This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[ding]

More word soup. I'm full already, lol.

C'mon, you can do better than that, taz.

 

[BreezeWood]

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory. "

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

.
you did not answer the question -
.

was there something left out ...

where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time ...

.
can we guess - - howabout, energy.
.
oh
.
"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory. "
.

" once a small true vacuum bubble is created "

.
once upon a time ... the bubble pooped - - bfd.
.
the article is an explanation for the successful cyclical event - not what caused it, so simple ... swirling.

 

[ding]

.
you did not answer the question -
.


.
can we guess - - howabout, energy.
.
oh
.
"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory. "
.

.
once upon a time ... the bubble pooped - - bfd.
.
the article is an explanation for the successful cyclical event - not what caused it, so simple ... swirling.

I can't help you if you don't understand the difference between a false vacuum where paired particles pop into existence annihilate each other leaving only radiation behind versus a quantum tunneling event where 2 billion and one times the matter of the universe pops into existence with the two billions times the matter of the universe annihilating itself thereby creating the background radiation and causing the remaining matter which is the universe itself to begin expanding and cooling.

 

[Blues Man]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the universe, just the present expansion of the universe. So why do you keep bringing it up to dismiss the universe being created from nothing? And continue to ignore the question of how the background radiation was created?

If that stuff was created along with 5% of the universe we understand and it obviously was then it certainly does have something to do with it

 

[ding]

If that stuff was created along with 5% of the universe we understand and it obviously was then it certainly does have something to do with it

I don't believe that's how they say it was. If I understand them correctly it is continuously created as the universe expands.

But if it was created when the universe began then it was created exactly the same way... as sub atomic particles; both matter and anti-matter sub atomic particles.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't believe that's how they say it was. If I understand them correctly it is continuously created as the universe expands.

But if it was created when the universe began then it was created exactly the same way... as sub atomic particles; both matter and anti-matter sub atomic particles.

Except we can't say that dark matter or dark energy are either of those things.

In fact they might not even be matter or energy for all we know.

 

[ding]

Except we can't say that dark matter or dark energy are either of those things.

In fact they might not even be matter or energy for all we know.

Which is why it is weird that you even bring it up when discussion the origin of the universe. I guess it's convenient for you to ignore the overwhelming data for the creation of the universe from nothing if you have something to distract you from the massive holes in your unbelief.

 

[Blues Man]

Which is why it is weird that you even bring it up when discussion the origin of the universe. I guess it's convenient for you to ignore the overwhelming data for the creation of the universe from nothing if you have something to distract you from the massive holes in your unbelief.

if 95% of the universe that we know nothing about was created at the same time the other 5% were then we can't say with any certainty how the universe came to be.

The BG radiation that you keep harping about is only a result of the 5% of matter and energy we can observe.

What we call dark matter emits no radiation we can observe and we have no clues as to what dark energy is.

You are so arrogant that you can't admit that we might not know everything about the universe

 

[ding]

if 95% of the universe that we know nothing about was created at the same time the other 5% were then we can't say with any certainty how the universe came to be.

The BG radiation that you keep harping about is only a result of the 5% of matter and energy we can observe.

What we call dark matter emits no radiation we can observe and we have no clues as to what dark energy is.

You are so arrogant that you can't admit that we might not know everything about the universe

No. The background radiation is from the universe being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

You are so arrogant that you can't admit that we might not know everything about the universe

No. I am only arrogant enough to believe the overwhelming amount data we do have for the origin of the universe. I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the data I know about just because you don't understand dark matter or any of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

No. The background radiation is from the universe being created from nothing.

Except for the 95% of the universe that doesn't emit any radiation at all

 

[Blues Man]

No. I am only arrogant enough to believe the overwhelming amount data we do have for the origin of the universe. I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the data I know about just because you don't understand dark matter or any of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe.

5% is not overwhelming

 

[Hollie]

Colin norris seems bitter because he IS bitter. Atheists are far more pessimistic than believers, on average. Science, that magic potion, has determined such things time and again.

As to questioning our faith, "Israel" means to struggle with God.
Jesus Himself said, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me."

Struggle is part of life. Children struggle with parents and parents with children. Husbands and wives struggle with each other despite their deep and abiding love, one for the other.

Atheists simply throw crap up on every wall and hope some of it will stick.

Rather pointless, as usual. Fortunately, non-religioners are on the winning side of hyper-religious loonery because we are free of religious oppression by the government or anyone else enforcing a particular belief. The hyper-religious parrot the slogan that ''science'ism" is atheism and therefore both are to be reviled. The favored target of the hyper-religious is biological evolution because evolution, (or evilution) because evolution is confimed and supported by complimentary disciplines of science. Evolution is not a ''belief''. It is a supported explanation of the evidence for natural processes.

Christianity has a long, lurid history of suppressing knowledge and learning. When it was discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, the Christian Church suppressed that knowledge ruthlessly, even killed people over it. The maintainers of those religiously inspired fears superstitions and hatreds litter these threads.

 

[ding]

Except for the 95% of the universe that doesn't emit any radiation at all

So you should ignore the signature radiation of the creation of the universe and the only way it could have been created?

 

[ding]

5% is not overwhelming

Let's debate this in the bull ring.

 

[ding]

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation which is a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation".[1] The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background noise, or glow, almost isotropic, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The accidental discovery of the CMB in 1965 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[2][3] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with an opaque fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the temperature had dropped enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the plasma, these newly conceived atoms could not scatter the thermal radiation by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent.[4] Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blues Man]

So you should ignore the signature radiation of the creation of the universe and the only way it could have been created?

It is only the signature radiation of the inception of 5% of the universe. We have no idea when the other 95% was created.

 

[ding]

It is only the signature radiation of the inception of 5% of the universe. We have no idea when the other 95% was created.

Who told you that?

 

[Blues Man]

^dunning effect

Who told you that?

Since dark matter and energy emit no radiation whatsoever they would not be the cause of any BG radiation.

For all you know what we call dark matter and energy which may be neither matter nor energy at all were here before the universe inflated into being therefore the universe may not have come from nothing.

 

[ding]

Since dark matter and energy emit no radiation whatsoever they would not be the cause of any BG radiation.

For all you know what we call dark matter and energy which may be neither matter nor energy at all were here before the universe inflated into being therefore the universe may not have come from nothing.

Do you have a link that says that?

Here's my link to a peer reviewed scientific paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf