Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by knightmeister
So the universe is eternal now! Hmm...and there was silly old me thinking that there was some scientific evidence that it might be finite not eternal. If it was eternal why would need a big bang anyway? Why bother with entropy or decay or the creation of time itself? Why not just exist without cause? Why have a beginning at all? Why have stars that run ...[text shortened]... ht be something else a bit more permanent than this ! I must be looking at the wrong universe!

There's no reason to believe the singularity did not exist eternally before it "Big Banged". Likewise, there's no reason to believe the universe won't exist forever once entropy approaches maximum. At least not that I know of.

Originally posted by Halitose
Except his definition for "universe" which is quite dodgy. How do scientists postulate a multiverse or parallel universes?

Is this better?

Our universe is defined as the observable (if not explainable) aspects of the cosmos that involve the galaxies, stars, planets, and life that we know.

Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes.

http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?

I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ...[text shortened]... ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

There was just too much space to have nothing.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
There was just too much space to have nothing.

P-

Any given sample of the universe is still almost entirely space.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Any given sample of the universe is still almost entirely space.

Technically, isn't all matter almost entirely space?

Like, if I have a brick of lead, isn't it mostly empty?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Any given sample of the universe is still almost entirely space.

Ah . . . but conditional on not drawing a sample of emptiness, you still almost surely draw a sample in which it is impossible for a human to live. From this we must conclude that a single super-duper cool god exists and that he loves us very much.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Technically, isn't all matter almost entirely space?

Like, if I have a brick of lead, isn't it mostly empty?

Yes. And I think that's quite profound if you think about it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes. And I think that's quite profound if you think about it.

I told you all that the god's dead, there's still gibberish goin' on.

Everybody is their own god!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Technically, isn't all matter almost entirely space?

Like, if I have a brick of lead, isn't it mostly empty?

That's right. A brick or an atom, it's mostly space and relatively little stuff.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's right. A brick or an atom, it's mostly space and relatively little stuff.

I am not sure what the final word is on fundamental particles, but it is possible that the most fundamental particles do not have a width in which case a brick of lead actually may consist entirely of space! If particles are thought of as wave functions then it gets even more confusing as they are merely waves in the space.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what the final word is on fundamental particles, but it is possible that the most fundamental particles do not have a width in which case a brick of lead actually may consist entirely of space! If particles are thought of as wave functions then it gets even more confusing as they are merely waves in the space.

That's it, I knew this was a mistake.😞

*scampers back to chess forum*

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's no reason to believe the singularity did not exist eternally before it "Big Banged". Likewise, there's no reason to believe the universe won't exist forever once entropy approaches maximum. At least not that I know of.

True enough..but one can infer through probability that on balance the universe doesn't look that eternal. If you were to hazard a guess about what something eternal might be like you might be forgiven for finding the universe a bit dissappointing. As I said before, it's not a proof at all , just a sound rational guess based on the available information. There's no reason to believe that the universe won't last forever , it's just that it seems there are more reasons to think that it won't. The information we have suggests a finite event (explosion) which is runnning down and running out of energy. Be honest , does this suggest eternity to you?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Technically, isn't all matter almost entirely space?

Like, if I have a brick of lead, isn't it mostly empty?

yes, but it's much less empty than a brick of hydrogen!

Originally posted by knightmeister
True enough..but one can infer through probability that on balance the universe doesn't look that eternal. If you were to hazard a guess about what something eternal might be like you might be forgiven for finding the universe a bit dissappointing. As I said before, it's not a proof at all , just a sound rational guess based on the available informatio ...[text shortened]... is runnning down and running out of energy. Be honest , does this suggest eternity to you?

running out of energy? tsk tsk. Never heard of the first law of thermodynamics either? "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". The universe isn't running out of energy, it's just converting to a different type of energy - heat!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The difference between quantum physics and theological speculation is that QP bases its speculation upon facts and experimentation, theologians have a defined end point (god) before they start and then try to use any argument no matter how abstract to get there.

I can see exactly where you are going KM, trying to open up an arena to try and prove the ...[text shortened]... understanding of science will not allow that nowadays - I'll always be right here to stop you.

And this is the problem...because you THINK you know where I am going with this argument you are unable to debate objectively and openly. You become far too concerned with 'stopping me' and you end up taking your eye off the ball. You are too emotionally motivated and not clear thinking enough to have just one simple step debated in isolation on it's own merits only.You could be more objective and scientific but instead you pursue your mission to frustrate and obstruct with almost religious discipline.

The more I try to accommodate you by using different language the more resistant you become. Your hidden agenda (to 'stop me'😉 takes over and you fail to grapple with the central paradox of how time itself is initiated if you need time for something to be initiated in the first place. It is infact YOU who have defined some assumptive 'end point' not me. I was thinking about this sort of stuff 10 years before I was anywhere near being a theist. As for 19th Century understanding of science...another assumption...I'll quite happily go toe to toe with you on string theory.

So it seems you have not entered this debate in good faith and have preserved your agenda. Funny , I thought you were supposed to be the objective scientist and I was the one who was supposed to be irrational and biased. Your assumptions and biases are serving you well and protecting you from engaging with any meaningful debate.