Attack On God is STUPID

*Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
But one that no one seems to of mentioned is that maybe in the beginning there was absolutely nothing.*

Nothing new there.
It's been done and it's called the big bang.

There is a problem, tho.
Your next claim has to be that nothing exploded, and since there was nothing in the beginning in your theory, there was also no reason AND no way for it to happen.

Sounds like a completely daft theory, not to mention contradictory.

*So that nothings became something! Are you guys understanding what Im saying so far?*

Yes, we get that you haven't spent much time on this.

*So maybe God was that something, or maybe space was that something. But my whole main point is that if your saying that there was nothing before then there had to of been something.*

Yes, but that doesn't follow from what you were saying earlier.

*The universe implied itself!*

Of course, earlier your point was that one thing implied its opposite.
 
tony1 I think you misunderstood me. Maybe I didnt think out what I was trying to say before I posted it.

"There is a problem, tho.
Your next claim has to be that nothing exploded, and since there was nothing in the beginning in your theory, there was also no reason AND no way for it to happen."


I think that that was my main point. That for there to be nothing that there has to be something. Your not comprehending what Im saying, let me put this in a way that you can understand:

Nothing=Something

In order for there to be nothing there has to be something so that there can be nothing. Dont tell me that this is a stupid idea either because then your calling one of the great writers of our time, Kurt Vonnegut, a moron.
 
*Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
Nothing=Something

In order for there to be nothing there has to be something so that there can be nothing. Dont tell me that this is a stupid idea either because then your calling one of the great writers of our time, Kurt Vonnegut, a moron. *

If that's what KV says, then what makes him a great writer?
Unless, of course, you are also saying that Great=Moron.

*Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
...even though nobody else does*

And this matters, how?
 
If that's what KV says, then what makes him a great writer?

Because he is original, brillant, and funny. Unlike christian writers who always want to talk about that guy named jesus.
 
That's a great comeback for a different question, however you say KV says nothing=something.
That makes him contradictory, not brilliant, nor great.
 
OK, now that you've said that, what is the something that existed "before" the big bang?
 
Tony1, trust me this kids dont know what they r talking about. Theyre so funny, talk to them all the way and see for yourself, they crack me up, I laugh so hard in my room that im kinda hooked. They are so stubborn, they dont want to admit, and they come up with strange ideas, such as a psychic element called "absolutes" posted by some atheist person where it prophesies the future events, lol
 
minimuscle

I laugh so hard in my room that im kinda hooked

Try coming out of your room for a while and experience a little reality for a change.
 
OK, now that you've said that, what is the something that existed "before" the big bang?

I thought that you didnt believe in the big bang?
 
Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I think that that was my main point. That for there to be nothing that there has to be something. Your not comprehending what Im saying, let me put this in a way that you can understand:

Nothing=Something

In order for there to be nothing there has to be something so that there can be nothing.

Actually, applying causative reasoning that works within the Universe to that which may "exist" outside the Universe is tenuous at best.

You may also want to consider that "Nothing" may contain an inherent potentiality for "Something".

~Raithere
 
OK, now that you've said that, what is the something that existed "before" the big bang?
Click to expand...

that's kind of funny considering the thread topic.

kind of like this

"god doesn't exist, because he is a bad god" etc.
 
*Originally posted by muscleman
I laugh so hard in my room that im kinda hooked.*

Me, too.

*Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
I thought that you didnt believe in the big bang?*

The BB is very similar to the creation account in the Bible, except with some very ludicrous ideas added.
The main one being that nothing exploded.

Look out!!
Nothing just exploded right beside you!

Whew, that was close.

*Originally posted by FatherOleg
that's kind of funny considering the thread topic.
kind of like this
"god doesn't exist, because he is a bad god" etc.*

I see you've zeroed in on the atheist position exactly.
 
"The BB is very similar to the creation account in the Bible, except with some very ludicrous ideas added.
The main one being that nothing exploded.

Look out!!
Nothing just exploded right beside you!

Whew, that was close. "

So what exploded in the creationist version? Oh right, in the creationist version it all simply appeared out of nothing, I suppose that's better then. :rolleyes:

And the Big Bang theory doesn't predict that nothing exploded.
 
Is there any good reason that prohibits something coming from nothing? Other than an unwarranted extrapolation of one's experiences in the everyday world to apply to all the universe?
I'm referring to vacuum fluctuations. http://www.geocities.com/lucretius5978/astronomy/pure/cosmology.html

is a good primer.

It is amazing how certain people write off this theory due to their antiquated worldview and hardwired little minds whilst not appreciating the supporting evidence(background radiation, the expansion of the universe) or even understanding the most elementary parts of the BBT:

Your next claim has to be that nothing exploded, and since there was nothing in the beginning in your theory, there was also no reason AND no way for it to happen.
Click to expand...

OK, now that you've said that, what is the something that existed "before" the big bang?
Click to expand...

The trouble with arguing with such people is that you have to educate them first. And they have had their whole life to practice resisting that.
 
The universe had no cause. Simple as that. Cause is a property of time, time itself was created at the Big Bang, so the universe was an effect with no cause. Asking what came before the Big Bang or how the Big Bang happened is like asking what is 100 miles north of the north pole, there is no answer. I simply can't make it any clearer than that.

"The trouble with arguing with such people is that you have to educate them first. And they have had their whole life to practice resisting that."

So true...
 
Xelios,

The universe had no cause. Simple as that. Cause is a property of time, time itself was created at the Big Bang, so the universe was an effect with no cause. Asking what came before the Big Bang or how the Big Bang happened is like asking what is 100 miles north of the north pole, there is no answer.
Click to expand...
No I disagree. That is an unsatisfactory answer.

Note that you mention that something was created, in this case time. How was it created?

The only answer to the ‘universe just happened’ idea is that it came from nothing. But we have no precedent for claiming that anything can come from nothing. And yes I know that current thinking in physics is making such claims, but such claims are for matter to be created within the framework of a very active, dynamic and existing universe, in which we cannot be sure we have isolated all the interactions. To claim that something can come from nothing is still very premature.

The error here, which I have been stating for years now, is the assumption that the big bang is a beginning. This limited idea is almost identical to earlier times when we claimed that the earth must be flat, must be at the center of everything, or that the sun was at the center, etc. These are all indications of limitations to our ability to observe at the time, and they were heartfelt convictions in the same way as people are stating now for the big bang being the beginning.

All we can say is that we cannot see before the big bang. And if we are limited to a requirement to only being able to observe within a time frame then so be it, but that does not negate the idea that our big bang may be just one of an infinite number of big bangs occurring concurrently in a much larger concept of a universe. The analogy is similar to those in earlier times considering the idea of other solar systems when most considered the earth was the center of everything.

I don’t find the idea of something from nothing credible, or the idea that the big bang just happened. All our experiences indicate that every effect has a cause. And that of course leads us back to what caused the universe. So here I think you are partly correct, the universe had no cause, but I would go further and suggest it also had no beginning, i.e. it is infinite.

I further suggest that the universe must be infinite since if it wasn’t then nothing could ever have begun.

Cris
 
"No I disagree. That is an unsatisfactory answer. "

Unsatisfactory or not, it makes perfect logical sense.

"Note that you mention that something was created, in this case time. How was it created?"

Perhaps I should have said 'formed'. In any event your guess is as good as mine. Science can't tell how it was created because it happened before the Planck Time, so it's in the realm of philosophy.

"The error here, which I have been stating for years now, is the assumption that the big bang is a beginning. "

I agree, but again this is in the realm of philosophy. We may as well treat the Big Bang as the beginning because we will never be able to scientifically examine what came before it. My personal theory is that time was created at the Big Bang, and that 'before' does not exist. But this is philosophy, it can't be proven or disproven.

"but that does not negate the idea that our big bang may be just one of an infinite number of big bangs occurring concurrently in a much larger concept of a universe. "

I suppose we will know when we find if our universe is open or closed. But our universe is actually speeding up (or so the latest data claims), so maybe in a way we are already heading for the Big Crunch?

"I further suggest that the universe must be infinite since if it wasn’t then nothing could ever have begun. "

This brings up a problem of entropy though. That and hydrogen. Stars continously burn hydrogen, so unless the Big Bang somehow renews the supply every x years we would have run out by now. All kinds of problems arise from an infinite universe. Was the Big Bang simply a local event like a nova? Did it include the whole universe? If so how could an infinite universe contract to a finite or infinitly small area then expand to an infinite universe again? If the former why don't we see evidence of other Big Bangs? I mean, I like the idea, but there are still far too many unknowns to call it or any other true origin theory science. IMO it's all still in the realm of philosophy. (from the Planck Time backward at least).
 
Ok are we getting silly here?.

Hi Tony!! BTW, my one and only Theiest friend in Cyberspace.

I have to agree with the ilogical reasoning of "nothing=something" that's rubish and ilogical.

Existence requires consciousness in order to comprehend a something. therefore something has always existed, there's never been a nothing!!.

Even though some of you may believe theories of Big-Bang what have you, there's always been a something, and that something is "energy".

It takes energy of somesort to have the big bang, and it takes energy in order for space and time to fold in itself and have another big bang. The cycle has existed forever in the past without end or beggining. It has always been. And that's nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top