[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 167 KB, 308x392, 1291262785261.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271673 No.2271673 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/, yesterday I lost a discussion about God's existence.
I ended up with no answers to the question "How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?".
The person I was discussing with has an excelent discussion historical, different from me, but that's irrelevant.

I'm feeling stupid and doubtful. Please, enlighten me with your best arguments about God's inexistence.

Also, I discovered that most of my counter arguments were about God's nature, not about his inexistence. "He's evil, blabla, therefore he doens't exist".

I need to solve this shit.

>> No.2271690

Set aside an hour and listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

>> No.2271689

How does it make sense for God to exist if no one created Him?

>> No.2271692

This is the point of no argument.

Or do you believe there is an immortal being that created everything or don't. Simply that.

But the actions of God during your life are easily deniable.

>> No.2271694

>>2271689
"He is the creator, he always existed"

I telling him that the universe could have always existed as well, but it was no use.

>> No.2271697

>>2271689

Ding, Ding, Ding.
We have a winner.

Any argument on this topic can be switched to and fro.
Just have a look at Richard Dawkin's argument with Bill O'Reilly(cunt).

>> No.2271700

Cause and effect are part of our universe, like matter ,energy, time, etc. "Before" the big bang, the was no cause and effect, so events could occur without cause - for no reason.

>> No.2271716

.This has been solved ages ago. The known universe is only a small fraction of the total energy in existence, these psuedobizzaro type particles are called virtual particles. They exist but follow a set of physics entirely different than regular particles, these particles spontaneously burst in and out of where-ever it resided before into our reality.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.2271739
File: 53 KB, 760x549, cobe_wmap_geometry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271739

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.

>> No.2271744

>>2271673

1. Deny something is possible as something cannot come in to existence without being created
2. Explain it by using another something that you say wasn't created
3. Be no closer to an answer than you were originally
4. ???
5. Profit!

If you claim that god created the universe, you may aswell believe that a higher god created that god, and an even higher god created that god, ad infinitum.

A godless creation assumes less than a godly creation, namely a god, and until evidence that a god exists we may aswell assume the simpler one.

>> No.2271745
File: 74 KB, 602x461, cobe_wmap_skymap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271745

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.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create
-the-Universe.html
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/
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-theoretical-physics-breakthrough-antimatter-vacuum.html

Pic related, it's the gradually improving map of the 'microwave background radiation' left over from the big bang, as captured by a series of increasingly high resolution probes.

>> No.2271746

"How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?"

in the same way that magnets attract without a divine being attracting them. just because our puny human minds do not know all the physical details of the cause of the singularity doesn't mean another sentient being did it.

>> No.2271751

Were you trying to disprove God's existence? Then you lost the discussion.

Was the other person trying to prove God's existence? Then they achieved nothing.

The difference between a good scientist and an irrational believer is the ability to admit ignorance. You didn't know what caused the big bang, but that doesn't automatically make the other person's argument true.

>> No.2271750

>I ended up with no answers to the question "How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?".
False dichotomy.
The Big Band, Abiogenesis, and Evolution could ALL be horribly wrong.
God would still not exist.

>> No.2271800

>>2271673
>"How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?"
Just say "It doesn't, but it makes even less sense to claim that whatever did cause it has anything in common with a vague entity that a bunch desert folk dreamed up 6000 years ago."

Arguing that god must exist because the universe exists is both hasty generalization and affirming the consequent, two types of logical fallacy. Everything I've seen has been made by people, therefore everything was made by something, even the things whose creator I don't know. If there is no obvious creator, it must be God. Of course everything seems to have a creator, we live in a society that we built ourselves, which is filled with things that were made. It's impossible to demonstrate otherwise because to do so would necessitate making something. Everything we look at is through a human viewpoint, so we try to ascribe the maker of things that were not made by humans to something human-like instead.
Secondly, affirming the consequent. Even if we accept the premise that if the universe exists, it must have a creator, there is no reason to believe that such a being would be in any way similar to the one described in judeo-christian religion, especially since there are numerous conflicting creation stories from non-judeo-christian religions.

>> No.2271819 [DELETED] 

>"How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?"
How does it make sense for the sunrise to occur if there is no holy scarab to roll it across the sky?

>> No.2271828

>"How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?"
How does it make sense for the sunrise to occur if there is no holy scarab to roll the Sun across the sky?

>> No.2271838
File: 135 KB, 310x386, 1292896457360.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2271838

>>2271751
This person is right

Impossible to disprove God, when the person you are arguing is basing all evidence on faith.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof

>> No.2271859

Just say: even if it turns out the big bang theory isn't correct, that doesn't mean God created the universe. There have to be proof for it, you can't just conclude. So give me a prove of God creating the universe.

And you should of course present all the evidence pointing towards a big bang :)

>> No.2271904

We cannot possibly know if god exists or not => wathever we do cannot be affected by god => we can ignore the issue!

win! :)

>> No.2271916

>Please, enlighten me with your best arguments about God's inexistence.
I don't have to. There is no empirical evidence for a higher power.

>> No.2271945

yes, there is a god, and he wants YOU to give me money, or YOU will go to hell.

/thread

>> No.2271978

God (at least the Abrahamic God) is logically impossible anyway. The Euthyphro dilemma is one of the most convincing arguments I know against the existence of the Abrahamic God.

>> No.2272389

The argument "How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?" is easily countered.
What do you think is more realistic here, that an all powerful being sprang into existence or shitloads of the most basic atoms.
How could someone think that god can just come to exist and not the laws of physics?

>> No.2272419
File: 419 KB, 1400x1050, 1275152366630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2272419

>>2271673
>How does it make sense to the big bang have occurred if no one made it?"

The problem you have is that you assume shit has to have a creator. In the real universe we see shit being created with no creator what so ever. Virtual particles for example, just pop into existance. They are very well documented, and there is tons of science involved in predicting where they will appear and shit.

So, not all things need a "creator" to exist.

\thread
\thread

>> No.2272472

look up "A universe from Nothing" on Google.

If this sad little argument is enough to make you subscribe to one of the religions out there I feel sorry for you.

Ask your friend sometime why it makes sense to believe that SOMEONE caused the big bang rather than SOMETHING.
Then ask him why you should believe that it was his god and not some other imaginary god.

>I need to solve this shit.
It sounds to me like you need to figure out what you actually believe instead of asking everyone else what they believe and then going with the person who argues the best.