Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Yasnov

Atheists, Please Explain The Origin Of The Universe

Recommended Posts

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.

The big bang required an intense concentration of matter and energy, didn't it? Matter can't exist without energy, and energy can't exist without matter.

 

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.

Tell me then your definition of assumption ...

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
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.

You don't expect me to debate you to this point, right? lol

 

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.

Please elaborate on the scientific mystery and why it is called scientific mystery ...

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You confidently answered that the universe can be explained by the big bang in your post #5? No?

Yes. This universe.

 

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. We have no good data to declare the probability of the origins of the universe.

 

I can't figure you out guys. If you're not convinced that we Muslims are on the true path, what makes you so confident of your atheist path, if your theory blacks out beyond the big bang?

The 'Atheist' path (if in fact, an 'Atheist' path even exists) is that God does not exist or that there is no reason to believe in God. Atheism is silent on the origins of the universe.

 

If you don't know, if your atheism doesn't give you the answers, why be so faithful to it?

You're getting warmer. Atheism doesn't give you all the answers, in fact it gives no answers whatsoever. An Atheist is just what we call someone who does not believe in a God. It is that simple.

 

If you consider what the Quran told us is just a non-proven theory, then simple logic requires that you come up with counter facts.

People do. So?

 

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

No good scientist will ever claim our understanding is 'proven'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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?

 

And what evidence have you collected to debunk such a conclusion?

 

Natural sensory experience does not apply to the First Cause because it is believed that natural sensory experience was in itself originated by the First Cause (i.e 'God'). Of course, you won't follow. Just turn your attention to Eoin's post where he claims that creation scientists believe a "creature" made the universe whereas I've already indicated that 'God' is a spiritual, unscientific name used when referring to the actual uncreated and transcendent Primal Cause.

 

The following is excerpted from my blog.

 

God Explained

 

 

Here I have assembled a simple syllogism that will perhaps shed some light for those who engage in deep thought.

 

The following is a set of principles that are to be assumed or considered true in contention to arrive at a rational conclusion.

 

I commence by proposing the First Cause to be infinite in perfection. Subsequently we are able to deduce a number of principles from that Infinite Perfection.

 

1) The Infinitely Perfect is thus Perfectly Transcendent. Transcendent above all creation including time, space, and matter.

2) The Infinitely Transcendent is omniscient. All-knowing, all-encompassing, self-sentient in a way determined for our brains incapable to perceive by intellect.

3) The Perfectly Omniscient is omnipotent. All-powerful, able to enforce its will in ways creation cannot not understand.

 

As your read this it is in your human nature to somehow, in some way, picture the Divine in your head. These images arise out of the finiteness of the human mind and should be shook off once experienced. If we are in agreement with the chief attribute of Perfection we can easily digest the concepts of Transcendence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence. As you can notice, we have no choice but to agree with each of the three principles if we presume the First Cause to be infinitely perfect. They are inter-connected and shield one another.

 

It is therefore my understanding that most people, atheists in particular, are misled by anthropomorphic tendencies in doctrine relating to God, which is why they (the atheists) have linked God to a deity among the fables of the ancients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Joseph,

 

Just turn your attention to Eoin's post where he claims that creation scientists believe a "creature" made the universe

 

Actually I said, "creature/deity/thing that you call God" [who you guys believe made the universe.]

 

However the actual definition of the creature/deity/thing you call God is not particularly relevant to the debate. Believers have since the dawn of time through necessity put God somewhere beyond any falsifiable boundary. He lived up unscalable mountains in prehistoric times, once the mountains were scaled God moved above the clouds where he couldn't be seen, on the development of astronomy he moved on to be defined as being outwith our universe and the ability of science to pinpoint him. There is no doubt in my mind once science moves outwith relative physics and causality and into the realm of investigating potential multiverses using instruments hitherto unthought of, God will always have a place sitting somewhere over the next hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reading, this thread. But there's a fundamental flaw in the thread's premise: that only atheists hold the view that "we simply don't know and perhaps cannot know what happened before the Big Bang". Any expert in the field (is it astrophysics? physics? I dunno) who happens to believe in a god will say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I like this topic, but I can't really be buggered to read it all. So I'll just respond and hope that I'm not repeating anything anyone else wrote.

 

I feel that the universe has always been here and always will be here, and that there is neither destruction nor creation in real existence. There is only change, from one state to another, all things exist in flux, even the universe, which I believe in it's current state was started by the big bang, and the precursor to the big bang was the explosion of the rapid condensing of matter that was the entire universe into itself.

 

Sort of like a pendulum, all things exist in a state of impermanence and constant change.

I'm not really an aetheist though, so I guess I have no place in this topic, haha.

 

I am very comfortable with the concept of infinity, and think it applies in real practice when going to the most extreme physics.

 

Arguably now and then are really just states of the same thing, past and present and future are essentially illusory, meaning that time itself is just a dimension of measurement similar to length or width. We exist in all three states at once, as it has been effectively proven that time is relative to state and can travel at different speeds in different places.

 

Also, it's worth noting that science is not something that claims to have the answers, but rather claims to be FINDING the answers. Science does not prove things work so much that it proves things in fact do NOT exist and can not stand up to rigor. Science does not disprove or contradict God or Allah or Jahweh or Brahmin or whatever god a person chooses to subscribe to, but it does often raise some questions with consistency of holy texts, since they seem to be in stark contrast to one another. It is fair to note that science never claims absolutes as such things require either A) an objective universe or B) perfect human perception and logic to be discovered without some sort of metaphysical intervention.

 

There will never be a time when science is complete, but that does not well justify subscribing to idealogies that have no rigor or requirement for measurement. It is also worth noting that the scientific method is just that, a method, and it is not at all unlikely that some day we will stop using it for a more matured method of discovery about the universe one day, potentially only to find that half of our discoveries were incomplete or outright wrong.

 

I am well aware of the flaws of my senses, of my biases, of my human weakness and mental frailties of being such a simple creature. I do not think humans are capable of the knowledge of even a infinitesimal slice of existence, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to try. I find the journey far more fascinating the the potential (or impossible, really) goal.

 

A good method of travel rarely begets a destination as fascinating as the journey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I commence by proposing the First Cause to be infinite in perfection. Subsequently we are able to deduce a number of principles from that Infinite Perfection.

You can propose a First Cause to be infinite in what you like. Your syllogism will ultimately be judged on whether it is convincing enough to be labelled true. Show how there actually is a First cause.

 

Is that your goal?

 

every action has a reaction , something cant come from nothing .

Absolutely.

 

How strange then that both you and me come to drastically different conclusions from ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salam,

 

I am curious to know how the atheists explain the origin of this universe ...

 

Wassalam,

Y

 

That's an easy one. Nobody knows. What we do know is that the universe went through a rapid inflation, a few minor contractions, and is presently in accelerated inflation. Most inflationary models and m-theory models that explore what is outside of our universe predict that our universe is a blip of change in a larger system of infinite change. For example, type II A/B m-theory predicts that our universe is a natural D-brane formation at the end of a throat (or around a handle) of infinite Calibi Yao space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big bang required an intense concentration of matter and energy, didn't it? Matter can't exist without energy, and energy can't exist without matter.

 

It was an intense concentration of mass with zero volume, and therefore not matter.

 

Tell me then your definition of assumption ...

 

An assumption typically means something which is taken for granted, without evidence.

 

You don't expect me to debate you to this point, right? lol

 

That's up to you.

 

Please elaborate on the scientific mystery and why it is called scientific mystery ...

 

I call it a "scientific mystery" because it has yet to be explored scientifically. I'm not sure I can elaborate very much on it, given my unfamiliarity with astrophysics, but perhaps if you had a specific concern I could provide some small insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what evidence have you collected to debunk such a conclusion?

 

Empiricism precludes acceptance of explanations with no evidentiary support, regardless of whether or not contradictory evidence exists. If I've overlooked such data, feel free to present it.

 

Natural sensory experience does not apply to the First Cause because it is believed that natural sensory experience was in itself originated by the First Cause (i.e 'God'). Of course, you won't follow.

 

I wasn't referring to the "first cause" when I mentioned sensory experience. Rather, I was speaking of claims of special revelation by humans, which violate Occam's Razor.

 

Just turn your attention to Eoin's post where he claims that creation scientists believe a "creature" made the universe whereas I've already indicated that 'God' is a spiritual, unscientific name used when referring to the actual uncreated and transcendent Primal Cause.

 

It doesn't matter which specific properties you assign to the "first cause;" they will always and by necessity be arbitrary, and therefore undeserving of subscription.

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

 

please do not ignore ,

 

i myself can say that if an evil being still wants to be evil then he will ignore :D but please unlock the light , you will hate the evil like we do then we can settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. This universe.

Explain ..

 

None. We have no good data to declare the probability of the origins of the universe.

Forget about the data. Now I am asking your personal opinions, which one of the followings that is more correct to you:

1. The universe came from nothing/nowhere, or

2. The universe always existed.

 

The 'Atheist' path (if in fact, an 'Atheist' path even exists) is that God does not exist or that there is no reason to believe in God. Atheism is silent on the origins of the universe.

Actually I am not just asking you as an atheist, I am asking you as someone who disbelieve in God because of the absence of proofs for God.

 

You're getting warmer. Atheism doesn't give you all the answers, in fact it gives no answers whatsoever. An Atheist is just what we call someone who does not believe in a God. It is that simple.

What it meant is that some of you are so faithful to your scientific assumptions to the extent that you feel you are right and others are wrong.

 

No good scientist will ever claim our understanding is 'proven'.

Be careful next time ... don't make an assumption to sound like a proven fact.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain ..

The Big bang is responsible for the state of affairs known as our universe. There is no reason to presume the Big Bang was the origin of existence.

 

You don't even presume that.

 

Forget about the data. Now I am asking your personal opinions, which one of the followings that is more correct to you:

1. The universe came from nothing/nowhere, or

2. The universe always existed.

2.

 

Be careful next time ... don't make an assumption to sound like a proven fact.

I don't. Where have I done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any expert in the field (is it astrophysics? physics? I dunno) who happens to believe in a god will say the same thing.

Hi,welcome. We don't know about that for sure ...

 

Most inflationary models and m-theory models that explore what is outside of our universe predict that our universe is a blip of change in a larger system of infinite change.

M-Theory doesn't exist yet. It's only a speculation about what a theory of everything might look like. There are a lot of problems wit the the theory, it can't be tested experimentally, and it's not about the origin of the universe at all.

 

It was an intense concentration of mass with zero volume, and therefore not matter.

Well, the matter will not be matter like we think of it now. No matter what the volume of the subatomic particles that makes up the universe, the question still stands: where did the stuff come from?

 

An assumption typically means something which is taken for granted, without evidence.

Then, how is your assumption differ from people who said that God exists?

 

That's up to you.

It's a theory. It can't be proven to be true or untrue. But for the sake of fun philosophical exercise, I'll try to address them below.

 

The singularity was not part of the universe, nor the whole of it, but rather something completely different from it, and which preceded it.

The standard BB theory did not say anything about a singularity, did it? You have heard about a singularity because it is what you got when you run the equations of GR back to time zero. But that is invalid procedure ...merely a fun philosophical exercise. Back to the issue again, for me, whatever existed before the 10^-35 seconds, it was whole of the universe. Just like all that exists now is the whole of the universe. That's my philosphical input ...

 

but perhaps if you had a specific concern I could provide some small insight.

Thanks. But I have no any concerns right now with all these assumptions and speculations, maybe later :sl:

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which if true, means that there was no "before" the singularity, and therefore no "beginning" to the singularity.

So, if the singularity had no beginning, then it is viable to agree that God also had no beginning?

 

I feel that the universe has always been here and always will be here, and that there is neither destruction nor creation in real existence.

If the universe always existed and had no creator, then it is viable to agree that God also had no creator, since it has always existed?

 

The Big bang is responsible for the state of affairs known as our universe. There is no reason to presume the Big Bang was the origin of existence.

In case you have forgotten, what I asked in this thread is for you & others to explain the origin of the universe ...

 

2.

If the universe always existed and had no creator, then it is viable to agree that God also had no creator, since it has always existed?

 

I don't. Where have I done that?

Well, it is not specifically addressed to you ...

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the universe always existed and had no creator, then it is viable to agree that God also had no creator, since it has always existed?

Yes. But we (or rather you) have yet to establish that God even exists.

 

You've got the flip side of the argument. Theists often say that the universe has to have a creator, but refuse to accept that logic to the creator - citing that God is infinite or 'beyond logic'. If God can be claimed infinite, then equally so can the universe (and vice versa). We know that the universe exists though. This is not true of God.

 

In case you have forgotten, what I asked in this thread is for you & others to explain the origin of the universe ...

And my statement is that there is no origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. But we (or rather you) have yet to establish that God even exists.

His creation does exists ...

 

You've got the flip side of the argument. Theists often say that the universe has to have a creator, but refuse to accept that logic to the creator - citing that God is infinite or 'beyond logic'. If God can be claimed infinite, then equally so can the universe (and vice versa).

You are coming from the so called logical side, aren't you? Then, why is the need to flip side of the argument? It's weird that you are using theists' pattern of arguments to defend yours.

 

We know that the universe exists though. This is not true of God.

His creation does exist ...

 

And my statement is that there is no origin.

Well, your answer to my very first post is that the origin of the universe can be explained by the big bang.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

'Hundreds of worlds' in Milky Way

By Helen Briggs

Science reporter, BBC News, Boston

 

Rocky planets, possibly with conditions suitable for

life, may be more common than previously thought in

our galaxy, a study has found.

New evidence suggests more than half the Sun-like

stars in the Milky Way could have similar planetary

systems.

 

There may also be hundreds of undiscovered worlds in

outer parts of our Solar System, astronomers believe.

 

Future studies of such worlds will radically alter our

understanding of how planets are formed, they say.

 

New findings about planets were presented at the

American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS) in Boston.

 

Nasa telescope

 

Michael Meyer, an astronomer from the University of

Arizona, said he believes Earth-like planets are

probably very common around Sun-like stars.

 

 

I expect that we will find a very large number of

planets

Alan Stern

Nasa

 

"Our observations suggest that between 20% and 60% of

Sun-like stars have evidence for the formation of

rocky planets not unlike the processes we think led to

planet Earth," he said.

 

"That is very exciting."

 

Mr Meyer's team used the US space agency's Spitzer

space telescope to look at groups of stars with masses

similar to the Sun.

 

They detected discs of cosmic dust around stars in

some of the youngest groups surveyed.

 

The dust is believed to be a by-product of rocky

debris colliding and merging to form planets.

 

Nasa's Kepler mission to search for Earth-sized and

smaller planets, due to be launched next year, is

expected to reveal more clues about these distant

undiscovered worlds.

 

Frozen worlds

 

Some astronomers believe there may be hundreds of

small rocky bodies in the outer edges of our own Solar

System, and perhaps even a handful of frozen

Earth-sized worlds.

 

 

We have to find the right mass planet and it has to

be at the right distance from the star

Debra Fischer

San Francisco State University

 

Speaking at the AAAS, Nasa's Alan Stern said he

believes we have found only the tip of the iceberg in

terms of planets within our own Solar System.

 

More than a thousand objects had already been

discovered in the Kuiper belt alone, he said, many

rivalling the planet Pluto in size.

 

"Our old view, that the Solar System had nine planets

will be supplanted by a view that there are hundreds

if not thousands of planets in our Solar System," he

told BBC News.

 

He believes many of these planets will be icy, some

will be rocky, and there may even be objects the same

mass as Earth.

 

"It could be that there are objects of Earth mass in

the oort cloud (a cloud surrounding our planetary

system) but they would be frozen at these distances,"

Mr Stern added.

 

"They would look like a frozen Earth."

 

Goldilocks zone

 

Excitement about finding other Earth-like planets is

driven by the idea that some might contain life or

perhaps, centuries from now, allow human colonies to

be set up on them.

 

The key to this search, said Debra Fischer of San

Francisco State University, California, was the

Goldilocks zone.

 

This refers to an area of space in which a planet is

just the right distance from its parent star so that

its surface is not-too-hot or not-too-cold to support

liquid water.

 

"To my mind there are two things we have to go after;

we have to find the right mass planet and it has to be

at the right distance from the star," she said.

 

The AAAS meeting concludes on Monday.

Story from BBC NEWS:

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7249884.stm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/scie...ure/7249884.stm[/url]

 

Published: 2008/02/17 21:51:42 GMT

 

© BBC MMVIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the matter will not be matter like we think of it now. No matter what the volume of the subatomic particles that makes up the universe, the question still stands: where did the stuff come from?

 

As repeatedly stated earlier, that is unknown.

 

Then, how is your assumption differ from people who said that God exists?

 

If you're asking why it is that I can justifiably "assume" God does not exist, that's because the notion of God is arbitrary and therefore has insignificant weight compared to the plethora of alternative possibilities.

 

It's a theory. It can't be proven to be true or untrue. But for the sake of fun philosophical exercise, I'll try to address them below.

 

Unless you mean absolute proof, then a scientific theory can certainly be proven true. Typically we call this proof "beyond reasonable doubt." The word "theory" in the context of the Big Bang is merely a technical term to distinguish it from a hypothesis, law or fact.

 

The standard BB theory did not say anything about a singularity, did it? You have heard about a singularity because it is what you got when you run the equations of GR back to time zero. But that is invalid procedure ...merely a fun philosophical exercise.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with inflationary models, so it's quite possible that you're right insofar as the singularity is simply a mathematical construct. However, given that singularities are thought to exist in contexts outside of those models (e.g. black holes), you could also very easily be wrong. I just don't know enough to make that determination. Either way, though, it's a moot point, since general relativity likewise fails describe the Planck Epoch.

 

Back to the issue again, for me, whatever existed before the 10^-35 seconds, it was whole of the universe. Just like all that exists now is the whole of the universe. That's my philosphical input ...

 

I would agree.

 

Thanks. But I have no any concerns right now with all these assumptions and speculations, maybe later :sl:

 

Maybe.

 

So, if the singularity had no beginning, then it is viable to agree that God also had no beginning?

 

It is a conceivable possibility, sure. However, there is no justification to assume it is true, or likely to be true.

 

His creation does exists ...

 

Your labelling of the universe as "his creation" notwithstanding, how is that relevant?

 

You are coming from the so called logical side, aren't you? Then, why is the need to flip side of the argument? It's weird that you are using theists' pattern of arguments to defend yours.

 

He was pointing out that since theists and atheists agree on certain extreme possibilities, to assume the existence of a supernatural disembodied mind would be unjustified.

 

Well, your answer to my very first post is that the origin of the universe can be explained by the big bang.

 

The limitations of that explanation were also explicitly mentioned, not just by Skavau, but also myself and Ilogical. Like Skavau initially said, the origin of this universe is the big bang. The answer to life, the universe and everything, however, is unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His creation does exists ...

By 'his creation', I assume you mean 'the universe'. Please show that the universe is actually a 'creation' before declaring it a creation of God.

 

You are coming from the so called logical side, aren't you? Then, why is the need to flip side of the argument? It's weird that you are using theists' pattern of arguments to defend yours.

I am not. This is simply the first time that I have seen it used on the other side.

 

Well, your answer to my very first post is that the origin of the universe can be explained by the big bang.

This universe - not the universe. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i still know that you didnt try to read my quote very clearly , the key is in my quote please analyze but dont be a reader with no heart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forget about the data. Now I am asking your personal opinions, which one of the followings that is more correct to you:

1. The universe came from nothing/nowhere, or

2. The universe always existed.

 

Neither. I strongly speculate it is:

 

3. Reality always exists and our universe is a small cross-section of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither. I strongly speculate it is:

 

3. Reality always exists and our universe is a small cross-section of change.

This isn't a winnable debate. Watch:

 

'Wrong. I strongly feel it is:

 

4. God always exists and our universe is a small cross-section of His creation.'

 

See what I mean.

 

BTW, hey Crunchie Cat, long time no speak. How you been?

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


×