What started the reaction then. Because no matter how samll you split things up everything came from somewhere.
Perhaps the universe never came into existence it just always was. Not created, always existed, time infinitum. Perhaps there been a billion big bangs, this is just one more. Godless.
This is the part religious people never think about, to them its always god that must have always existed never the universe, i'd like to see their reasoning behind it as to me this is one of the most solid arguements against god.
That is a presumptious question. The need for "Cause" in natural processes but then the complete lack of "Cause" by choosing a God. If God requires no cause then there is no basis to require nature to have a cause. The fact is in the process N-------------->(+s)+(-s), "Nothingness" becomes equal amounts of opposite "Somethings" and does not violate conservation. Yet "Something" comes from "Nothing". It is called creation "Ex Nihilo". Not understanding the process is a poor excuse to argue against it. Argueing "God" doesn't alter the conclusion. Any breach of our understanding of natural physical laws by a God can just as well be explained as a breach by nature. No God required and no gain in understanding by claiming a God.
My question was not about God. You said nothing can exist forever. So then, how do you explain the universe? The material came from somewhere. How do you account for it's creation? For your formula to work you must show evidence of a negative universe.
Ah. Here is the confusion. What I said was the claim of "Eternal Existance", that is having already existed eternally is impossible. One cannot say things will not continue to exists forever, however you can say existance will never "Become" eternal since that too would require an accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals. The difference is in claiming a potential vs claiming an achieved condition. Infinity is an unachievable reality but that does not limit the time something can exist, hence potentially it may exist forever with no known limit but you cannot claim it has already existed an infinite amount of time (or existed eternally without coming into existance) because that would require the actual accumulation of an infinite number of time intervals to have been achieved. Infinity is unacheiveable by definition. Also (-s) is not necessarily a negative universe (although it might be). (-s) is simply a complimentary (opposite) component from (+s) in our universe. See: Edward P. Tryon, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York, http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html The observable universe has "Zero Net Energy" by calculations. It is the circulation of this +/- energy components that produces the concept of time flow.
Godless, Then what is it expanding from and to? Why are we created, why do we create, and have always created??? Where does the creative impulse come from? If the universe was eternal, then why are'nt we or anything else we can observe? What aspect of the universe is eternal? Then there must be billions of new births of the universe and could not therefore be eternal. You would get more mileage out of your argument if you claimed energy/matter was; Jan Ardena.
MacM, Energy must be existing eternally as it can neither be created or destroyed. If matter came into existence at the time of the big-bang, there must have been previous energy. If the universe has always existed then so would energy.
No offense, but it doesn’t sound like you understand how dimensions work. Dimensions are fundamental ways in which something can be spatially or temporally related to something else. For example, if we lived on a two-dimensional surface then it would be impossible for anything to be “above” something else, since “above” would not be a relationship that existed in a two-dimensional world. Similarly, if time didn’t exist then it would be impossible for anything to be “before” or “after” something else, because the relationships “before” and “after” would not exist. If you want to say that Y happened after X, then by definition there must be some non-zero time interval that elapsed between X and Y. Obviously if time itself did not exist, it would be impossible for something to happen before something else.
You seem to fail to appreciate the simplicity of N---->(+s)+(-s). That says our existance is bifurcated "Nothingness". Statistically we don't exist but only exist locally and temporarly. Overall there is "No Net Energy" in the universe, hence no creation of energy. There is only the creation of a differential +/-. The balance of that = 0. Also there is no "Law" that says energy cannot be created nor destroyed. That is a man made assumption based on ignorance due to the lack of knowledge. There simply is no proof of such a law. Bifurcation (+/-) of Nothingness doesn't violate that view either. You simply must come to terms with what existance is and is not. Also the assumption of "There must be a first cause" is just that an assumption, a bad one at that. Nasor above is on the right track.
Jan if energy as you claim "can't be created nor desroyed", then there's no god. (God can't create energy nor destroy it by your assumption here!.) This small observation would make god, un-omnipotent, not all powerfull since he can't create energy nor destroy it. Hense the oscillating universe theory. which is under debate constantly. one version of this theory There are many other, plus the refutation for such theories as well. There's no argument however, we've got proof that the big-bang did happen, though some stuborn theist theologians with there "pseudo" science refute the big-bang theory. Big Bang theory And then there's the constant universe theory, of which is self explanatory, the universe has always existed. No big bang, no oscillation, just plain existed. Constant universe theory Now out of all three, the one that has been observed, due to the known expanding universe is the big-bang. The oscillating universe theory is the new "kid on the block" in universe theorem, one of which I my self adhire too. The oscillating universe has the big-bang, then after billions of years, when entropy runs it's course the one weakest power of the universe "gravity" beggins to pull back called the "big crunch" hence everything contracts to one finite point then explode again. Of which ever scientific theory you may choose to believe, though there's no proof, or emperical evidence that a god created the universe, because any entity in existence would have to follow the laws of "metaphisics" and the way that god is described on all religious text of anciet past, contradict the laws of metaphisics. Godless.
In case you ask: What is the Objectivist View of Reality (Metaphysics)? by William Thomas Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. — Ayn Rand, "Introducing Objectivism" The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8 August, 1962 p. 35 Objectivism holds that there is one reality, the one in which we live. It is self-evident that reality exists and is what it is: our job is to discover it. Objectivism stands against all forms of metaphysical relativism or idealism. It holds it as undeniable that humans have free will, and opposes metaphysical determinism or fatalism. More generally, it holds that there is no fundamental contradiction between the free, abstract character of mental life and the physical body in which it resides. And so it denies the existence of any "supernatural" or ineffable dimension for spirits or souls. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp#metaphysics Godless.
Godless: Jan if energy as you claim "can't be created nor desroyed", then there's no god. (God can't create energy nor destroy it by your assumption here!.) This small observation would make god, un-omnipotent, not all powerfull since he can't create energy nor destroy it. ************* M*W: Hello, my friend, Godless! I could have answered Jan's post of MacM's post, but I prefer to answer your post. I am not a physicist, and I don't claim to be. My point here is that energy has no "creator." Energy just is and always has been. Energy is the first cause that created us. Call "energy" God if you will, but I believe "energy" is what created us. Perhaps, the energy expressed in thunderstorms created mutations in the living creatures of the day. I don't know. What I do know is that we were all created by a positive force of "energy!" Some call it "electrikus," some call it "El," some call it "Eloh," some call it "Elohim," and some call it "Al-lah!" It's all One and the Same! We are beings created by the one and only God -- positive Energy! Maybe that's why evolution has taken as long as it has to create us! Let's look at the amoeba or paramecium. Where did they come from? I guess we don't really know, do we? Let's suppose lightning struck a certain amoeba and caused a mutation. The amoeba reproduced, obviously, somehow spontaneously, or the mutation created another, possibly attractive, amoeba. The two got together due to this "electrical" attraction, and lo and behold, a two-celled animal was born! Why do we fear electricity? Can anybody answer this? How many mutations does it take to make a human? I think evolution has been taken for granted. We are all products of evolution! Some of us are more "evolved" than others. Some of us may be on evolution's way "out!" The "Big Bang" didn't happen in an instant (our time). It probably happened over many millenia! I don't see how a time frame can be distinguished for the "Big Bang." I don't know who created matter during the "Big Bang," but somehow it came here. So, the "Big Bang" happened. It was creation, but it changed creation. One cell by one, two cells by two, and so on... So, now we've evolved to this point, and we're still in the process of evolution. Consider this the "Last Day of Creation." We are at the pedestal of evolving no more. Maybe just one or two more millenia and we'll be done. I'm not an atheist. I'm a humanist. I believe Humanity is "God's" greatest creation. We couldn't have done it without thunderstorms. We couldn't have done it without electricity. We've come to know and understand "electricity," but we can never imagine "electricity" to be the true God, our creator! Christianity has seen to that! So we should believe in any old dying demigod savior to show us how unworthy us humans really are! Regardless what the religions say, we are still infused with electricity. This cannot be changed, and this electricity cannot be dimmed! Our light is shining through! We are God. We are Humanity! There is no place in humanity for amoeba-Christianity. There is no place in humanity for a dying demigod savior. We're more evolved than that!
That's not just simple. If you ask me, it's simplistic. Stating a mathematical truth like 0 = x + (-x) doesn't really say anything useful about our physical universe. If you want to pursue this argument, you will need to come up with some kind of consistent theory of how nothingness can bifurcate into somethingness, and what negative-somethingness is supposed to be.
From a cooperation between multiple prokaryotic cells and sufficient duplication and modification of genetic material to allow more increased complexity. i suppose it would be a dead mutated amoeba. You don't even need an external factor to mutate the genome. The genome does it by itself during every replication. The standard theory is more that eukaryote cells started to aggregate to be more efficient which allowed for specialization of cells and the appearance of multicellular organisms. The same amount as it takes to make a mouse or a fruit fly. We are all succes stories at the moment. All of our parents, grand parents, grand grand etc. parents managed to mate and raise their offspring it is a natural phenomenon for species to reach a stable form. Nature doesn't care about us.
Now achieving that would indeed be a major milestone. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I expect then that you are not satisfied with the Big Bang theory since they have yet to accomplish the same requirements you make here. Simplistic, perhaps but then that is the basis of O'Razor. Actually I use this to assist others to understand the fact that it is rather simple, although complex beyond our reasoning at the same time. It at least puts a terminal point to the question.
What is funny is you used an old religionist trick to defend your nonesense. "God is simple. But, great and complicated at the same time. Just because we don't understand Him, yet, is only an indication of our finite understanding." You stole and used the argument you are fighting against.
I will trust others to decide which is nonsense. 1 - Logical assumptions based on scientific understandings, or 2 - Magic, Miracles and an Omnipotent, All knowing God that functions via hearsay and riddles, who's purpose is to test his creation (the entire universe) via simple, isolated, unspecial, insignificant human kind, on a 1 in trillions of planets he created. Either this is unadulterated BS or he is the worst (least efficient) designer ever.
