Atheism

[maxxrox]

When you try to figure out where the universe "came from", you're forgetting one fundimental point: the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it was an explosion of space. Before the universe expanded outward, the entire universe was a singularity. In a singularity (such as in the center of a black hole,) time does not exist, so things don't need to happen in any sort of chronological order. The universe didn't have to originate from somewhere, because, as far as it was concerned, it could've originated from something someone did now. Time didn't exist. I understand that this is an extremely difficult concept to understand, since no one can visualize it, since we have lived with time all of our lives. You just have to accept that all of existance used to be 1 (and I mean that as a binary reference, 1 as opposed to 0).

Evidence: When space-time is bunched up, as in a black hole, it forms a singularity. The universe is still expanding, as proven by the red shifts of light coming from distant galaxies (I'll explain that in greater detail if you ask). By measuring the amount of expansion, scientists can predict how long ago the Big Bang occured. Also, keep in mind, because of the infinite nature of the universe, it doesn't have to expand from one point, in fact the universe is expanding from every possible point. The bodies in the universe are not moving farther apart, but the material that they are embedded in (space-time) is stretching.

Now where did the little energy input that started our universe come from? A neighboring universe. Keep in mind, this does not mean that there had to be a "first" universe, because in most cases outside universes, time is irrelivant.

Whew. I will elaborate on anything I just said if anyone asks. I realize it's all very complicated and difficult to understand.

[Mel]

Ok, completely ignoring the seven pages ahead of me, I'm going to breifly say this:
Why can't The Big Bang and Creationism go hand in hand? I say, it does. The whole Adam and Eve story is simply that- a story to explain the basic things early people were wondering, sort of like a parable, as I understand it. In my view and religion, I think that God could have created the atom or whatever it was that created everything. But I think maybe my views might be a little off the subject of atheism. But watever, I don't have time to read the other posts, so...yeah.

[maxxrox]

Please read my last post. They explain how the universe began without any intervention of powers.

As for the atom, according to Einstein's equasion, energy=mass*(speed of light)squared. That means that matter going at the speed of light becomes energy. The opposite of that is that energy slowed down below the speed of light becomes matter. When the universe began expanded, that exact thing occured. My personal hypothesis is that there is a most basic particle, and when it is put in chunks with different combinations, it forms all of the elementary particles of matter (quarks, gluons, etc.)

[the_peridexis]

Well...I'ma bit confused, maxx. The Big Bang theory says that everything was once singular. One. So if the entirety of everything was...well, one thing, then what caused the Bang? One thing wouldn't resist against itself, would it? I'm not against the Theory,(I believe in it myself) and I'm not challenging you at all, but I'd like to know; what caused the Big Bang?

And I'd just like to put something out; there's no need to argue it, I'm just putting it out there for people to think about if they feel like it. Okay, from a scientific Atheist's point of view, science will, in some point in the future, explain everything. Also from that point of view, religion is failing to do that. Well, what if religion just can't explain everything now? What if, in a million years or something, some religion or another is proved to be scientifically correct? Now you could easily challenge that statement with "well, I'm not waiting a million years", but science might also take a million years to prove everything. So either way, it's a test of a faith of some sort; a scientific Atheist belives that one day, everything will be proved by science; a religious person believes that one day, everything will be proved by religion; but no one knows when, or even if everything will be proved by what they belive to be true; like I said, a test of faith, because none of us can predict the future.

-peri

[maxxrox]

I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, Peri. I meant that our universe was once a singularity. The energy that started the Big Bang came from another neighboring universe. In other words, the universe was 1, but somewhere in the multiverse, there was a developed universe (not 1), and that somehow accidentally lended our universe a little bit of energy that got the whole thing started.

In the opinion of most scientists, we will never know everything. It is impossible: the universe is infinite, so there will always be something new.
A religion that could be proven scientifically correct could not exist, because at that moment, it would cease to be a religion. Religions are based on faith, whereas sciences are based on evidence and logic. If a religion could be proven, it would no longer need faith to believe and therefore become another branch of science.
Lastly, I don't even think science will ever discover all there is to know on even one subject. I have no faith about that whatsoever. Scientists don't need faith. All I can theorize is that, from looking at history and statistics, I can determine that scientists will know more in the future than they do now. I can't predict the nature of what or when, just that people will probably never stop searching for knowledge. After all, that is what science is about: the search for knowledge, no matter how big or small, important or trivial.

[Frivs]

maxxrox: maybe I'm just not getting the time thing, my knowledge of those kinds of science things is not the best, but I still don't think that explanation completely covers it. Enlighten me

If the big bang was an explosion of space, where did the explosion occur? Perhaps that's just me being earth-minded, but it seems to me there should be a "where", even if there isn't a "when". And as far as the energy coming from a neighboring universe...are we going on faith there, or is there some proof of that? :P

And if "as far as the universe is concerned it could've originated from something someone did now", that someone would be the creator of our world, generally thought of as a God, thereby prooving religion through the use of science XD *snortgiggle*

[maxxrox]

When I said an explosion of space, I meant an explosion of space itself. The explosion didn't happen anywhere, but everywhere, because everywhere was 1 (singularity). The fabric of space-time itself exploded outward.

Here's a good analogy for universal expansion: you are an ant living on a balloon. One day, you notice that your daily walk to your food source takes slightly longer than normal. This is not because the food source has been moving, nor has your home moved. The balloon itself has inflated. You can't picture the balloon expanding because your view of the world is 2-dimentional. Space-time is the balloon. All things are embedded in it, and as it gets larger, objects get farther apart. With the Big Bang, the first bit of outside energy was like the guy walking up and hooking the balloon up to the helium tank. Before that, there was no surface for the ant to walk on. Therefore, the expansion didn't happen in any one place, but everywhere because everywhere was once one place.

I can't think of the evidence for alternate universes off the top of my head, but I know that it does exist, and it's probably some crazy astrophysics stuff that's over even my head (and my ego ) Look it up if you want to know.

I'm not even going to justify the last one with an answer.

[Peter Murray]

Originally posted by maxxrox:
As for the atom, according to Einstein's equasion, energy=mass*(speed of light)squared. That means that matter going at the speed of light becomes energy. The opposite of that is that energy slowed down below the speed of light becomes matter.

I've got to pick on this.

E = mc^2 means that the energy E released by conversion of a mass m is found by multiplying the mass by (the speed of light) squared. It's very relevant to the damage caused by an atom bomb. It doesn't mean that matter and energy turn into each other by a change in speed - in fact, according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, mass can't travel at the speed of light.

But I agree there was no space or time for the Big Bang to happen in. It's like asking of a book "What came before the front cover?".

[InkSlinger]

I'm responding to old news, but since i was attacked in the old news, and didn't check back... here it is.

I asked you to prove gravity. You responded by saying duh, i'm held to the ground, aren't I? The thing is, you can't see it. you can only see the effects of it. and so it is.

[Cress]

People have proved gravity by looking at things in vacuums haven't they? And stuff on other planets with different gravity? I don't think any of us are questioning that it is possible to prove gravity...
Ok going back to the Big Bang theory and the idea that the singular thing that banged must have been created by something and so some people think God created the singular thing, but it couldn't have existed without a God because nothing can exist without something to create it-Why then is God itself an exception to this rule? I realize that was the longest run on sentence in the world, but the idea holds. If people use that idea to prove that God must exist, then it's entirely stupid for God itself to be an exception to their proof.

I don't understand all this science stuff, but maxx-I think the point of religion is the belief without proof. That is kind of the definition of faith, which is the basis of religion.

[maxxrox]

Gravity is not matter or energy. Gravity is a force, like magnetism or strong or weak nuclear force. Therefore, the effects of gravity are gravity itself. It is unobservable because it is caused by curves in space-time, which is neither matter nor energy. However, using the scientific method, I can prove that a force pulls objects towards each other, and objects with greater mass have a larger amount of this force. We call that force "gravity", but you could call it "purple" for all I care. It's been proven by the scientific method, therefore, until a valid experement has proven otherwise, we must accept that gravity exists.

Cress, you've hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the point of religion is the belief without proof. That is kind of the definition of faith, which is the basis of religion.

[Gryphon]

Neets:
I asked you to prove gravity. You responded by saying duh, i'm held to the ground, aren't I? The thing is, you can't see it. you can only see the effects of it. and so it is.

No, you misunderstand. I explained up above, or tried to. Gravity isn't something that you can explain -- like genetics or chemistry. It's more of an observation. I see this fall fall to the ground. Objects gravitate to each other. People don't float off the surface of the earth. It's gravity! We know what it is, but we don't know why it is. It's not something you can explain; it just is. You also cannot deny the existance of gravity; it would be like denying the existance of the color red (okay, bad example, some people are color blind, but you get the point).

[maxxrox]

I said it myself. Gravity is a force, like magnetism. It is not matter nor energy. The only way to observe it is by the effect it has on matter or energy, and that is all too easy. Can you deny that magnetism exists?

[InkSlinger]

and some people would say , exactly. God just is. he's a force- blah, blah, blah. none of you are actually pointing out the difference.

[Cress]

You can't see the effects of God though. You can see the effects of gravity and other forces, and you can use experiments to prove them. How would you set up an experiment to prove the effects of God?