because there was no before. And there is also another nice question in this context - no idea who asked this first - but the idea is simple: Was god existing when he created existence?

This moron Krass is an avid atheist and he has been trying for a long time to prove that something can be made out of nothing but he has nothing of substance. Just an unproven silly ass theory.

 

[Flash]

The idea "god made everything out of nothing" is about 1700 years old. Augustinus from Hippo found this solution on theological reasons. He said the mighty creating word of god is a timeless word. And he said it makes not any sense to ask what was before time was created, because there was no before. And there is also another nice question in this context - no idea who asked this first - but the idea is simple: Was god existing when he created existence?

After you cut through all the bullshit and after you boil all the berries there are really only two possibilities:

1. The universe created itself out of nothing.

2. There is some intelligent design to the universe.

The first ones make no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the Laws of Physics.

At least not the Laws of Physics as I was taught at an accredited university.

The second possibility is much more feasible given that the first one is impossible.

 

[ding]

I spoke not about thermodynamics but about the dynamic geometry of the universe. What you speak about is the constancy of energy <=> no one is able to create or to destroy energy. That's a totally different thing.

It can't be destroyed after it is created but it was created when space and time was created. The creation of energy was what created space and time.

 

[ding]

In two spacial dimensions the surface of a sphere is either a point, or a ring, a circle. The boundary is the 3rd spacial dimension.

Spectacular.
No idea why you juxtapose such comment with my post. I don't recall ever rejecting science. I've smirked at pseudo-science. I don't celebrate Ponds & Fleishman day.

Because you seem to be arguing against the universe being created from nothing.

 

[Leo123]

After you cut through all the bullshit and after you boil all the berries there are really only two possibilities:

1. The universe created itself out of nothing.

2. There is some intelligent design to the universe.

The first ones make no sense whatsoever given our understanding of the Laws of Physics.

At least not the Laws of Physics as I was taught at an accredited university.

The second possibility is much more feasible given that the first one is impossible.

OR the universe always was and The Big Bang was an intra universe event which could be a cyclical whose time frame is uncomprehendable.

 

[Flash]

OR the universe always was and The Big Bang was an intra universe event which could be a cycle.

"Always was" is a subset of #1.

 

[Leo123]

"Always was" is a subset of #1.

Since we really don't know the size and scope of the Universe it could be that the Big Bang was an event that occurred within a larger, yet unknown Universe that has always been. If we accept that the Universe we know, and can scientifically measure, had it's beginning with the Big Bang, then you are correct. Remember though, science is the on-going pursuit of facts all of which we may not yet know exist with regard to the Universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've never seen a sphere with a boundless surface.

You have only seen spheres with boundless surfaces. Remember, we are scaling down a dimension. You are the 2D stickman living in the surface of the sphere. Your universe is closed and finite, yet boundless.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where is the intelligence coming from?

Oh boy. You apparently dont know the rules of the rigged game:

1) Nothing can come from nothing. Except your favorite gods. So ALMOST nothing can come from nothing. And you get to decide what can and can't, but only if you believe in gods.

2) Everything has to have a beginning, except your favorite gods. Refer to rule one for how this is handled.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Theories like this silliness are a dime a dozen

You understand less than nothing about any of those theories and so are not qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Took a lot of science, math and engineering course. Learned a lot about practical physics. Never was taught that something could be made out of nothing

Yes, the theoretical evidence for this is fairly new.

 

[LittleNipper]

See, right there. You don't even understand the most basic precepts of science. "Proof" is for mathematics. Your professor would correct this nonsense on your first day of class, if you had ever had any education in any science. Which you have not.

But, as always, here is where i shut you right up and you slither off:

What would convince you of "abiogenesis without magical miracles"? Be specific. Tell us what the evidence would look like.

Keep in mind, abiogenesis without miracles would not preclude the existence of your favorites gods. It would simply be how they did things.

So, your answer? Be clear. Be specific.

Create a living biological organism from a rock (your choice). If no one can do it intentionally, such could not have occurred naturally accidentally ------ that is my hypothesis. If nature (and we are a part of "nature") cannot with intent create a biological organism, it must be the result of the supernatural. Prove me wrong!

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

 

[Mac1958]

Oh boy. You apparently dont know the rules of the rigged game:

1) Nothing can come from nothing. Except your favorite gods. So ALMOST nothing can come from nothing. And you get to decide what can and can't, but only if you believe in gods.

2) Everything has to have a beginning, except your favorite gods. Refer to rule one for how this is handled.

That was definitely my assumption.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Create a living biological organism from a rock (your choice).

*which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say

You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.

 

[Leo123]

*which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say

You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.

First of all, define 'nothing' with regard to the Universe and space. We used to think of space as nothingness or a vacuum. Today scientific thinking and theories seem to point to 'dark' or 'black' matter as having some kind of mass. More and more it appears that what we once thought of as 'nothing' is really something. I do not discount abiogenesis either and we all know that evolution in biological forms does take place however, stating that is how humans came into their present form is yet to be proven, but we are close.

 

[Hollie]

"My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways." - Nature's God

The incredible ignorance of arrogant atheists demanding theories and proofs and examinations of the Mind of God are eternally doomed to failure, and the atheists haven't a clue. Your dog or cat has no idea of what you are doing, but it gets along with you just fine. It has food, shelter, and love. Atheists could take a lesson from their pets, but they won't. They don't want to learn since they claim that they already know it all.

The incredible anger of the religious extremist.

No one is allowed to question the veracity of claims made by the angry religionist. They have certainty regarding their gods and to question them is to question their gods. There are certainly many things for which it matters whether they are true or not, because they actually do impact the way we behave. Questions of various, competing religions are not among them. Angry religious extremists insisting their gods are to be unquestioned is merely an excuse for impotent but self absorbed extremists to stay that way.

Certainty is a crutch for the insecure. It has no utility to people who wish to innovate, to create, to improve. This is why certainty plays such a role in that most intellectually flaccid of human enterprises: organized religion. Such structures serve only the purpose of allowing a component of the population to stop thinking and abdicate authority to the more ambitious.

You are welcome to it. It suits you.

 

[LittleNipper]

*which nobody but creationist goobers who dont understand anything about any of this say

You simply are not even remotely qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any of this, my man. If you are going to continue to make failed attempts to argue against Evolution or abiogenesis, you have to at least know something about either of them.

Evolutionists ignore the fact that THEY need to hold themselves accountable to the very same proofs they throw at Creationists. Just because evolutionists seem to have corned the market of controlling public education and governmental grants, doesn't mean that they are not simply supporting each other and attacking people because they believe in something higher and eternal...

You can attack what I believe all you wish; however, that doesn't make your beliefs anymore scientific even if you are a genius. You are simply using the bate and switch routine ---- which is as old as Satan himself...