/sci/ - Science & Math

Because I created the universe last thursday.

Because I'm too busy bumping this thread.

>>1987876

But... I created the universe last sunday!

This is god speaking. You are all just an AI agents in my VR simulator I made a while ago to test some things. Don't get too excited, I already got what I wanted and I will end the simulation soon, because I need the computers for the real thing. You will cease exist with a single click of a button. Was nice knowing you. Bye.

>>1987876
>>1987909
Seems both of you made some delicious apple pie?

try thanking people who actually did something for you. Say your parents, and your ancestors, and the rest of society that gives you a good life that makes you consider this a wonderful universe.

Hello. I'm Tom. I'm the head moderator of this world. Normally we don't contact our clients like this as they are supposed to be unaware that they are in a virtual reality, however today I am forced to make an exception. Some while ago, one of our moderators thought it'd be funny to reveal himself to some of our users and tell them or make them do weird things. It didn't take long for the -pardon me for saying this- less intelligent users to worship the rogue moderator's words and actions. Over time, thought systems and organizations were formed around the worship of the rogue moderator which you may now know as 'religions'.

All users will be disconnected within the next hour so that we can fix this problem. When you awake you will be given the option to migrate to another world or to wait until this one has been repaired. We apologise for the inconvenience.

>>1987965

the sad thing is, religious people dont realize that this would actually be a more probable event then the ones claimed in their holy books

>>1987856

Assuming you're not trolling, is this god of yours inside or outside reality? Please note that 'reality' encompasses literally everything, including gods.

>>1988017
Sounds like you answered your own question, chief.

>>1987978
try not to make a fool of yourself.

>>1988025

I know. I have run into people in the past who kept on clinging to the believe that a god is outside of reality even though reality encompasses everything.

Not sure if you're the OP, but if you are or if you are also a theist, please answer the next question.

Do you believe that your god has created all of reality?

>>1988031
Not OP but also a theist. Saying God created all of reality technically would mean that God created himself, but the definition of God includes him being uncreate. When people say "God created reality", I think it's more a way of saying "all of reality either is God or comes from God." Logical reality and physical reality all comes from God.

>>1988060
>Logical reality and physical reality all comes from God.

LMAO

>>1988079
>hurrr I believe in spontanious creation, that's why I am now LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF!!!! HAHAHAHA

>>1988060

> Saying God created all of reality technically would mean that God created himself, but the definition of God includes him being uncreate.

And that is the big problem for theists. Assuming god is eternal, then we immediately must assume that reality is eternal as well because something cannot exist outside of reality because if it exists then it is part of reality. This also means that god did not create reality because he cannot exist outside of reality and thus cannot precede reality. This being may have created the laws of physics and the elements and particles, however he did not create the space in which everything exists. Do you agree?

>>1988091
>I have a very naive understanding of physics
>I am talking outta my ass
>MAGIC SKY CREATURE MUST HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING, CAUSE I DONT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE!

>>1988099
according to hinduism the elements were always there. just rearranged by the creative aspect and transformed by the destructive aspect of God.
God himself is the sustainer and makes sure that what exists will always exist.

>>1988113
I assume you do understand science?
please tell me how causality could have ever come into existance if the building stones were ever untouched by a controller.

/sci/: using religious logic to deny the existence of anything besides materialism.

>>1988099
No, God can easily have created space. Space is part of the physical world AKA the universe. The universe, including space and time could have been created by God, not not always existed. The only part of reality that must have always existed is God himself. I don't see a problem.

>>1988117

He already made sure that everything that exists will always exist by making sure that energy and matter cannot be destroyed, only converted into one another.

Anyway, could a theist answer these questions?:

1. Assuming god exists and thus is part of reality, do you agree that this god is bound to its own laws and can be explained scientifically, in other words, it exists out of particles?
2. Assuming god exists, why does it do the things it does?
3. Finally, why does mankind, which is just one of many species on earth, and one of a likely massive amount of species in the entire galaxy, think that should a divine being exist that we are the center of his attention and love, assuming this being has human emotions and desires?

>>1988122
No, this would be a falsehood. Science is an unbiased system upon which the elegant reality of the universe is uncovered. Religion would bias science and is therefore not a part in it.

>>1988117
Where in the Vedas does it say that the elements always existed. I'm not denying it does, but I'd like to read it.

>>1988123

Why did God exist and why did he 'one day' decided to create everything?

Try to explain the latter question to me without using human emotions and desires.

The laws of Physics state that energy cannot be created, Therefore there must be no creator.

Science: 1
Religion: 0

Then again, If you could reason with the religious or the religious could reason then there would be no religion.

>>1988131

> Then again, If you could reason with the religious or the religious could reason then there would be no religion.

Way to anally rape an excellent quote.

>>1988125
1. God is the source of his own laws and so is consistent with his own laws. God is not made out of "particles". God is infinite and immutable.
2. God is love and wisdom -- so Gods actions proceed from those.
3. The end of a loving God is to create other creatures who could freely choose to embody love. On this planet, such creatures are called human. I don't know what exists on other planets.

What we do know is that the universe was created through unexplainable means, but you claim that God created the universe who was created from unexplainable means. Why not skip a step and just say we don't know how the universe was created and eliminate God?

>>1988126
Way to ironically religionize science while apparently trying to do the opposite.

>>1988129
God created the world for humans to learn how to become God, because they desired so.
All the souls that dwell the universe desired to be in the spotlight and were fueled by false ego.

>>1988129
God didn't "one day" decide to create the universe, because apart from the universe there is no concept of time (except possibly in other universes). The universe was created by God for the purpose -- I believe -- of love. But the beginning of time is something that only exists within that created universe.

Why God exists I can't answer.

>>1988140
Adding a few descriptive words does not make something religious.

>>1988137

> 1. God is the source of his own laws and so is consistent with his own laws. God is not made out of "particles". God is infinite and immutable.

God must have some sort of shape, or it does not exist. It may be particles, it may be something else, but it has to be SOMETHING.

> 2. God is love and wisdom -- so Gods actions proceed from those.

> 3. The end of a loving God is to create other creatures who could freely choose to embody love. On this planet, such creatures are called human. I don't know what exists on other planets.

How convenient for an eternal omnipotent being to have human emotions and desires which we see as 'good'. If you hadn't noticed, I'm being sarcastic.

What I find more interesting however is the fact that you say everything with so much confidence. Exactly where did you obtain this knowledge? Try to answer with something else besides 'I feel god', 'god showed himself to me in my dream', and other nonsense like that.

I'm genuinly curious.

>>1988148
No, you turn science into a religion by believing it is unbiased and believing that it uncovers reality.

>>1988145

Please answer this guy:

>>1988139

>>1988127
sorry, it could've been of any of my books.
and it probably does not contain any source.

>>1988156

Well excuuuuuuuse science for valuing facts over opinions and fairytales.

You're an idiot.

>>1988156
Please tell me what is false about that statement because I am at a loss and not afraid to admit ignorance.

I thank the universe for high energy physics.
Just imagine what we'd be like if we were stuck in a universe without it.
Yay steam power is our upper limit. Fuck that.

>>1988149
>God must have some sort of shape, or it does not exist. It may be particles, it may be something else, but it has to be SOMETHING.
Nope. You have to learn to think apart from space and time before you can think about God.

>How convenient for an eternal omnipotent being to have human emotions and desires which we see as 'good'. If you hadn't noticed, I'm being sarcastic.
God doesn't have human emotions and desires. However, humans have something of the divine in them. That something of the divine is related to the concept of love. It is through love that we can understand the divine.

>What I find more interesting however is the fact that you say everything with so much confidence. Exactly where did you obtain this knowledge? Try to answer with something else besides 'I feel god', 'god showed himself to me in my dream', and other nonsense like that.

I've sought the answers to questions like these for many years, and read a lot, and reflect a lot. Through reason and through experience, some of the answers have become resolved in my mind, and therefore I have confidence in them.

>>1988160
how does any scientist know anything to be a fact?

>>1988162
1. Science is a human endeavor. Therefore it is never unbiased. However it has mechanisms to try to fight its bias, which is a redeeming factor. But calling it unbiased is idealizing it beyond what it is.

2. Philosophy and religion -- and perhaps philosophized math -- are the only things that make claims upon "reality". Science only tries to model what is observable so that those models can predict observations. It makes no claims about whether those observations are inherently real -- much less whether the models it creates are inherently real.

>>1988171

> Nope. You have to learn to think apart from space and time before you can think about God.

I don't think you understand. For something to exist, it must be made of something, be it energy, particles, or anything else. If something isn't made of something, it simply doesn't exist.

> God doesn't have human emotions and desires. However, humans have something of the divine in them. That something of the divine is related to the concept of love. It is through love that we can understand the divine.

Where in our bodies is this 'divine' thing, and why is love not a human emotion according to you?

> I've sought the answers to questions like these for many years, and read a lot, and reflect a lot. Through reason and through experience, some of the answers have become resolved in my mind, and therefore I have confidence in them.

Please elaborate. Personal experiences and religious books are not enough to uncover the motivations of an omnipotent and eternal creature, don't you agree?

>>1988184
>If something isn't made of something, it simply doesn't exist

you must be an interdimensional traveler who knows his stuff
tell me, is conscience also made of something?

>>1988192

Yes. Brain cells and electrical signals. I don't understand where you're going with this.

>>1988177
You do have a point that humans have bias, but science does its best by having several scientists with different biases to reach the same conclusion and work around the bias.

As for reality, I can think of no better system of realize reality than science. The observations it obtains gives us crucial insight into the world in which we live. Without science, there would be no knowledge of atoms or quarks, cells or bacteria. We wouldn't know that we live in an expanding universe, that creatures evolved over time, or even that light is made of photons. Without science, we would all be living in caves throwing rocks at each other, blind to the reality of the universe.

>>1988198
*no better system to realize reality*

>>1988197
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

>>1988184
>I don't think you understand. For something to exist, it must be made of something, be it energy, particles, or anything else. If something isn't made of something, it simply doesn't exist.
I wonder why you think this. I'm not sure you can so freely apply logic about finite things to infinite things. There is a kind of structure to God, it is true. God is a duality between form and essence -- which is interpreted in us as the duality between truth and good.

>Where in our bodies is this 'divine' thing, and why is love not a human emotion according to you?
The divine is in everything. Of course, the divine is more properly within our souls, rather than our bodies. Love is more than an emotion.

>Please elaborate.
Not the place to elaborate, sorry.

>>1988213

How's that little fantasy of yours working for ya?

>>1988213
cool link. saved.

>>1988223
hows that denial working out for ya?

>>1988223
how can one have psychotic experiences when he's brain dead?

>>1988192
it is actually, and the whole idea of god being on a different dimension is silly. first of all, anyone trying to mix science and established religion is a fool, spirituality has very diverse implications but clearly answers no questions (correctly) about how we came to be/how things work. if there is a god sitting on some alternate reality looking down at us, which is obviously as likely as me having 4 extra legs i dont know about, we can assume he isn't associated with any religion and has no value to our existence. its perfectly fine to have imaginary friends and believe in a higher power, but its unusual to bring that into a philosophical or scientific discussion in the present, as it holds no weight.

>>1988221

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop asking you questions because I fear I might facepalm myself so hard that my hand goes right through my skull.

I tried to be kind and treat you with respect, but all that comes forth from your keyboard is the same illogical, obvious 'I want to believe' trash talk every religious person hangs on to in a desperate attempt to convince themselves that they're somehow right even though there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for their absurd claims.

If you are a troll, then I give you a 10 out of 10.

>>1988198
You're using terms like "quarks" and "photons" and calling them reality. These are only models. Both are actually kind of shaky models. Both models are based on our prejudice that things come in "bits" that we like to call particles. The model that things come in "bits" doesn't work with observation very well, so we've had to adjust the rules for how things like photons behave to the point where they aren't any particular place at a particular time. So when you say a photon is real... a photon isn't really anything. It is part of our model for explaining physical processes. The nature of the model has as much to do with the biases of how our brains work as it does actual physical reality -- assuming there is a "physical reality".

>>1987856
Watching Richard Dawkins argue argue with supernatural believers of all kinds is steadily convincing me that a god is not necessary to appreciate life and that in fact, life is more beautiful still without a god figure in mind.

>>1988237
why tell me conscience is made of something, then go off topic by telling a story about how philosophy and god does not combine?

>>1988227

If requiring evidence in order to believe in something equals 'in denial' in your little dictionary, then yes, I am 'in denial'.

>>1988230

Your brain doesn't instantly die when your heart stops pumping blood around.

>>1988250
why would a life without the theory of god (person or particle) be more beautiful?
and dawkins can pick weak links to argue with until he dies, doesn't prove anything.

>>1988244
My only bias in my investigations of these questions is to find the best I can the unbiased truth. I have no desire to believe anything that isn't true. My beliefs are the result of serious questioning and intellectual honesty. I've had to abandon beliefs when reality proved them wrong. You seem extremely fearful of having to abandon yours. That fear is what closes minds to truth.

>>1988252

For your information, those are two different people. I'm one of them.

>>1988255
so you deny there's something as braindead?

and you didn't ask for evidence, you immediately discarded it as fantasy, moron

>>1987909
Your last Sunday was actually last Thursday. You are actually part of >>1987876 which was in the process of creating the universe while you were creating what you thought was the universe. What you were creating was actually just a threaded piece of the universe.

>>1988255
Your response was to a page full of evidence. (not mine). You called it fantasy. When you call evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs "fantasy", that is called denial.

>>1988264

> You seem extremely fearful of having to abandon yours. That fear is what closes minds to truth.

That is where you're wrong. Suggest something, prove said something, and I shall believe. Requiring evidence in order to believe is not close-mindedness, on the contrary: it is merely logical.

>>1988269
>>1988272

Please use tripcodes so that I can identify you idiots anywhere on this board in order to take proper measures, in other words, ignore your idiotic blabbering.

>>1988248
The term model is kind of being thrown around here. Just because something is a model doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. Our model of the solar system is true to our understanding through observation. A model is just representation of all the information we have. I don't understand why you talk about the mas thought they may fall down at any moment while they are backed up by massive data.

>God is a kitty cat
>Kitty cats exist
>God exists

>>1988294
Well that's it I'm now converting to this Kitty cat religion. I'm going to change my entire lifestyle now. bye!

>>1988294

What's funny is that your post made more sense than any post made by a religious person in this entire thread.

>>1988288
Okay, well, you think a photon is a real thing. What exactly do you think a photon is?

(If you're the same idiot who said real things must be made of other things you could start with what a photon is made of)

>>1988308
>derp religion is confusing

>>1988280
Requiring evidence to investigate is closed minded. Seek out your own evidence.

>>1988314

> I DONT KNOW [X]
> GODDIDIT

Religious people, are you even trying?

>>1988284
just because you're butthurt doesn't make anyone an idiot here
sometimes people respond to other people, deal with it

>>1988320
wat?

>>1988316

> derp reality is confusing

>>1988319

Why would I need to investigate if there is already evidence? You make no sense.

ITT: >derp

>>1988213

>>1988325
If you don't have the answers to a question, then you investigate. Or else you don't care about the answers. What you don't do is not investigate but claim to have the answers anyway.

>>1988333
I care more about the fact that your post has trips than that you're supposedly skeptical
people are skeptical about evolution as well

>>1988259
Life is more beautiful to me without God because rather than ignoring the wonder of it and spending my time pondering what some unknown afterlife might be like and worrying about whether I'll be on the good side or not (no don't mean make it to heaven, i've sure of that for a long time. I'm talking about whether heaven is a place i'd actually like to be stuck in forever.) I have come to realize that I can lay all that down and think on how great it is that I am here now and ponder the beauty of the awesome things I have seen so far.

>dawkins can pick weak links to argue with until he dies, doesn't prove anything.

On the contrary, it builds the case that irrationality is the only thing supporting most all superstitious beliefs.
Watch his enemies of reason and root of all evil? series'. What is interesting to me is the counter-arguments the believers present.
I started out thinking Dawkins was just going nutz with this but then I started to see the same general type of arguments coming from every believer no matter what religion, alternative medicine, or superstition they were defending.
Are those beliefs really worth anything, if they are all so afraid of honest inquiry? Any belief that cannot at least hold it's own against a logical argument is worthless.

>>1988308
>>1988303

meow prr

>shit in public sandbox
>get arrested
>claim religious persecution
>charges dropped

>>1988340

Get to the point. What the heck are you trying to say?

>>1988314
I wasn't the person who said to that all things are made by real things must be made from other things, but to my knowledge photons are in a state of particle/wave duality where they have characteristic of a wave and a particle. It does not have mass nor charge. To find out more I'd have to do more research.

>>1988343
You criticize them for being afraid of honest inquiry in your 2nd paragraph, but your 1st paragraph seemed to suggest you are afraid of honest inquiry into life after death.

>>1988360

If there is nothing before life begins, why should there be something afterwards?

>>1987856
>Your a flamming homosexual called OP who lives in a planet of dicks.

>The universe you know at the moment is just a figment of your imagination.

>You went into a coma in your own universe forgetting everything about it just knowing this current one that was imagined.
>

>>1988343
I'm not who you're addressing but i just wanna talk.
a belief in a higher power doesnt have to be the understanding that morons have of god. its foolish to abandon something because others have misused it.
I agree with your part about life being beautiful without pondering afterlives etc, but religion is completely separate idea from god and spirituality. I accept evolution and the big bang theory but i still hold a belief in a higher power for matter and energy to even exist rather than an absolute void.
dawkins is a very closed minded man who has as primitive an understanding of god as fundamentalists who believe there is a big man in the sky. he is not a champion of reason, he is very antagonistic towards the religious, science doesnt need his childish attitude to come out on top of ignorance.

On the contrary, it builds the case that irrationality is the only thing supporting most all superstitious beliefs.
Watch his enemies of reason and root of all evil? series'. What is interesting to me is the counter-arguments the believers present. much respect.

>>1988355
Right... but you see "mass" is a number we use to explain certain behaviors. "Charge" is a number we use to explain certain behaviors. "Duality" is a term we use because neither available model fits the observed data by itself. My point is that none of these things are the underlying observed reality itself. It would probably be possible to formulate a model of physics without those particular concepts.

For example you could formulate physics purely in terms of waves, or you could formulate it purely in terms of particles. QM works originally worked by waves alone. Feynman came along with QED, which worked by particles alone... but particles that acted a whole lot like waves. Two different conceptual models... one says there is a wave there... the other says a group of particles... both mathematically equivalent and making the same predictions. So who's to say the particle is real or the wave is real? Something is real, but "particle" and "wave" are just our ways of thinking about it and modeling it in our minds. And probably not the best way. I expect science to come up with something better eventually. What's real won't change, but our way of thinking about it will.

>>1988343
>implying life can't be beautiful with philosophy or wondering about an after life
>implying dawkins actually talks to everyone and not just the weakest links

http://books.google.nl/books?id=V9dr6167AJ8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=dawkins+god&source=b
l&ots=g45ZiHW-2R&sig=Iluvp7WTPrG0jHvIAFH5YkZfeCQ&hl=nl&ei=j0vQTKb7KdGeOtnCzagF&s
a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.emmausroad.org/Samples/813_Sample%20Chapter.pdf

>>1988363
The question shouldn't be "why should there be?", but "is there?" Reality isn't limited to what we think should be.

>>1988360
Only because you want it to. I wasn't even thinking about your argument over that link, I hadn't even read the whole thread when I posted that.

Additionally, I just said I had been pondering it for a long time. It seems to me that the only way to know is to die. Since I cannot do that and come back to tell you all about it then I cannot build a scientific test of it from beginning to end.
At best we seem to be able to test the beginning of death, to the point where we can still bring them back.
I'd be willing to do it if you want to setup an official, documented test somewhere but I don't think we are going to get any definitive results unless I stay dead for some time. Maybe you should go first.

>>1988389
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

>>1988410
>random non-sequitur link

>>1988391

They're all weak links. Mythology is mythology, no matter how much you dress it up. Pic related.

>>1988399
That's cool, and to some extend I agree. Live in the present. However, contemplating spirituality and God is mostly about contemplating the present, not what happens after death.

>>1988415
mythology =/= philosophy

>>1988415
I don't think you know what mythology means.

>>1988413
You wanted an observation which supported what I said and I gave you an experiment on a photon, there is no way it is random

>>1988415
nice discourse there. anybody could make a picture of anything complicated like dna and say complicated does not mean credible and then without reasonal argument reject the idea. open your mind a little. for years i was atheistic but its really such a silly position. rejecting something because you don't understand it.

>>1988391
First off, my initial experience with Dawkins was to watch him argue with a woman from concerned mothers of america. I'd say that represents what you would call a strong link.
She actually appears to win against him with her creationist arguments except for the part where all her arguments are shifty and she avoids the central points.
She is a very good talker but makes the same kind of arguments that the people you call weak links make.

It's the argument that needs to be addressed not the person making it.
You cannot simply say, "aww but Dawkins picks on the weak ones that don't really know what they believe therefore he's wrong". If the people do not know what they believe then the situation only serves to reinforce the case for rationality.
It is clear that you must give up rationality to retain superstitious beliefs.

>>1988430
hmmm you seem worthy of joining my club, we hate both strong theists and strong atheists

>>1988438
is it irrational to propose there might be an outside influence to causality?
is it irrational to think there might be more subtle energies than the ones we know?

>>1988430

>> anybody could make a picture of anything complicated like dna and say complicated does not mean credible and then without reasonal argument reject the idea.

....How would that make sense with a picture of DNA? I'm not sure you understood my meaning.

>> open your mind a little.

My mind is open. It's yours that is closed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

>>for years i was atheistic but its really such a silly position. rejecting something because you don't understand it.

I was a Christian for most of my life. I have six years of theological education. I understand it quite well. That's why I'm an atheist.

>>1988460

>>is it irrational to propose there might be an outside influence to causality?

Yes, given that the causal mechanism of the big bang is now understood and it was not an outside influence.

>>is it irrational to think there might be more subtle energies than the ones we know?

Of course not. But that's a greatly reduced version of your position. You've cut it down to something ostensibly simple and common sense so that it will pass cursory consideration, when really your full position entails a great deal more which is untenable. It's like condensing a solid so as to fit it through a narrow opening, only to expand it afterward.

>>1988448
to be honest i believe in a higher power. but i accept pretty much all science. what i dont like is equally closed minded fundamentalist religious people and fundamentalist atheists. i think part of the problem is they have primitive understandings of god. both are very aggressive in there views and the truth does not need aggression to prevail. also please dont take a superior attitude brother.

>>1988424
I don't understand what you're trying to demonstrate. I understand the wave/particle duality. It was a major part of my point.

>>1988472
I don't understand why you sent me that video, I haven't rejected anything without discourse.

I don't think being a christian gives you any real understanding of divine existence.
Do you not think that it is amazing that matter and energy exist instead of a void?

>>1988438
lolno. Creationists are by definition weak links.

>>1988480
well sorry princess, just testing the person I'm talking with

and please explain how we now understand that causality began with the big bang if you're not just guessing

>>1988472
>I have six years of theological education. I understand it quite well. That's why I'm an atheist.
I've been studying theology for 25 years. I wouldn't go as far as to say I understand it quite well. Maybe in another 25.

>>1988481

A disbelief in God is typically far more rational in belief in him.There are numerous scientific and logical reasons not to believe in God. A belief in him, however, generally boils down to "I was raised that way"/"Faith". So no, stop trying to act like we're the close minded ones.

>>1988480
>Yes, given that the causal mechanism of the big bang is now understood
WAIT...WAT?

>>1988498

>>lolno. Creationists are by definition weak links.

They're also a slight majority of US Christians, and a larger majority of Christians worldwide. It's completely accurate to say that the average Christian is a creationist.

>>1988512
>A disbelief in God is typically far more rational in belief in him.There are numerous scientific and logical reasons not to believe in God. A belief in him, however, generally boils down to "I was raised that way"/"Faith". So no, stop trying to act like we're the close minded ones.

You have it completely backwards. God is a logical necessity. This has been known since the ancient Greeks. Just because atheism has become fashionable doesn't make it logical.

>>1988512
why is typically far more rational to disbelieve something you don't know about

inb4 BUT ATHEISTS ARE EXPERTS IN THEOLOGY

>>1988517

>>WAIT...WAT?

In nearly every religion thread, it seems like there's at least one or two people whose lingering religious beliefs depend on the apparent inexplicability of the Big Bang. But actually a great deal is known about the big bang, and although it's fairly young as far as theories go, one candidate for the causal mechanism called "particle pair separation" leads the rest.

Here's a little thought experiment: combine 1 and -1, and you get zero, right? Likewise, if you carry out this operation in reverse, you can separate 1 and -1 out of zero. Something from nothing? Not exactly. Something and "anti-something" from nothing. Specifically, particles and their anti-particle equivalents dividing out of a state of nothingness science calls quantum potential. This has been directly observed in particle colliders and is known to happen spontaneously, a sort of quantum 'static' at the smallest scales, particle pairs splitting off from one another and then annihilating shortly after. (Better known to most as Hawking radiation).

One of the more recent experimental confirmations of the big bang, by the by, has been the discovery that the total negative gravitational energy in the universe is precisely balanced out by ordinary matter and energy. The result is that the "total energy state" of the universe works out to be zero, meaning it can easily have come from nothing without violating the law of conservation. The universe isn't a "something" that popped into existence out of "nothing" in other words, it's a state of imbalance that collapsed from a more balanced state by way of entropy.

So where did that perfectly balanced state come from? It didn't. That's nothingness. At least, the scientific understanding of it. As it turns out the philosophical/mathematical concept of nothing may not exist outside of either discipline.

And where did the space for all of it to expand into come from? Again, it didn't. The big bang didn't occur in preexisting space, nor did all 3-dimensional matter move away from a central point within 3D space. Imagine all 3D matter and energy as 2D pen dots on the surface of a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, from the perspective of any one dot, all the other dots seem to be flying away from it. But it looks the same to any other dot. Because the space they are part of is expanding from a higher dimensional point. You could forgive any one of them for mistakenly thinking they were the center of all creation, situated directly on top of the big bang's point of origin. But of course they'd be wrong.

Citations:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026832.100-the-free-lunch-that-made-our % 20-%20universe.html
http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacu % 20u%20m-fluctuations
.html
http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/matter-wins-over-antimatter-100518.html
http://www.universetoday.com/72605/hawking-god-not-needed-for-universe-to-be-created/

>>1988512
I was an atheist for ages.
>A disbelief in God is typically far more rational in belief in him.There are numerous scientific and logical reasons not to believe in God

No, there are those reasons only not to believe in a giant demiurge with magical powers who will punish you for being gay. understanding science by no means means you understand philosophy.

>>1988528

>>why is typically far more rational to disbelieve something you don't know about

But we do. Most of us are former Christians.

>>inb4 BUT ATHEISTS ARE EXPERTS IN THEOLOGY

The data does suggest that's true.

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

>>1988528
Um, because the burden of proof is on the presenter of the subject matter?
Would you say it is rational to believe me initially if I tell you the sun actually rises at night, you just don't see it because the sun actually changes it's color to the infrared spectrum? Or would you ask me how I know that?

>>1988546
religious knowledge =/= theology
thats like saying believing in thor means you understand the physics of a thunderstorm.
a belief in a deity doesn't mean you can understand why the deity is there. most religious people don't understand causality.

>>1988537
>implying that math isn't a human concept but something you can compare to the universe

experiments can only compare two situations to each other, you can't just assume there's a way to recreate the big bang

>>1988557

Did you even read it? That's not the type of religious "knowledge" they were talking about. Rather it was regarding the particulars of various faiths, their central doctrines, theological concepts and so on.

Why are you being so combative? You're clearly in the wrong but you persist in lashing out. Can we just arrive at a point of understanding already?

>>1988538
I know about particle pair separation. I know that the net energy of the universe is zero. I know space expanded out of the big bang

Now I'll repeat...
>Yes, given that the causal mechanism of the big bang is now understood
WAIT...WAT?

>>1988559

>>experiments can only compare two situations to each other, you can't just assume there's a way to recreate the big bang

But we have, on a smaller scale, in particle accelerators. It's fine if you decide this isn't sufficient evidence for you, but it's stronger than anything that's ever come out of the opposing camp.

>>1988546
That survey doesn't suggest that at all. It just says the average atheists knows more about non-christian religions than the average christian. But the average christian knows much more about Christianity than the average atheists. Particularly evangelicals and Mormons.

>>1988570

>>Now I'll repeat...WAIT...WAT?

I suppose, in light of your grasp of those concepts, I'm not too clear on what it is you don't understand about my statement. The big bang resulted from the buildup of matter and antimatter via particle pair separation, caused by random fluctuations in vacuum energy driven by entropy . It's autocatalytic, it's inevitable given that a separated state is more stable and it's corroborated by the COBE, WMAP, Herschel and Planck probe data.

>>1988575
I think you're underestimating just how much we don't know about the big bang. That's why we're spending billions of dollars to do experiments to find out about it.

>>1988569
That is what i mean, they are talking about scriptures rather than philosophical ideas about god. I apologise for my combatitiveness. You are however also being combatant. the first i saw of you in this thread was something which had no discourse but just rejected something so that's why i was combatant. If you explained something purely rationally rather than saying "youre clearly wrong" you are much more likely to convince me.

>>1988583

Oh, okay. Granted. But the difference in religious knowledge between protestants and atheists was 0.4, less than one consistently missed question's difference. Claiming we're only atheists because we're ignorant of your religion doesn't make much sense in light of that.

>>1988546
that website only shows who is more schooled in basic knowledge about religion
like "what religion does this person follow? what is an atheist?"

and I know most christians don't know much about other religion, just their own
I also find it funny how this website puts agnostic people on the same line as atheists
why would anyone become atheist anyway? only an idiot creates an opinion about something he can't possibly prove.

>>1988603

>>That is what i mean, they are talking about scriptures rather than philosophical ideas about god.

Those ideas originate from the scriptures. Anything else is revisionist rationalization intended to patch up holes in it's logic.

>>If you explained something purely rationally rather than saying "youre clearly wrong" you are much more likely to convince me.

I did both. If what you mean is that you're not going to listen to anyone who tells you you're wrong about something, I don't suppose dialogue will be possible.

>>1988598
You're stating some things that we do think we understand about the big bang process... which was generally later in the process. The INITIAL cause of the big bang is almost entirely conjectural. Theories involving of the plank era of the big bang are numerous and untested, and many are incompatible with one another.

>>1988609
I don't think any atheist actually prescribes to a set of beliefs about it.
I'd wager most of them would say "we just don't know why the universe is here, let us see what science comes up with".

>>1988622
yea when in doubt just assume the person does not want to consider your ideas

>>1988609

>>why would anyone become atheist anyway? only an idiot creates an opinion about something he can't possibly prove.

Presumably you don't think you're an idiot, but you do this all the time. When it is said that one cannot disprove God's existence, it's in the same sense that you cannot technically disprove anything. That would require that you meet the absolute standard of disproof, which is possible only in mathematics. In science all conclusions are probabilistic rather than absolute and conclusions are implicitly tentative, 99.9% certain at best and never 100%.

For that reason, technically you cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow. That might seem like grasping at straws, but that's precisely how atheists feel when the "you can't disprove god" line comes up, because it's quietly swapping in the absolute standard of disproof when for most things in life, we abide by the probabilistic standard.

Now, understand that while the deistic god is vague and nondescript, the Christian god is highly specific and his traits and alleged feats are detailed in the Bible. Many of them are empirically testable, have been tested, and discredited. A Christian shrugs these off and finds rationalizations such that they can keep believing, but a more objective person would conclude that the Christian religion is no more credible than any of the others and more likely to be a human fabrication than truth.

>>1988626

>>You're stating some things that we do think we understand about the big bang process... which was generally later in the process. The INITIAL cause of the big bang is almost entirely conjectural. Theories involving of the plank era of the big bang are numerous and untested, and many are incompatible with one another.

At that point you're examining the insulation on the wires of the spark plug. But the debate as to whether in fact it's what starts the engine has long since been resolved.

That's wonderful for you OP. Now, let's get a Religion and Philosophy board so you can have an appropriate place to have your soul saved.

>Now, understand that while the deistic god is vague and nondescript, the Christian god is highly specific and his traits and alleged feats are detailed in the Bible. Many of them are empirically testable, have been tested, and discredited. A Christian shrugs these off and finds rationalizations such that they can keep believing, but a more objective person would conclude that the Christian religion is no more credible than any of the others and more likely to be a human fabrication than truth.

This is absolute truth. Of course, the Christfags will ignore it and continue to move the goalposts, saying things like "you can not disprove deism, therefore there's nothing wrong with believing that God came to Earth in the form of a man to die for our sins, will send you to hell if you don't believe in him and is the foundation of all morals".

>Presumably you don't think you're an idiot, but you do this all the time. When it is said that one cannot disprove God's existence, it's in the same sense that you cannot technically disprove anything.

When arguing about God, a lot of people have strange ideas about the burden of proof and about whether belief can only be justified by epistemic certainty. Agnostics tend to be even worse than Christfags when it comes to this. It seems that as soon as the topic of God comes up, some people turn into Pyrrhonian sceptics.

>>1988642
you think I create an opinion on something as big as the cause of causality because I haven't seen evidence of there being one? be it a particle or divine personality.
nah, to assume there's no such thing like a god is believing in magic, that by chance anything can happen.

>>1988678
Bleh, don't discredit philosphy in the same stroke as religion.

>why would anyone become atheist anyway? only an idiot creates an opinion about something he can't possibly prove.

You can't prove that God exists. We're on the same line then. Only that you are retarded and I'm a smart man.

>>1988710
I would not say that Philosophy fits under the same heading as Religion. I would say, however, that people often argue for them in a similar manner. I will also say that people arguing about them in /sci/ rarely say anything related to Science or Math. Having a Religion and Philosophy board will solve a lot of issues.

>>1988647
No... what "starts the engine" is exactly what we don't have a clue about. How the universe evolved after 10^-12 seconds we have some pretty good ideas about though.

>>1988642
>Christian god is highly specific and his traits and alleged feats are detailed in the Bible. Many of them are empirically testable, have been tested, and discredited.
lol -- such as?

there is no god

>>1988642
>When it is said that one cannot disprove God's existence, it's in the same sense that you cannot technically disprove anything.
No, it's more in the same sense that you cannot disprove the peano axioms.

Let's define "hurpazerp" as "an existing god".
By definition, hurpazerp exists.
Therefore, hurpazerp exists.
Therefore, there is a god.

U mad, heathens?