Atheists don't believe in God or gods but they have no alternative theories that make sense...

[Muhammed]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

It's not a steady state model, dumbass.

 

[james bond]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

That Wikipedia entry is accurate in the context of the Steady State Model, but the Big Bang Theory doesn’t predict a beginning of the Universe necessarily. Just the Universe we experience now.

The BBT only goes back to the moment of expansion, it doesn’t describe the singularity (if that’s what it actually was) or what was before the singularity (if it is even meaningful to say “before”) It could be - and I’m not saying there’s any real rigorous math or hard evidence one way or the other - that the Universe existed before the singularity. Whether we would recognize it as the Universe, who can say? We will probably never know.

Of course, that doesn’t answer the question “Where did the Universe come from?” It only pushes the answer back.

It is an assumption that the Universe doesn’t have some sort of property that causes it to necessarily come into existence. It is also an assumption that it did. Either way, to claim to understand why there is a Universe is arrogant at worst and an baseless assumption at best.

Wikipedia has the moment of expansion under Cosmic inflation. Singularity is impossible because it is described as a point from which there was infinite temperature and infinite density. The closest we can get to in nature is near infinite temperature and near infinite density. Really, I don't think we can get even close even with quantum physics unless one can provide some kind of paper demonstrating it. Even allowing for singularity, the microsecond afterward seems impossible. This is the supposed science of Big Bang Theory. We know something doesn't just pop into existence because I can't just get a Shake Shack burger pop, fries and Coke pop in front of me. Even in a million years. The question should be what can we output from invisible particles using quantum physics? So far, it's only been modifying particles and identifying particles. Creation science states that we cannot create, only manipulate, at the atomic and the the sub-atomic levels. Classical physics gets in the way.

 

[james bond]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

Where's your proof that the universe hasn't always existed, and therefore had no need to be created?

So backward. The Steady State model has been demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

Steady state model - Wikipedia

It's not a steady state model, dumbass.

Ad hominem fallacy. You lose, dumbshit haha.

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing you stated is PROVEN.

Neither is anything you stated. In fact, you declaring what I say impossible carries a much larger burden of proof. You have much more work to do than I do. So maybe this is not the tack you want to take.

Sorry, but the FLoT, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, was proven by a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule, the unit of energy called a Joule was named after him for this great accomplishment.

Therefore the greatest burden of proof is on YOU to disprove the FLOT with a repeatable experiment before you can claim that negative energy and positive energy can be CREATED in equal amounts!!!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing you stated is PROVEN.

Neither is anything you stated. In fact, you declaring what I say impossible carries a much larger burden of proof. You have much more work to do than I do. So maybe this is not the tack you want to take.

Sorry, but the FLoT, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, was proven by a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule, the unit of energy called a Joule was named after him for this great accomplishment.

Therefore the greatest burden of proof is on YOU to disprove the FLOT with a repeatable experiment before you can claim that negative energy and positive energy can be CREATED in equal amounts!!!!!

You're not getting this. Creating a universe with net zero energy does not violate that law. Do you think you have outsmarted the world's top physicists? A rational person would pause and go educate himself.

 

[idb]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

This thread is dumb from the start. "God" doesn't explain anything. It's just a way of replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

"The universe must have been invented by someone...therefore, God...everything explained".

"So, why does God do some of the stuff he does?"

"Ah, He works in mysterious ways...we can't explain it".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

This thread is dumb from the start. "God" doesn't explain anything. It's just a way of replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

"The universe must have been invented by someone...therefore, God...everything explained".

"So, why does God do some of the stuff he does?"

"Ah, He works in mysterious ways...we can't explain it".

Right...absurd.

 

[Slyhunter]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

This thread is dumb from the start. "God" doesn't explain anything. It's just a way of replacing a mystery with an even bigger mystery.

"The universe must have been invented by someone...therefore, God...everything explained".

"So, why does God do some of the stuff he does?"

"Ah, He works in mysterious ways...we can't explain it".

Well actually the Tardis got stuck at the end of time and blew up which caused the big bang at the beginning of time during the Dalek war.

 

[edthecynic]

Nothing you stated is PROVEN.

Neither is anything you stated. In fact, you declaring what I say impossible carries a much larger burden of proof. You have much more work to do than I do. So maybe this is not the tack you want to take.

Sorry, but the FLoT, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, was proven by a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule, the unit of energy called a Joule was named after him for this great accomplishment.

Therefore the greatest burden of proof is on YOU to disprove the FLOT with a repeatable experiment before you can claim that negative energy and positive energy can be CREATED in equal amounts!!!!!

You're not getting this. Creating a universe with net zero energy does not violate that law. Do you think you have outsmarted the world's top physicists? A rational person would pause and go educate himself.

Creating a universe out of energy that already exists is quite different from creating energy. Creating energy does violate the FLoT. Also net zero energy does not mean there is no energy, it means that there are equal amounts of already existing positive and negative energy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creating a universe out of energy that already exists is quite different from creating energy.

Neat! But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing". Please, oh please, find and read some material on this before repeating yourself again.

 

[edthecynic]

Creating a universe out of energy that already exists is quite different from creating energy.

Neat! But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing". Please, oh please, find and read some material on this before repeating yourself again.

Having equal amounts of something is not nothing!
Why do you think they put "nothing" in quotes???? As I have pointed out, those same physicists say is no such thing as nothing, which is why they put the attention getter "nothing" in quotes.
You should take your own advice!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Having equal amounts of something is not nothing!

Nobody said it was. Again, you're not following.

Please don't comment again without reading up on this a bit

 

[edthecynic]

Having equal amounts of something is not nothing!

Nobody said it was. Again, you're not following.

Please don't comment again without reading up on this a bit

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."
Again, YOU need to take your own advice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

 

[edthecynic]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

Energy cannot be created therefore you cannot create equal amounts of energy, or unequal amounts of energy for that matter!

Sure you can, when the result is still zero energy. You just create energy and negative energy, in equal parts.

But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

Energy cannot be created therefore you cannot create equal amounts of energy, or unequal amounts of energy for that matter!

Sure you can, when the result is still zero energy. You just create energy and negative energy, in equal parts.

But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing".

Which is to say it is not nothing right now. So, precisely the opposite of what you claim i implied. You aren't even following my posts well, much less this complicated topic.

 

[ding]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

Energy cannot be created therefore you cannot create equal amounts of energy, or unequal amounts of energy for that matter!

Sure you can, when the result is still zero energy. You just create energy and negative energy, in equal parts.

But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing".

Which is to say it is not nothing right now. So, precisely the opposite of what you claim i implied. You aren't even following my posts well, much less this complicated topic.

He doesn’t understand that it is not possible for energy and matter to have existed forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

He doesn’t understand that if that matter and energy came from somewhere else and had existed forever that it would be the exact same situation as if it had existed forever here.

Therefore, the only way we can honor all laws is for energy to have a beginning. There is no other option.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He doesn’t understand that it is not possible for energy and matter to have existed forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

But that's not necessarily true, in an infinite universe, of which our universe is a mere speck.. As we know.

 

[ding]

YOU are claiming that equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy IS "nothing."

False. I neither made nor implied any such thing. I said it is net zero energy.

Energy cannot be created therefore you cannot create equal amounts of energy, or unequal amounts of energy for that matter!

Sure you can, when the result is still zero energy. You just create energy and negative energy, in equal parts.

But that is not what physicists are suggesting, when they deem it possible that the universe may have net energy of zero. They are suggesting an entire universe can, indeed, spring from "nothing".

Which is to say it is not nothing right now. So, precisely the opposite of what you claim i implied. You aren't even following my posts well, much less this complicated topic.

So as energy was created through a quantum tunneling event the gravity was exactly balancing it such that the net energy of the universe is zero.

That does not mean there is no energy in the universe. It means all the energy of the universe is offset by the gravity of the universe.

Furthermore, as energy and matter convert from one form to another usable energy is lost. This does not mean it was destroyed. It still exists in the mass balance to maintain a net energy of zero. What it does mean is that the universe is equilibrating it’s temperature.

Lastly, no amount of discussion will make Ed see the truth.

 

[ding]

He doesn’t understand that it is not possible for energy and matter to have existed forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

But that's not necessarily true, in an infinite universe, of which our universe is a mere speck.. As we know.

It is an absolute certainty that each universe will ultimately reach thermal equilibrium even if it crunches and then expands. Their is no avoiding this fate. Heat flows from high energy to low energy.