Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Yasnov

Atheists, Please Explain The Origin Of The Universe

Recommended Posts

You evidently feel this "exposes" us.

It exposes the irony. Those who disbelieve in God (for logics' sake) actually base their logics about the origins of universe on some illogical stuff.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
It exposes the irony. Those who disbelieve in God (for logics' sake) actually base their logics about the origins of universe on some illogical stuff.

 

What "illogical stuff"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I mentioned before, that is wholly unknown.

If it is totally unknown, how do you even know that it once existed?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What "illogical stuff"?

Skavau will explain them to you later

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is totally unknown, how do you even know that it once existed?

 

First of all, that the origin of the singularity is unknown makes almost no difference in determining whether it might have existed. Instead, astrophysicists have traced back the current expansion to what they consider its most likely chronological end (the singularity). Second, it is not known with any certainty that the universe formed out of a singularity; it is simply a likely explanation, backed by rigorous scientific investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, that the origin of the singularity is unknown makes almost no difference in determining whether it might have existed.

You don't know where it came from, how it suddenly appeared, how they looked like, it's just the origins of the universe should be attributed to them?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't know where it came from,

 

Correct.

 

how it suddenly appeared,

 

We don't know whether it suddenly appeared or not.

 

how they looked like,

 

It didn't look like anything. It was infintessimally small, and in any case light could never escape its infinite gravitation.

 

it's just the origins of the universe should be attributed to them?

 

It is the current prevailing theory, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the current prevailing theory, yes.

So, which one is based on logics:

1. Singularity comes from nothing/nowhere, or

2. Singularity has always existed

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, which one is based on logics:

1. Singularity comes from nothing/nowhere, or

2. Singularity has always existed

 

Rapid expansion models postulate the one-time existence of a source singularity; they do not nor do they aim to explain the origin of that singularity. In any case, the two options you give are not the only possible scenarios. It has been suggested, for instance, that the singularity from whence this universe came was the result of a collapsed previous universe. Alternatively, it is possible that the origin of the singularity transcends spacetime, and therefore defies human conception. There are doubtless many more hypothetical solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rapid expansion models postulate the one-time existence of a source singularity

The universe can't be explained by gravitational singularities. The truth is those are the major illogical problems in your understanding of the universe. Logics say the laws of physics break down at singularities, you end up dividing by 0 a lot and getting infinities.

 

Alternatively, it is possible that the origin of the singularity transcends spacetime, and therefore defies human conception

So, it's not based on logics then?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The universe can't be explained by gravitational singularities. The truth is those are the major illogical problems in your understanding of the universe. Logics say the laws of physics break down at singularities, you end up dividing by 0 a lot and getting infinities.

 

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I can't really defend rapid expansion models directly. I simply trust the scientific community to provide useful information. If it turns out that the science is in error, and rapid expansion models are inherently inconsistent or otherwise flawed, I trust they will be overturned as the evidence warrants. However, the falsification of the Big Bang and related theories does not spell victory for the theistic cosmological argument.

 

So, it's not based on logics then?

 

A singularity may defy certain logical presumptions, or it may not. It is impossible to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, the falsification of the Big Bang and related theories does not spell victory for the theistic cosmological argument.

Victory as opposed to defeat? Oops, I never realized there was a kind of competition going on here.

 

If it turns out that the science is in error, and rapid expansion models are inherently inconsistent or otherwise flawed, I trust they will be overturned as the evidence warrants

So, all those most talked scientific logical explanations are not proven yet? They are mere assumptions then?

 

IMO...Bit what hatsoff explained about big bang... a pea size iniverse exploded about 14 billlion years ago and have been expanding since then.

If the universe has been expanding since about 14 billlion years ago, whose space are we taking up then?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Ben,

 

Alternatively, it is possible that the origin of the singularity transcends space time, and therefore defies human conception.

 

Precisely. 'God' is an intangible force that transcends space and time for it was 'God' that originated them in the first place. How so you ask? The impediment here is the finiteness of the created human brain; it isn't designed to comprehend the metaphysical and the atemporal.

 

Only in revelation lies the secret of a 'higher power'. Anthropomorphist influence is a major hindrance in accepting this as I have clearly outlined in my new IF blog, which you are free to check out.

 

Regards,

 

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me conclude but please love us but not hate :sl:

if their is still hate you will reply :sl:

we are brothers

we dont think my class is higher or urs is higher no one class is higher we are all slaves and created to worship

 

now for conclusion of my analysis i see that :no: its like christianity and buddahs etc.. are science fiction hollywood nonsense? , so maybe you have the same idea of Islam

 

ok lets see it this way :j: the quran teaches us this :D

 

the shaytan ( satan ) promises us to say things of Allah that we have no knowledge of :D

 

here is the answer of many negative questions and all muslims cant change their path because we have the key of negative :D try to overcome that and you will be surprised of how reality actually feels :D

 

Sallam Allaikom

 

be ithn Allah yehtidoon

 

Insha Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheist can not explain the source of universe, rather they just predict and are uncertain. If they find out the source, then they are no longer atheist, but rather they will believe in Super Powerful Being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

You know hundreds of years ago a similar debate was raging, nobody could explain how the sun worked. Everybody knew that it was a big burning fire in space and they knew roughly how large the sun was. 'Creation Scientists' argued that even if the sun was made out of the most efficient type of coal that it could not be older than a few million years old because all the coal would have burnt out. They used this argument by extension to argue that evolution had to be wrong, because evolution argued that the earth had to be hundreds of millions, if not thousands of millions of years old. The sun to them was definitive proof of the existence of God, because in their eyes there was no other explanation - and indeed with the knowledge they had there was no other explanation for how the sun could keep burning. Of course the Creation 'Scientists' were wrong, we now know that nuclear fusion operates in a manner that was unfathomable to them because they lacked sufficient knowledge to explain what they were looking at.

 

Zoom forward to 2008. You guys are arguing that because science does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the beginning of the universe that it must to be the work of a creature/deity/thing that you call God. By all means make the argument that this unexplainable event was the work of God, but do not try and make out that atheists are somehow being illogical for taking the position that we simply do not know what caused, or even if a cause was necesarry, for the beginning of the universe. Remember, if it should transpire that you are wrong then your ancestors will read this thread in 500 years and cringe quite heavily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By all means make the argument that this unexplainable event was the work of God, but do not try and make out that atheists are somehow being illogical for taking the position that we simply do not know what caused, or even if a cause was necesarry, for the beginning of the universe.

I am not trying to make out that atheists are being illogical. But it is worth noting that some people who disbelieve in God (for logics' reason) actually base their knowledge about the origins of the universe on some illogical stuff.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victory as opposed to defeat? Oops, I never realized there was a kind of competition going on here.

 

It's an expression, meaning that a successful cosmological argument requires much more than disproof of the Big Bang.

 

So, all those most talked scientific logical explanations are not proven yet? They are mere assumptions then?

 

I have to ask, why would you think that if a notion is unproven, then it's a "mere assumption"? Science does involve axioms (functional assumptions), but the Big Bang is not one of them. Rather, it is a scientific model with strong theoretical backing, and with no promising competition.

 

If the universe has been expanding since about 14 billlion years ago, whose space are we taking up then?

 

That's not quite how it works. Space itself is finite, and expanding, but scientists are unsure of whether it is taking up some kind of meta-space outside the universe or not.

 

Allow me to quote Stephen T. Abedon (a microbiology prof, not a cosmologist, but he puts the following very succinctly):

 

7. Singularity

a. In the beginning there was singularity:

i. In the beginning (about 8 to 15 billion years ago) the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity.

1. we are not sure where singularity came from

2. we are not sure of its properties

3. we are not sure how old it was

4. we are not even sure if time (i.e., causation) had meaning in the beginning

ii. All we really know for sure are those events that followed singularity. That is, observations made billions of years later (i.e., recently) are consistent with some concept of singularity: an extremely hot and dense universal beginning.

b. Cosmology jargon:

i. As a cosmologist might put it:

1. "In this scenario, once our universe grows beyond about 10-33 centimeters in size (the Planck scale), 10-43 seconds after quantum genesis, it evolves classically and can be completely described by general relativity. Prior to that moment, it cannot be described by general relativity, which tells us that within the Planck scale, space becomes 'infinitely small' and energy density becomes 'infinitely large.' To describe the precise physical conditions (e.g., temperature, density, volume) requires a quantum theory of gravity that is still forthcoming." (Crowe, 1995)

 

SOURCE: mansfield.osu.edu/~sabedon/biol1005.htm#singularity

 

Hopefully that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace Ben,

 

Precisely. 'God' is an intangible force that transcends space and time for it was 'God' that originated them in the first place. How so you ask? The impediment here is the finiteness of the created human brain; it isn't designed to comprehend the metaphysical and the atemporal.

 

Only in revelation lies the secret of a 'higher power'. Anthropomorphist influence is a major hindrance in accepting this as I have clearly outlined in my new IF blog, which you are free to check out.

 

"How" is not what I'd ask, but rather, what evidence have you gathered to come to such a conclusion? More specifically, how can you distinguish between divine revelation and natural sensory experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not trying to make out that atheists are being illogical. But it is worth noting that some people who disbelieve in God (for logics' reason) actually base their knowledge about the origins of the universe on some illogical stuff.

 

If that's the main thrust of your thread, then why have you declined to elaborate? When you are both willing and able to point out this alleged "illogical stuff," only then may I be concerned. For now, I am quite satisfied with the Big Bang as a likely explanation for the origin of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamz

 

Yes, they are equally possible. But what does logics say about them?

Logic says "we do not know"

It's perfectly allright to say I don't know if that is the truth.

Sure theories that calim they know everything may sound more comforting but in reality,unknown

can be a valid truth. It probably makes sense to follow a leader that says "I know exactly where to go follow me" despite having no clue, rather then a leader that says " I am not certain which way to go but based on fact this way seems more favorable". So being certain about uncentainty is certainly a valid belief...I think :sl:

What probability laws being used here that ...

1. The universe came from nothing/nowhere, or

2. The universe always existed.

In what logics these possibilities are based on?

None, .....probability laws or science rather, only works in natural tangible realm

 

There are two ways to acquire knowledge

A.Scriptures/religious knowledge ( Revealed truth)

B.Scientific knowledge based on scientific method ( created truth)

 

A you alredy know well, for B see scientific method (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Scientific_method"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Scientific_method[/url]

 

Besides like I said, Science doesn't know the true origin of the universe, there are theories but nothing difinitive.

Well, if you resort to this kind of probability, then surely the theists are having a higher responsibility of being correct, Which is 50/50?

Kinda what pascal's wager says.

But if believe in god has 1/2 chance of being right then believe in no god also have 1/2 chance of being right ....and it further complicates as other religions are added to the equation. ex Islam=1/2 + Judisam=1/2..... etc etc

Let me break down the wager

 

Ther can only be 2 possibilities

A God exists

B God doesn't exist

 

Now

If you believe in A and the corect answer is A then U are chilllinn..party 24/7 ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_emoticons4u(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/party/fest30.gif[/img]

If you believe in A and the correct answer is B , no biggy, you been duped but no harm.######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_emoticons4u(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/sad/981.gif[/img]

If you believe in b and the correct answer is B then still u gain nothing ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_emoticons4u(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/happy/1277.gif[/img]

However If u

believe in B and the correct answer is A..big O.o....hellfire for eternity etc######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_emoticons4u(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/evil/teu42.gif[/img]

 

So probability wise Believing in A is the wisest choice, but problem remains that:

1.Faith based on probability or avoid hell only is not what God would want.

2.Other religions complicate matter because now you have to worry about Which A

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's the main thrust of your thread, then why have you declined to elaborate? When you are both willing and able to point out this alleged "illogical stuff," only then may I be concerned.

For the Big Bang to happen, they require the existence of energy, mass/particles/singular molecule. So, if you explain the origins of the universe using the theory, then you have to explain the origins of the energy and particles.

 

For now, I am quite satisfied with the Big Bang as a likely explanation for the origin of the universe.

The big bang has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, all it said is that after the big bang, the universe is expanding, that's all.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the Big Bang to happen, they require the existence of energy, mass/particles/singular molecule. So, if you explain the origins of the universe using the theory, then you have to explain the origins of the energy and particles.

 

The big bang has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, all it said is that after the big bang, the universe is expanding, that's all.

 

You seem to be mischaracterizing the Big Bang, the singularity, and space. The singularity had zero volume; that means it took up no space whatsoever. It had infinite mass, but no "particles." It was not, as you call it, some kind of "molecule." The singularity was not part of the universe, nor the whole of it, but rather something completely different from it, and which preceded it. Scientists hypothesize that time itself was created by the Big Bang, which if true, means that there was no "before" the singularity, and therefore no "beginning" to the singularity.

 

This idea of infinite mass and zero volume are mathematical concepts, and can't always be translated into tangible concepts. To expand on an above quote:

 

If we recall Occam's Razor, the quantum genesis concept is compelling because the initial assumptions for the inflationary model are reduced to one simple boundary condition for the "wave function" of the universe (the physical state of its "wave bundle" as described in the language of quantum mechanics). This condition gives a high probability of a classical universe emerging and growing to a large volume with very low energy density. In this scenario, once our universe grows beyond about [10.sup.-33] centimeters in size (the Planck scale), [10.sup.-43] seconds after quantum genesis, it evolves classically and can be completely described by General Relativity (GR). Prior to that moment, it cannot be described by GR, which tells us that within the Planck scale, space becomes "infinitely small" and energy density becomes "infinitely large." To describe the precise physical conditions (e.g., temperature, density, volume) requires a quantum theory of gravity that is still forthcoming (although superstring theory shows some promise here). Although the inflationary model is consistent with GR, quantum genesis clearly is not.

--Crowe, Richard A. Is quantum cosmology science? Skeptical Inquirer, March-April, 1995. findarticles(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n2_v19/ai_16654944/pg_2 (emphasis added)

 

In other words, even after the universe formed out of the singularity, we still cannot immediately begin to apply the known laws of the universe in its present state. This is not a logical contradiction, but rather a scientific mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to ask, why would you think that if a notion is unproven, then it's a "mere assumption"? Science does involve axioms (functional assumptions), but the Big Bang is not one of them. Rather, it is a scientific model with strong theoretical backing, and with no promising competition.

Look, if the model is true and reliable or at least closer to scientific truth, then ilogical and anyone else would not just say "I don't know". Most of people who rely in logics basically and ultimately say that it is impossible to ever know the truth and hope that one day science will explain it. But despite of the fact that this theory may be very far from the truth, they still accept this theory with all million chances of being true. Maybe when you heard the world model, scientific and stuff, you compared it with other models, so it somehow make you think that it would increase the plausibility of this mega guess. That's wishful thinking and self-deceiving. Because it's just a model, and a series of theories, calculations filled with variables, assumptions and constants. All those thigns are at best educated guesses, but a guess nonetheless.

 

Here is the definition of assumption: Something taken to be true without proof

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetanswers(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/topic/assumption?cat=biz-fin"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetanswers(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/topic/assumption?cat=biz-fin[/url]

 

So probability wise Believing in A is the wisest choice, but problem remains that:

1.Faith based on probability or avoid hell only is not what God would want.

Well, I guess it is a personal problem between you and God.

 

2.Other religions complicate matter because now you have to worry about Which A

That's not a big problem for a sincere and honest truth seeker.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, if the model is true and reliable or at least closer to scientific truth, then ilogical and anyone else would not just say "I don't know".

 

Sure we would--and in fact, we have. This is consistent because what we don't know about are related topics (e.g. the origin of the singularity), not elements of the Big Bang theory itself.

 

Most of people who rely in logics basically and ultimately say that it is impossible to ever know the truth and hope that one day science will explain it. But despite of the fact that this theory may be very far from the truth, they still accept this theory with all million chances of being true. Maybe when you heard the world model, scientific and stuff, you compared it with other models, so it somehow make you think that it would increase the plausibility of this mega guess. That's wishful thinking and self-deceiving.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by all that.

 

Because it's just a model, and a series of theories, calculations filled with variables, assumptions and constants. All those thigns are at best educated guesses, but a guess nonetheless.

 

The Big Bang is made up of educated guesses which have been backed up by observable evidence. In other words, they are no longer guesses, but established theoretical principles.

 

Here is the definition of assumption: Something taken to be true without proof

 

That's a very poor definition. You'll find a lot of such errors on answers,com, which is why I rarely if ever make use of that website.

 

The Big Bang is supported by tangible evidence. It's not just an arbitrary assumption, but a well-established theory. Now, I'm not sure whether it has been "proven" beyond reasonable doubt or not, but it is considered by cosmologists to be quite likely, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×