Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[ding]

Confusing or conflating theories and hypotheses? Science deniers are so simple minded.

Intelligent design is lacking intelligence and it's design is as flawed as a house of cards

That's funny because I can't tell you how many times atheists have argued with me about the universe having a beginning. But what I can tell you is that I have yet to find an atheist who agrees that it did. I guess the universe popping into existence in an improbable way being inexplicably hardwired to produce intelligence freaks them out.

 

[Chuz Life]

So you think I am right but DonGlock26 is righter ¿so it is wrong what I said? What form of realism is this? I think for example natural laws are all over the universe the same - also in the regions of the universe we are not able to see. But this is not provable. And I wonder myselve why something exists at all: "Why is not only nothing?"

For this question is it totally unimportant whether the universe pulses or not. Existence per se is always a miracle. So the question "Who or what created existence and who or what made it that existence follows rules?" will always occur. "Creation" is always a theme - independent from any possible answer.

I Didn't say anything about right or wrong.

The evidence we have (provided by DonGlock26) seems to run counter to the idea of the universe going through expansion and collapse cycles.

My bad if you weren't supporting those facts. I thought you were.

 

[Chuz Life]

Only to make this clear: To be an agnostics not means not to believe in god. Who not believes in god is an atheist. To be an agnostics means not to be able to know whether god exists or not exists. In general: Atheism is the spiritual belief that god not exists. Agnosticism per se is no spiritual belief - it's a philosophy.

One very serios problem in context of agnosticism: God is able to exist and not to exist the same time (god is allmighty) - BUT - and this is indeed a very big fat "but" - we are not able to think so. Our normal logic breaks down when we postulate A and not-A are both true the same time.

It's just as likely that "God" did not create the universe as it is likely that he did.

Change my mind.

 

[zaangalewa]

I Didn't say anything about right or wrong.

The evidence we have (provided by DonGlock26) seems to run counter to the idea of the universe going through expansion and collapse cycles.

My bad if you weren't supporting those facts. I thought you were.

no comment

 

[ding]

“If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”​

I disagree.

It's entirely plausible that something else caused it that wouldn't have to be "God" or even "intelligent."

One of my theories is that the entire universe is cyclical.

I argue with Grok about this from time to time.

Conclusion

"There’s no definitive proof that our universe’s singularity is the only one ever, and your reasoning that "if it can happen once, it can happen more than once" is supported by several theoretical frameworks. While the standard Big Bang model focuses on a single singularity for our universe, multiverse theories, quantum cosmology, and cyclic models allow for multiple singularities, each potentially spawning its own universe. The question remains open because we lack a complete theory of the universe’s origin or direct evidence of other universes. Your intuition aligns with cutting-edge cosmological speculation—multiple singularities are indeed a possibility!"

Fun stuff.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/1j9tKK5P4RaVo8ZKGNqhOjBI1

First of all, the CMB precludes a cyclical universe because it proves the universe began through paired particle production. There's no other explanation for the CMB.

The Early Universe

Secondly, most people don't understand that the "singularity" is a mathematical artifact of the solutions to Einstein's field equations. It's where the equations yield infinite densities. It's not a physical phenomenon.

And lastly, you aren't the first atheist to be freaked out by the universe beginning. In fact, I've yet to encounter one that wasn't.

 

[zaangalewa]

It's just as likely that "God" did not create the universe as it is likely that he did.

No idea what you say here. The universe is a unique event. What means "likely" in case of a unique event? Like what else?

Change my mind.

Why?

 

[citygator]

And yet the evidence shows the universe did have a beginning.

Evidence shows that the current organization of matter was radically reorganized at an event. It doesn’t show anything had a beginning.

 

[ding]

Evidence shows that the current organization of matter was radically reorganized at an event. It doesn’t show anything had a beginning.

The CMB and an expanding universe says otherwise.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

the current organization of matter was radically reorganized at an event.

 

[citygator]

The CMB and an expanding universe says otherwise.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Moving matter doesn’t mean it had a beginning. It means it was once closer to the matter it is now moving away from. That’s really it. I am not a physicist but even I do know that.

The OP is the one who has the burden to prove: 1. There was a beginning (not done) and 2. Even if there was a beginning (unproven) that means God.

I appreciate the thought exercise of the OP and the writers of the book about “maybes” but i don’t see a path to proving those “maybes” are actual.

 

[ding]

Moving matter doesn’t mean it had a beginning. It means it was once closer to the matter it is now moving away from. That’s really it. I am not a physicist but even I do know that.

The OP is the one who has the burden to prove: 1. There was a beginning (not done) and 2. Even if there was a beginning (unproven) that means God.

I appreciate the thought exercise of the OP and the writers of the book about “maybes” but i don’t see a path to proving those “maybes” are actual.

Matter wasn't moved. It popped into existence through paired particle production. The CMB is the physical evidence that proves it.

 

[DonGlock26]

This claim is a weak point from which the entire argument folds: "He argues that the only rational explanation for a single point is for something outside the material world, an external being that could have started it — a creator God."

Beginnings and ends are a human construct. They dont exist in nature.

Did you have a begining? Did the Earth have a beginning? Did the star that we orbit have a beginning?

 

[DonGlock26]

That's funny because I can't tell you how many times atheists have argued with me about the universe having a beginning. But what I can tell you is that I have yet to find an atheist who agrees that it did. I guess the universe popping into existence in an improbable way being inexplicably hardwired to produce intelligence freaks them out.

It seems to me that atheist scientists have been desperate to disprove the Big Bang's singularity because it logicaly points towards some type of creation event. They come up with math heavy theories that are really a form of philosophy and not science.

 

[DonGlock26]

Evidence shows that the current organization of matter was radically reorganized at an event. It doesn’t show anything had a beginning.

When did the expansion of the universe begin?

 

[DonGlock26]

It's just as likely that "God" did not create the universe as it is likely that he did.

Change my mind.

In a criminal trial, the standard burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is often described from 85%-99% certainty.
I don't think humanity will prove or disprove the existence of a creator to that high standard. Basically we can only see back to the point that photons were created. The Webb telescope is amazingly close though.

In a civil trial, the standard burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. You only need to prove that you are 51% correct.
I belive that we can meet that standard one way or the other.

I think of the argument for the existence of a creator is like a pendulum hanging down. In the 19th century, the atheist scientists swung the pendulum their way 51%+ with a static universe theory and evolution.

In the 20th century, the Big Bang Theory (confirmed by Hubble) and the formerly unknown level of complexity of cellular life and DNA pushed the pendulum back in the other direction- IMHO. I would add that scientists have tried to create simple life from organic chemicals for 73 years without success.

Einstein knew what his singularity meant and he was troubled by it because it pointed towards a beginning of the universe.

 

[ding]

It seems to me that atheist scientists have been desperate to disprove the Big Bang's singularity because it logicaly points towards some type of creation event. They come up with math heavy theories that are really a form of philosophy and not science.

And never address the massive amount of radiation that was produced from the universe popping into existence.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

What is your list supposed to mean?

.

Total of its IQ, roughly my shoe size.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence shows that the current organization of matter was radically reorganized at an event. It doesn’t show anything had a beginning.

This is accurate. And "the beginning" is almost certainly a matter of perspective.

 

[ding]

This is accurate. And "the beginning" is almost certainly a matter of perspective.

No. It's not accurate. It's inaccurate. The universe was not created from existing matter.

The Early Universe

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did the star that we orbit have a beginning?

Only if we assign it one, arbitrarily. For example: "ignition", or the beginning of fusion. But when is that? The very first event of two hydrogen atoms fusing, in the local gas cloud? Or do we set a lower limit on the number of atoms that are undergoing fusion, before saying, "it's a star!" Either one is arbitrary.

Something similar is "species", in evolution. There was no "first squirrel", for example. Such a concept it, in fact, strictly nonsensical.

Another similar concept would be, "first life".