If it all just happened...what is driving the electrons and magnetism?

[Iamme]

Just waiting for some scholarly answers to this?

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something.

Sort of along the lines of how we can identify love by also knowing there is hate. Or knowing something is hot, only by feeling something cold. Or knowing something is soft, because we compared it to something hard. Etc., etc., to infinitum. Everything is that way.

That said, I still would like to know how you can have this motion that seems non-ending? Wouldn't we be naturally inclined to believe that there has to be some energy (god) *behind* the energy? And not only is there some motion, but it is a highly organized motion pattern. Know what I mean?

Crystal formations have always intrigued me also. I found a good one once in Texas. It broke in half on me. Know what intrigued me the most? Not just the fact that the crystal has this organized symetrical shape...it's the fact that each half of the crystal, when it broke lengthwise, is *perfectly* flat! What is the odds of that many atoms/molecules lining up in some row as to create this flat plane, all by itself???

And after saying *this*...how can anyone truly be atheistic? I can see agnostic...but I can't see how one can be atheistic, unless you have the answers to my question, and *then* some.

[H3LL]

[Sigh!]

I have no idea where to begin.....

I'll have a cup of tea instead.

And maybe some toast.

Then watch the rest of you.

:D

[thatguywhojuggles]

take a science class...

[c4ts]

Here's my scholarly answer:

Stop pretending to know, when it's obvious that you don't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iamme

Just waiting for some scholarly answers to this?

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something. The idea that nothing elemental existed prior to the Big Bang is totally absurd.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Iamme

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing?


The 'text' answer is that there were quantum fluctuations, etc. What there was before these fluctuations, who knows. Typically they'll say the question doesn't make sense because there was no time then so there was no 'before'.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Iamme
In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed [...]
By "always", you mean at all times, right? What is the totality of all values for the variable time? How do you know that, for any given moment in time, there was a time one hour before that moment? In other words, if "always" simply means at all times, then it doesn't necessarily mean for a span of time that extends infinitely far into the past.

[Iacchus]

If there was no earth to revolve around the sun, how could man chronicle time? Obviously these were two determining factors in man's creation of time. And yet these things didn't exist before the Big Bang or, immediately afterwards. So, does that mean time didn't exist before that? Or, that there was just no measureable rate of change? ... with respect to the earth and sun that is. And what would be the difference between that and "subtracting" the rest of the material Universe?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Interesting post. I'm probably in way over my head, but I had a thought here (probably not original in the least, but what the heck).

Most (or maybe all) known laws of physics are based not on what the universe does, but what the universe does NOT do:

A system of a body in motion HAS NO DIFFERENCE unless it is affected by another body.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore a system of matter HAS NO DIFFERENCE.

The point is that these laws say that for any system, they do not change unless there is outside action. In other words, the law of nature is that with in any system there is NO DIFFERENCE. This would seem to imply that there is no God--if there were God would have to cause some difference within the system, yet natural phenomenon can be perceived as following "laws" but in fact are following the law of "no law"--that is nothing happens at all to any closed system.

Furthermore, nature seems to alter systems such that that system HAS NO DIFFERENCE. Like osmosis. If you put ice cubes and hot coffee in a jar, the ice will melt and the coffee will become cool such that temperature of the ice and coffee HAS NO DIFFERENCE.

I don't know what the explanation is for mass having gravity, but I expect that ultimately the reason would be that if they did not it would require an outside force and is actually necessary for masses to have gravity within a system to ensure that that system HAS NO DIFFERENCE.

So I will jump to the conclusion that ALL laws of nature are those that create a system that HAS NO DIFFERENCE.

This means that there is no "God" or "Force" that created these "laws of nature", they are simply the natural tendency toward nothing and equilibrium. Actually this would prove “God� or a “creation force� does not exist because such a God/Force would interfere with the expectation of systems defaulting to the only possible natural state of no difference.

Of course that raises the BIG question that if the laws of nature and physics all indicate that the universe is just trying to get to equilibrium, what put it out of equilibrium in the first place?

[Iacchus]

And yet if you were to stick a post in the ground and say that time procedes from this point everywhere to the right of it, what does that speak of everything which is to the left of it? That the post, like the Big Bang, is merely a reference point?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if you were to stick a post in the ground and say that time procedes from this point everywhere to the right of it, what does that speak of everything which is to the left of it? That the post, like the Big Bang, is merely a reference point? That is exaclty the problem with absolute origin. My post addressed the problem of a "God/Creator" creating the laws of nature that scientists explore.

For absolute origin, I think you have the options of:

1) Time and matter have always existed and always will. This is very convenient and resolves a lot of problems. But this requires a belief that there was no “beginning of time� and that “matter has always been�. These are very hard constructs for us to accept. We cannot eliminate this as a possibility, but it is very difficult for us to realize this as possibility within our construct of reality. Of course if “time� and “matter� are not real but are constructs of our experience, then we don’t have this problem--but we do have the problem of how these “constructs of experience� were created.

2) Time began at some point and created matter/energy. This seems to be in line with the big bang theory. But it begs the questions of “what “ caused time to start existing. It seems the universe was in equilibrium at some point, but then everything went “bang� and all hell broke loose and now the universe is trying to get back to that equilibrium and in the process creating all kinds of formations of matter (like you and me) which seems very bizarre, but possible.

3) A Force (God or what-have-you) created time, matter, and energy. This begs the question of what created the Force/God.

Obviously option 3 can’t be correct because it begs the question.

Option 2 is a bit bizarre because you would have to say that time is relative and that time had previously slowed down to the point where there was no time. This also begs the question of what caused time to start existing.

So I go with option 1: Time/Matter/Energy has always and will always exist. Of course I would tie this in with that none of these things actually exist but are constructs of our consciousness to understand true reality. Therefore, true reality exists outside of our experience of true reality which necessarily exists outside of the capabilities of our constructs of our conscious awareness of it; therefore we will never be able to know or describe true reality--only our experience (or construct of) that reality.

So I would say that there is a reality that is “really real�, we can interpret that reality by constructs created by our brains, but that real-reality is beyond the comprehension of the constructs our brains can create and therefore will always be ultimately unknowable.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate

That is exaclty the problem with absolute origin. My post addressed the problem of a "God/Creator" creating the laws of nature that scientists explore.

For absolute origin, I think you have the options of:

1) Time and matter have always existed and always will. This is very convenient and resolves a lot of problems. But this requires a belief that there was no “beginning of time� and that “matter has always been�. These are very hard constructs for us to accept. We cannot eliminate this as a possibility, but it is very difficult for us to realize this as possibility within our construct of reality. Of course if “time� and “matter� are not real but are constructs of our experience, then we don’t have this problem--but we do have the problem of how these “constructs of experience� were created.What if the Bang Big was the result of the conversion of energy into matter? Is it possible that energy, since it theoretically cannot be destroyed, has always existed at some point? And, that time, since it's wholly contigent upon the existence of matter, cannot be observed until after its creation, hence the Big Bang? This would give rise to the notion of an intelligent energy source which exists outside of time and space by the way.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What if the Bang Big was the result of the conversion of energy into matter? Is it possible that energy, since it theoretically cannot be destroyed, has always existed at some point? And, that time, since it's wholly contingent upon the existence of matter, cannot be observed until after its creation, hence the Big Bang? This would give rise to the notion of an intelligent energy source which exists outside of time and space by the way. Good questions. Tough questions. But as I said the least likely is that there is an intelligent creator, because it would beg the question of who or what created the creator. The other options do not require a creator. I think the "big bang" did involve conversion of energy to matter, or something like that. I don't know. I also think that energy has always existed. I also think that it was not observable until it existed.

The most logical solution is that time decreased (or slowed down) in the past until the point where there was no "time". But that begs the question of who or what created "time".

My answer is that "time" is just a construct of our imagination created to analyze the data of our experience. So is "matter" and "energy". None of these things are real. Actually nothing we experience is real--they are just constructs of our perfection of reality. That doesn't mean you can walk on water or turn lead to gold if you "believe" you can, it just means that our constructs of reality (which to us IS our reality) are based on our perceptions of reality, and ultimately such things like the origin of time is not within those constructs and therefore will always be unknown to us.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate

Good questions. Tough questions. But as I said the least likely is that there is an intelligent creator, because it would beg the question of who or what created the creator. The other options do not require a creator. I think the "big bang" did involve conversion of energy to matter, or something like that. I don't know. I also think that energy has always existed. I also think that it was not observable until it existed. What of the world of abstract thinking though? Our thoughts aren't material are they? Yet this is the very thing which gives rise to sentience which, is the very thing that informs us that we're alive and well. Is it possible that something comparable to the world of abstract thought existed prior to the Big Bang, thereby accounting for all the pre-existing structure necessary in order to usher a New Universe into existence? While here, even if complexity doesn't appear to exist (prior to the Big Bang), it still has to exist in potential, and where would that potential exist, but within the parameters of "a mind?"

By the way, if you believe in an original cause -- besides something coming from nothing that is ;) -- why would you have to account for anything prior to that? Wouldn't it be enough to suggest that a greater structure (God) gave rise a lessor structure or substet ... hence the Universe?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate

The most logical solution is that time decreased (or slowed down) in the past until the point where there was no "time". But that begs the question of who or what created "time".

My answer is that "time" is just a construct of our imagination created to analyze the data of our experience. So is "matter" and "energy". None of these things are real. Actually nothing we experience is real--they are just constructs of our perfection of reality. That doesn't mean you can walk on water or turn lead to gold if you "believe" you can, it just means that our constructs of reality (which to us IS our reality) are based on our perceptions of reality, and ultimately such things like the origin of time is not within those constructs and therefore will always be unknown to us. If God were the greater reality, which is timeless and infinite, why couldn't the Universe, which is temporal and finite, exist as a subset to this? Of course as you suggest, and I would concur, we only have the world of "mental constructs" to analyze this. And yet is it possible, say in the way the eye evolved to catch the light of the sun, that the brain evolved to utilize a pre-existent state of consciousness? This would at least allow for some degree of validation anyway. ;)

[Oleron]

I'll tackle the crystals.

Crystal formations have always intrigued me also. I found a good one once in Texas. It broke in half on me. Know what intrigued me the most? Not just the fact that the crystal has this organized symetrical shape...it's the fact that each half of the crystal, when it broke lengthwise, is *perfectly* flat! What is the odds of that many atoms/molecules lining up in some row as to create this flat plane, all by itself???

Where do I start?

The "organised symmetrical shape" is inevitable due to the way crystals form. Think of this imperfect analogy:

Get a cardboard box and put a layer of ping-pong balls in the bottom. Look at the way they naturally start to line up to occupy the available space. Sometimes one or two will not 'sit' quite right but this is again a feature of crystals - they are rarely perfect.
Put more in to form a second layer. Again you will notice regions of regularity and repeating patterns. Make a third layer - the same repeating patterns are formed.

This is similar to the way crystals form in nature. Many different repeating structures are formed - called PACKING structures. Look up hexagonal close packed, body centred cubic, face centred cubic and tetrahedral on Google to see illustrations of how atoms and ions naturally line up to form geometric repeating patterns. There are mathematical and physical reasons why some atoms prefer one conformation to another.

Take carbon atoms for example. There are 2 (3 if you start getting into bucky balls, which I won't) ways in which carbon atoms can line up to form crystals - depending on the prevailing conditions at the time of formation.
The first is layers of hexagonal close packed atoms which can 'slide' over each other. We call this crystal form GRAPHITE - the material in pencil leads.
The second is a macro-repeating tetrahedral fixed structure called DIAMOND.

Carbon doesn't have to take a crystalline structure at all, it can be AMORPHOUS. It all depends on the conditions under which the carbon was deposited.

Spectacular? - yes. Unexplainable? - No.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iamme

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something.


You are assuming a linear, straight flow of time. Without breaking out a few pages of physics, its a bit difficult to explain, but space and time are really the same thing. Imagine right after the big bang, when the universe was the size of a period ->. No matter where you go in space, you end up in the same place, and since space and time are really spacetime, it turns out you can't go very far back in time without ending up at the same time/place again. Before space existed, there could be no time, and before time existed, there could be no space, because they are really the same property.


Sort of along the lines of how we can identify love by also knowing there is hate. Or knowing something is hot, only by feeling something cold. Or knowing something is soft, because we compared it to something hard. Etc., etc., to infinitum. Everything is that way.


One could say that there has always been non-existence, and that existence came about, and after existence is gone, there will be non-existence again. Such a sentance though assumes a linear flow of time existing in a place outside of existence.


That said, I still would like to know how you can have this motion that seems non-ending? Wouldn't we be naturally inclined to believe that there has to be some energy (god) *behind* the energy? And not only is there some motion, but it is a highly organized motion pattern. Know what I mean?


The motion of individual particles is in no way organized. It is in fact, the most random thing we know of. Certain forces can tend the particles in one way or another though, once you add up millions, billions, or trillions of particles, these combined motions can form patterns. You can do the same thing with math and random numbers.


Crystal formations have always intrigued me also.


Have you considered getting a book or studying material sciences?


I found a good one once in Texas. It broke in half on me. Know what intrigued me the most? Not just the fact that the crystal has this organized symetrical shape...


Did you know that the shape comes from the structure of the electron orbits of the atoms that make up the crystal? Did you know that the shapes of the electron orbits are not magical or random, but merely a series of solutions to a very simple equation?


it's the fact that each half of the crystal, when it broke lengthwise, is *perfectly* flat! What is the odds of that many atoms/molecules lining up in some row as to create this flat plane, all by itself???


Very high. Basically, the organization is the state of lowest energy. As particles move around randomly as they form the crystal, they eventually hit the point of lowest energy, and stay there. And it definately isn't a perfect flat plane, it only apears that way at a macroscopic level. If you grabed a powerful microscope, you could see many boundries and irregularities.


And after saying *this*...how can anyone truly be atheistic? I can see agnostic...but I can't see how one can be atheistic, unless you have the answers to my question, and *then* some.

"And them some" Read up on some of these pages:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What if the Bang Big was the result of the conversion of energy into matter?


You are sitting on an idea that people theorize a lot, but you are not quite there. For quite some time after the big bang, there was no matter, only radiation. The radiation was too energetic and too powerful for any matter to form. What is the thereorization is that there was some form of stable system "before" the big bang, and the symetry in that system was broken into a state of lower energy, thus releasing tremendous amounts of energy and powering the big bang.


Is it possible that energy, since it theoretically cannot be destroyed, has always existed at some point?


Again, yes, we do not yet posses the physics to understand what happened during the very early portions of the big bang.


And, that time, since it's wholly contigent upon the existence of matter


Nope, time is wholly contigent upon space, and space cannot exist without energy. It could be said then that time is wholly contigent upon energy.


cannot be observed until after its creation, hence the Big Bang?


You'd just be taking the understanding of physics back a step. At that point, we would be studying the physical properties and origns of the universe as it existed before the big bang.


This would give rise to the notion of an intelligent energy source which exists outside of time and space by the way.

No, it would just add to our understanding of physics. It would not suggest any intelligence. Not only that, but I have absolutely no clue what you mean by "intelligent energy source".

[Iamme]

(thatguywhojuggles)

take a science class...

-----------------------------------------

Think that'll do it?

Have you ever taken one? Did you have such questions answered in such said forum?

[Iamme]

RussDill (pickle)

You are assuming a linear, straight flow of time. Without breaking out a few pages of physics, its a bit difficult to explain, but space and time are really the same thing. Imagine right after the big bang, when the universe was the size of a period ->. No matter where you go in space, you end up in the same place, and since space and time are really spacetime, it turns out you can't go very far back in time without ending up at the same time/place again. Before space existed, there could be no time, and before time existed, there could be no space, because they are really the same property.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like something plagerized right out of an Einstein book on relativety. (Just funnin with you)

But do you yourself understand what you just posted?

Can you tell me I where the period came from? Was the period hollow with a shell around it and a smaller period within the period that whiled around the shell.? IOf so,m what made that happen? And what contines to drive it? What is driving atoms to whirl around in my (dead) table top?

We seem to know more about evolution, *after* the fact that there was energy here to begin with in very organized form...than we can in explaining the fundamentals of physics themselves: The birth of creation itself. And because we think we are so smart in comprehending the trees, do we not overlook what started the forest?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iamme


But do you yourself understand what you just posted?


The mathmatics of it, yes, my mind's feeble attempt to connect it with the world I live in, no. You can work out the mathmatics, interactions, etc of a 4 dimensional space (ie, in general relativity), but you're mind won't be able to understand it.


Can you tell me I where the period came from?


Your question assumes a space and time outside of the period.


Was the period hollow


Merely representative of a spacetime that when traveling about a millimeter, you end up where you started.


with a shell around it


spacetime has no shell or border. A sphere with the shell of the sphere representing a 2 dimensional space is a simple way of explaining things. What is really going on though is a 4 dimensional spacetime wrapped in on itself.


and a smaller period within the period that whiled around the shell.?


Just the one spacetime


If so, what made that happen? And what contines to drive it? What is driving atoms to whirl around in my (dead) table top?


A mathmatical relationship between particles determines the forces they experience.


We seem to know more about evolution, *after* the fact that there was energy here to begin with in very organized form...than we can in explaining the fundamentals of physics themselves: The birth of creation itself. And because we think we are so smart in comprehending the trees, do we not overlook what started the forest?

Thats where the bulk of the work in theoretical physics currently is. You could probably find a dozen or so theories. The problem with these theories is that the mathmatics and equations behind them start simple, but finding the solutions that represent the state of the world are incredibly difficult.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Iamme

That said, I still would like to know how you can have this motion that seems non-ending? Wouldn't we be naturally inclined to believe that there has to be some energy (god) *behind* the energy? And not only is there some motion, but it is a highly organized motion pattern. Know what I mean?


First off, science is desciptive and behaviouristic. In the ultimate sense, it never describes why positive and negative charges repel, they just do. We might have framework theories that predict these behaviours and give an underlying reason why the rules are the way they are, but only in reference to other descriptive theories. The ultimate why is never addressed.

It would be like asking "Why do you think?" Well, you are defined by your thought... it is just what you do, just like electrons are defined by what they do.

In the end, your question boils down to the existence of order in the universe, and this can be answered by taking these three premises:

1) Patterns of energy/matter can change of their own accord, and can effect each other.

2) Some patterns are more stable than others, and can self-propagate their own existence (continue to remain in that pattern).

3) Patterns can influence other patterns to form out of the chaos.

Point one is demonstrated by quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, and partical physics. Two is empirically obvious. Three can be evidenced by the Coriolis effect, or the Casimir effect. Given these things, it would appear obvious that patterns would arise, simply because they stick around longer.

Now, why something exists at all is another matter (no pun intended) entirely.

Now as a counter question to you: you think something has to be behind the machinations of reality. Why do you discard this requirement when considering the God you would put behind it? Certainly there must be a reason why he is the way he is? You would probably answer: "That is just his nature, and he just is, and its beyond our understanding." I say the same thing about the universe, except I hold out hope that the last clause does not apply.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iamme
Just waiting for some scholarly answers to this?


I'm just educated enough and just arrogant enough to think I can do that.


One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something.

My best guess, because I don't totally understand current hypotheses on the origin of everything, is that abstract human concepts like "something" and "everything" might lose their meaning in that context.

Sort of along the lines of how we can identify love by also knowing there is hate. Or knowing something is hot, only by feeling something cold. Or knowing something is soft, because we compared it to something hard. Etc., etc., to infinitum. Everything is that way.

Love and Hate are reified human concepts. I'm beginning to think that reification is almost as rampant and dangerous as the assumption that statistical correlations necessarily indicate causal connections, but that's a rant for a more coherent time.

Our heat receptors do operate on a relative basis, to some degree, and a number of amusing experiments to this end can be carried out with hot and cold water. Based on the fact that there seems to be a link between color and temperature perception, I would suggest it's a result of how we're wired.


That said, I still would like to know how you can have this motion that seems non-ending? Wouldn't we be naturally inclined to believe that there has to be some energy (god) *behind* the energy? And not only is there some motion, but it is a highly organized motion pattern. Know what I mean?

That motion stops after a certain time is a human intuition that turns out to be useless when off of this little blue marble. There is no input of energy necessary to maintain an orbit, in terms of point masses and Newtonian physics (as always, the real truth is always more complicated than that) because energy doesn't get bled away when there's nothing to bleed it. It seems strange that the earth should rotate and revolve for millions of years with no substantive change in rates, but the fact that we evolved on a planet where drag is everywhere has reinforced the notion that to keep something at a constant rate requires input of energy. It simply ain't so.

*gah*, I should have explained it in terms of force and mass. The word "energy" is such a whore to woo. I'll add "quantum" too, though that may not have been entirely consensual.


Crystal formations have always intrigued me also. I found a good one once in Texas. It broke in half on me. Know what intrigued me the most? Not just the fact that the crystal has this organized symetrical [sic] shape...it's the fact that each half of the crystal, when it broke lengthwise, is *perfectly* flat! What is the odds of that many atoms/molecules lining up in some row as to create this flat plane, all by itself???

The more and more I studied such things, the less and less I thought of an intelligent, kindly designer behind the universe, and the more and more I thought of some almost ineffable, callous set of arbitrary rules that would wipe us out save by our luck, evolution and ability to decipher them. "Evolution" is also a complete harlot of a word, though it's reforming.

Crystals, in short, form because that's how the geometry of the molecules works out. You would be perfectly justified in asking why the geometry works out that way. This has to do with VESPR (it doesn't matter if I spelled that particular acronym wrong, actually, it almost doesn't matter which order the words go in) theory, which is very simple and easy to under stand with one central atom. With more complicated forms you need a supercomputer.

The reason that all the molecules so line up is that it's the lowest energy configuration. Therefore the chances aren't at all astronomically against such a configuration, it's entirely less likely that the molecules would align in an amorphous blob (unless of course they happen to be molecules that don't crystallize under those conditions). Think about it this way, throw a million eggs into the air. What in the heck are the chances that *all* of them all land on the floor and crack? Surely something spooky and ineffable is at work there.


And after saying *this*...how can anyone truly be atheistic? I can see agnostic...but I can't see how one can be atheistic, unless you have the answers to my question, and *then* some.

I'm not sure what *then* would consist of. I'm quite content that when I open my chemistry book, with all of the old memories of the chemistry class (and that really cool German kid and that one girl that I'd always be thinking about) that the various formulae do not reveal to me the face of a deity. I see an apathetic world in which humanity has fortunately hacked out a big enough place for me and folks kind enough to understand what we know about it.

I am not so smug as to refuse to admit when I don't understand something. Take VESPR, for example. I know about the various exclusion rules and electron orbits and so on, but I don't understand the underlying reasons and rules of those things. I do wonder if I ever will, but I don't immediately conclude that anything I don't understand is necessarily the doing of some creator. Tried a phrase as it is, I simply have no reason to incorporate God into my life.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Iamme
Just waiting for some scholarly answers to this?

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something.

Sort of along the lines of how we can identify love by also knowing there is hate. Or knowing something is hot, only by feeling something cold. Or knowing something is soft, because we compared it to something hard. Etc., etc., to infinitum. Everything is that way.

That said, I still would like to know how you can have this motion that seems non-ending? Wouldn't we be naturally inclined to believe that there has to be some energy (god) *behind* the energy? And not only is there some motion, but it is a highly organized motion pattern. Know what I mean?

Crystal formations have always intrigued me also. I found a good one once in Texas. It broke in half on me. Know what intrigued me the most? Not just the fact that the crystal has this organized symetrical shape...it's the fact that each half of the crystal, when it broke lengthwise, is *perfectly* flat! What is the odds of that many atoms/molecules lining up in some row as to create this flat plane, all by itself???

And after saying *this*...how can anyone truly be atheistic? I can see agnostic...but I can't see how one can be atheistic, unless you have the answers to my question, and *then* some.


Are you asking these questions as an academic excercise or as a sincere concern?

[duppyraces]

Originally posted by Iamme
And after saying *this*...how can anyone truly be atheistic? I can see agnostic...but I can't see how one can be atheistic, unless you have the answers to my question, and *then* some. Here's a not so scholarly answer. I do not believe in believing in a God because I don't have the answer to something; the infamous "God of the gaps". When people didn't understand the Sun, they thought God was pulling it across the sky in a chariot. Disease and illness were of course caused by demons, or by displeasing the gods. When we find natural, as opposed to supernatural, answers to things, it naturally takes the questions one level deeper. And wherever we find ourselves seeking answers, we will also always find someone jumping around with their hand in the air, saying "I know! I know! It must be GOD!" See something you don't recognize fly overhead? Many people conclude it must be aliens. Although in the past, it was usually witches, demons, or gods. Well, duh.

In the end, I need better proof than "we don't completely understand this yet, so therefore, it must be God that did it."

[Beerina]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Good questions. Tough questions. But as I said the least likely is that there is an intelligent creator, because it would beg the question of who or what created the creator. The other options do not require a creator. I think the "big bang" did involve conversion of energy to matter, or something like that. I don't know. I also think that energy has always existed. I also think that it was not observable until it existed.

The most logical solution is that time decreased (or slowed down) in the past until the point where there was no "time". But that begs the question of who or what created "time".

My answer is that "time" is just a construct of our imagination created to analyze the data of our experience. So is "matter" and "energy". None of these things are real. Actually nothing we experience is real--they are just constructs of our perfection of reality. That doesn't mean you can walk on water or turn lead to gold if you "believe" you can, it just means that our constructs of reality (which to us IS our reality) are based on our perceptions of reality, and ultimately such things like the origin of time is not within those constructs and therefore will always be unknown to us.


Yes, but the moment you say "but that doesn't mean you can walk on water just because you think you can", you've just conceded the existence of an external reality.

And, yes, the "real world" could be a computer simulation fed into our brains, but there is no reason to get to that level, yet. Einstein refused to give up on this concept of a deep reality, i.e. one that actually exists with real objects with real properties.

Sure, quantum mechanics itself could be based on a highly deterministic, classical-physics supercomputer, but at that point you've now gone two levels deeper than Einstein was willing to go -- a much higher violation of that principle.

[Elind]

Originally posted by Iamme
Just waiting for some scholarly answers to this?

One could simply use some theoretical logic that it was as easy for a universe to have *something* as it was to have *nothing*. In other words...who says that there was nothing, and then something came out of nothing? Why not believe instead that something always existed and for us to define nothingness, we had to have something. The chicken and egg thing, ya know. Or, they could have co-existed all the while because that is the only way we could define that there was ever nothing, by only having the opposite: Something.



As you point out, neither word has any meaning without the other so, semantically speaking at least, *nothing* is meaningless by itself; therefore it's bangs all the way down.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Elind
As you point out, neither word has any meaning without the other so, semantically speaking at least, *nothing* is meaningless by itself; therefore it's bangs all the way down.

Huh? I thought it was turtles all the way down... ;)

[Elind]

Originally posted by jmercer
Huh? I thought it was turtles all the way down... ;) Banging turtles then.:D

[Dorian Gray]

Sort of along the lines of how we can identify love by also knowing there is hate. And how we can identify flowers by also knowing there is......

(sound of your analogy falling apart)