Total Posts:262|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best Atheistic Explanation For The Universe

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 11:43:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Eternal inflation (multiverse) appears to be the best theory that currently has a good empirical backing and predictive power. As for a more fundamental theory, I don't know, lots of models exist that are largely consistent with reality as we know it, the correct one I imagine will be very, very simple in it's assumptions, akin to what string theory promised [1] (although this seems to be a dead end, 40 years and a horrible tangled mess of a theory, the exact opposite of simple, a huge red flag...).

I actually think creation ex nihilo is a rather elegant explanation the universe which does not require the existence of any pre/eternally-existing 'stuff'. There was a recent (super-speculative) paper [2] which gave a conception of how this might have been possible but then it's appropriate to use Newton's Flaming Laser Sword [3] on any and all of these until they are experimentally testable.

In any case, there are no shortage of 'potential' explanations, as Sean Carroll noted.

[1] https://www.math.columbia.edu...
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:03:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

The best response to anything we don't know is to say...............I DON"T KNOW.

I don't know >>>>>>>>>> God did it
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 3:46:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Something akin to the Casmir effect (something form nothing) on a larger scale.

Unless you want to talk about how nothing got there in the first case.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:23:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

The universe just exists, and that's all there is to it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:24:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think we don't know and are so far off from being able to know that it's pretty much pointless speculating. It might not even be a coherent question.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic. Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates. Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 9:22:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

My question for you would be... What is the theistic explanation for God?

I understand from a classical theistic view, how God being pure subsistent being is necessary (what God is, and whether he is are the exact same thing), but I don't see how just a mind can be necessary, if by "mind" we mean the EXACT same thing as our minds.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:07:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Our observation of empty space is that it still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing with no cause (though they almost always eliminate each other). A large enough quantum fluctuation could, potentially, create a universe from nothing.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 11:16:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic.

Any theory that explains everything is going to be incredible, no matter what it is.

Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates.

Perhaps, but we prefer not to believe ad hoc made up explanations until they can be demonstrated. Therefore I'm comfortable with not knowing, it's much more intellectually honest than to claim you know more than you can. It's much easier to be wrong than right.

Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.

Right. Please tell me what theologian/philosophical theory demonstrated where science failed the field of particle physics, cosmology, the universes' expansion, dark energy, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, quantum mechanics. Actually tell me anywhere theologians or philosophers have actually made any recent contribution in our knowledge of the universe. We're long past aristolian times.

Given that there are so many wrong theories, it seems reasonable to keep ones beliefs within the eye of experiment and observation, with specific predictive power and extrapolation.

Newton's Flaming Lazer Sword is a spiffy razer. Use it well.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 12:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 11:16:43 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic.

Any theory that explains everything is going to be incredible, no matter what it is.

I agree. But the anti-explanation offered by atheistic crusaders of scientific naturalism is anything but. By rejecting a prime mover, they are irrevocably committed to the idea of an inexplicable universe...one which has no real source, means or reason... "For whereas magic rabbits can at least be said to originate by magic associated with magicians who pull them out of top hats into the bright light of reality, or to magically bootstrap themselves out of their own hats into their own realities, the universe would be denied any ontological basis or medium whatsoever...even a bootstrap."


Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates.

Perhaps, but we prefer not to believe ad hoc made up explanations until they can be demonstrated. Therefore I'm comfortable with not knowing, it's much more intellectually honest than to claim you know more than you can. It's much easier to be wrong than right.

It's not a matter of empirical confirmation. Either you subscribe to the idea that the universe exists by magic, which, by definition, offers no reason to accept it as fact or even as a possibility, or you accept that a prime mover exists.

Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.

Right. Please tell me what theologian/philosophical theory demonstrated where science failed the field of particle physics, cosmology, the universes' expansion, dark energy, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, quantum mechanics. Actually tell me anywhere theologians or philosophers have actually made any recent contribution in our knowledge of the universe. We're long past aristolian times.


The CTMU : http://www.teleologic.org...
Science has completely failed to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, wave and particle properties of matter, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and much, much more. The CTMU explains all of them using nothing but logical deduction.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 12:37:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 12:17:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:16:43 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic.

Any theory that explains everything is going to be incredible, no matter what it is.

I agree. But the anti-explanation offered by atheistic crusaders of scientific naturalism is anything but. By rejecting a prime mover, they are irrevocably committed to the idea of an inexplicable universe...one which has no real source, means or reason...

False Dichotimy. Furthermore declaring someone not guilty does not mean you have ruled them innocent, you just remain unconvinced of their guilt.

"For whereas magic rabbits can at least be said to originate by magic associated with magicians who pull them out of top hats into the bright light of reality, or to magically bootstrap themselves out of their own hats into their own realities, the universe would be denied any ontological basis or medium whatsoever...even a bootstrap."

I'm going to take that paragraph at face value as mumbo jumbo and just ignore it.


Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates.

Perhaps, but we prefer not to believe ad hoc made up explanations until they can be demonstrated. Therefore I'm comfortable with not knowing, it's much more intellectually honest than to claim you know more than you can. It's much easier to be wrong than right.


It's not a matter of empirical confirmation. Either you subscribe to the idea that the universe exists by magic, which, by definition, offers no reason to accept it as fact or even as a possibility, or you accept that a prime mover exists.

Straw man and false dichotimy again. You're piling on the fallacies here.

Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.

Right. Please tell me what theologian/philosophical theory demonstrated where science failed the field of particle physics, cosmology, the universes' expansion, dark energy, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, quantum mechanics. Actually tell me anywhere theologians or philosophers have actually made any recent contribution in our knowledge of the universe. We're long past aristolian times.


The CTMU : http://www.teleologic.org...
Science has completely failed to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, wave and particle properties of matter, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and much, much more. The CTMU explains all of them using nothing but logical deduction.

Looks like a bad theory on the face of it (even setting aside it's barely intelligible, after going through it a few times I can only conclude it's complete nonsense). I see no logical deduction in that page where those properties drop out logically. And I see precisely zero math on that page, a big red flag that shows it doesn't demonstrate any physics.

Furthermore I see precisely zero predictions made by CTMU 'theory', despite all the things it claims to explain. Zero.

Therefore, the worst I can say is, I don't know, but you sure as heck don't know either.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 12:48:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 12:37:08 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 12:17:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:16:43 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic.

Any theory that explains everything is going to be incredible, no matter what it is.

I agree. But the anti-explanation offered by atheistic crusaders of scientific naturalism is anything but. By rejecting a prime mover, they are irrevocably committed to the idea of an inexplicable universe...one which has no real source, means or reason...

False Dichotimy. Furthermore declaring someone not guilty does not mean you have ruled them innocent, you just remain unconvinced of their guilt.


It's false only to those who accept the false premises that make their doubt possible. Either the universe has a cause, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it exists by magic. If it has a cause, then it can't be explained by an infinite regress, because an infinite regress entails ever-prior causes, in which case there is always a cause left unexplained. If the universe is explained by an infinite regress, then it does not have a cause, and neither the infinite regress nor the universe itself can be explained.

"For whereas magic rabbits can at least be said to originate by magic associated with magicians who pull them out of top hats into the bright light of reality, or to magically bootstrap themselves out of their own hats into their own realities, the universe would be denied any ontological basis or medium whatsoever...even a bootstrap."

I'm going to take that paragraph at face value as mumbo jumbo and just ignore it.



Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates.

Perhaps, but we prefer not to believe ad hoc made up explanations until they can be demonstrated. Therefore I'm comfortable with not knowing, it's much more intellectually honest than to claim you know more than you can. It's much easier to be wrong than right.


It's not a matter of empirical confirmation. Either you subscribe to the idea that the universe exists by magic, which, by definition, offers no reason to accept it as fact or even as a possibility, or you accept that a prime mover exists.

Straw man and false dichotimy again. You're piling on the fallacies here.


Again, no.

Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.

Right. Please tell me what theologian/philosophical theory demonstrated where science failed the field of particle physics, cosmology, the universes' expansion, dark energy, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, quantum mechanics. Actually tell me anywhere theologians or philosophers have actually made any recent contribution in our knowledge of the universe. We're long past aristolian times.


The CTMU : http://www.teleologic.org...
Science has completely failed to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, wave and particle properties of matter, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and much, much more. The CTMU explains all of them using nothing but logical deduction.

Looks like a bad theory on the face of it (even setting aside it's barely intelligible, after going through it a few times I can only conclude it's complete nonsense). I see no logical deduction in that page where those properties drop out logically. And I see precisely zero math on that page, a big red flag that shows it doesn't demonstrate any physics.

Furthermore I see precisely zero predictions made by CTMU 'theory', despite all the things it claims to explain. Zero.

That page was only an outline of its key principles. Everything is transparently explained in the CTMU. And just because you cannot "see" the predictions or observable implications the CTMU makes doesn't mean they aren't there (indeed, they are explicitly stated throughout).
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 12:48:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 12:37:08 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 12:17:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:16:43 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/8/2014 8:46:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No matter what their explanation, it amounts to magic.

Any theory that explains everything is going to be incredible, no matter what it is.

I agree. But the anti-explanation offered by atheistic crusaders of scientific naturalism is anything but. By rejecting a prime mover, they are irrevocably committed to the idea of an inexplicable universe...one which has no real source, means or reason...

False Dichotimy. Furthermore declaring someone not guilty does not mean you have ruled them innocent, you just remain unconvinced of their guilt.


It's false only to those who accept the false premises that make their doubt possible.

Okay... Demonstrate they are false.

Either the universe has a cause, or it doesn't.

So far so good.

If it doesn't, then it exists by magic.

Non sequitir/unargued for conclusion. Hitchen's Razor.

If it has a cause, then it can't be explained by an infinite regress, because an infinite regress entails ever-prior causes, in which case there is always a cause left unexplained.

Not sure, as our notion of causality only applies within spacetime. That's the problem. We have no experience of causality outside of spacetime, and therefore don't know if we're even using the appropriate vocabulary to argue about it.

If the universe is explained by an infinite regress, then it does not have a cause, and neither the infinite regress nor the universe itself can be explained.

Seems fair enough. Does that bother you? If we end up at a prime mover then we run into the same problem along this line of reasoning, we end up with an unexplained prime mover. If you argue it's self explaining/actualizing/'insert mumbo jumbo here', then save a step and just apply that to the universe and make one less assumption. Occums Razor.

"For whereas magic rabbits can at least be said to originate by magic associated with magicians who pull them out of top hats into the bright light of reality, or to magically bootstrap themselves out of their own hats into their own realities, the universe would be denied any ontological basis or medium whatsoever...even a bootstrap."

I'm going to take that paragraph at face value as mumbo jumbo and just ignore it.



Multiverse theory merely leaves unexplained the domain as a whole, and oscillating universe theory merely leaves unexplained the spacetime manifold by which times operates.

Perhaps, but we prefer not to believe ad hoc made up explanations until they can be demonstrated. Therefore I'm comfortable with not knowing, it's much more intellectually honest than to claim you know more than you can. It's much easier to be wrong than right.


It's not a matter of empirical confirmation. Either you subscribe to the idea that the universe exists by magic, which, by definition, offers no reason to accept it as fact or even as a possibility, or you accept that a prime mover exists.

Straw man and false dichotimy again. You're piling on the fallacies here.


Again, no.

Empirical confirmation is the #1 way we have for discerning truth about the universe, bar none. And yes strawman, we magic implies something illusory that violates known natural laws. But what we're talking about ARE the natural laws. And your bare assertion it's a true dichotomy needs to be substantiated, because philosophically it's either A or not-A, instead of A or B (since there could be a C, D, E, F etc..)..

Don't let yourself be fooled by their childish understanding of the world.

Right. Please tell me what theologian/philosophical theory demonstrated where science failed the field of particle physics, cosmology, the universes' expansion, dark energy, gravity, the curvature of spacetime, quantum mechanics. Actually tell me anywhere theologians or philosophers have actually made any recent contribution in our knowledge of the universe. We're long past aristolian times.


The CTMU : http://www.teleologic.org...
Science has completely failed to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, wave and particle properties of matter, quantum mechanics, cosmology, and much, much more. The CTMU explains all of them using nothing but logical deduction.

Looks like a bad theory on the face of it (even setting aside it's barely intelligible, after going through it a few times I can only conclude it's complete nonsense). I see no logical deduction in that page where those properties drop out logically. And I see precisely zero math on that page, a big red flag that shows it doesn't demonstrate any physics.

Furthermore I see precisely zero predictions made by CTMU 'theory', despite all the things it claims to explain. Zero.


That page was only an outline of its key principles. Everything is transparently explained in the CTMU. And just because you cannot "see" the predictions or observable implications the CTMU makes doesn't mean they aren't there (indeed, they are explicitly stated throughout).

Don't make me laugh, please.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:06:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 9:22:52 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

My question for you would be... What is the theistic explanation for God?


God is a self-restriction of the unbound ontological potential which naturally exists as we regress to nothing (owing to the fact that nothingness is zero constraint).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:32:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 11:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Our observation of empty space is that it still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing with no cause (though they almost always eliminate each other). A large enough quantum fluctuation could, potentially, create a universe from nothing.

Empty space is an aspect of the universe though. So you can't really explain the universe by appealing to quantum fluctuations, because they already require the existence of a physical universe.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:37:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:32:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Our observation of empty space is that it still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing with no cause (though they almost always eliminate each other). A large enough quantum fluctuation could, potentially, create a universe from nothing.

Empty space is an aspect of the universe though. So you can't really explain the universe by appealing to quantum fluctuations, because they already require the existence of a physical universe.

But do they? We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No. Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics. If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:37:33 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:32:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Our observation of empty space is that it still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing with no cause (though they almost always eliminate each other). A large enough quantum fluctuation could, potentially, create a universe from nothing.

Empty space is an aspect of the universe though. So you can't really explain the universe by appealing to quantum fluctuations, because they already require the existence of a physical universe.

But do they?

Yes.

We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No.

We know the universe cannot be due to a quantum fluctuation.

Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics.

False. You clearly know nothing about QM.. Quantum Fluctuations require a false vacuum, which is basically space with a certain amount of pressure. So, not only do you need quantum laws, you need space. This is elementary stuff here..

If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

So you have resorted to just making things up.... Ok then. Pick up a physics textbook... The Casmir effect has no meaning with a false vacuum, and a false vacuum has no meaning without space.


The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.

Actually, it is the worst explanation. It is not even possible...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:46:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:37:33 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:32:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 11:07:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/7/2014 11:22:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To all the Atheists out there, what do you think is the best non-Godish explanation for how the universe came to be, or why the universe exists?

Our observation of empty space is that it still follows the laws of quantum mechanics, including quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations is something coming from nothing with no cause (though they almost always eliminate each other). A large enough quantum fluctuation could, potentially, create a universe from nothing.

Empty space is an aspect of the universe though. So you can't really explain the universe by appealing to quantum fluctuations, because they already require the existence of a physical universe.

But do they? We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No. Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics. If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.

No meaning WITHOUT a false vacuum, I mean.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:50:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Space is an aspect of the universe. Since quantum fluctuations require space, then you cannot explain the universe by appealing to fluctuations.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:53:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:45:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But do they?

Yes.

And your evidence?

We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No.

We know the universe cannot be due to a quantum fluctuation.

But why do you say that?

Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics.

False. You clearly know nothing about QM.. Quantum Fluctuations require a false vacuum, which is basically space with a certain amount of pressure. So, not only do you need quantum laws, you need space. This is elementary stuff here..

Then you must be behind on quantum mechanics. A quantum fluctuation happens inside of a quantum vacuum AND in empty space based on our observations, the closest things to nothing that we have. We can not know if space itself is a requirement or not since it is not yet possible for us to experiment in a space-less area. This is elementary stuff here.

If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

So you have resorted to just making things up....

No, I have not. If YOU do not know something that does not mean it is being made up.

Ok then. Pick up a physics textbook... The Casmir effect has no meaning with a false vacuum, and a false vacuum has no meaning without space.

Again, quantum fluctuations happen in empty space, the closest thing we can get to true nothingness in our universe. If you are going to resort to acting like a self superior bigot then by all means, continue.


The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.

Actually, it is the worst explanation. It is not even possible...

Again, it MIGHT be possible. WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN!
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 1:59:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:53:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:45:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But do they?

Yes.

And your evidence?

Quantum Physics. Show me a fluctuation that doesn't require a background space? You cannot do it. Also, the equations require a background space as well.


We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No.

We know the universe cannot be due to a quantum fluctuation.

But why do you say that?

Because space is an aspect of the universe, and fluctuations require space.


Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics.

False. You clearly know nothing about QM.. Quantum Fluctuations require a false vacuum, which is basically space with a certain amount of pressure. So, not only do you need quantum laws, you need space. This is elementary stuff here..

Then you must be behind on quantum mechanics.

No you are, clearly.

A quantum fluctuation happens inside of a quantum vacuum AND in empty space based on our observations, the closest things to nothing that we have.

Space is not nothing. Space is space.

We can not know if space itself is a requirement or not since it is not yet possible for us to experiment in a space-less area. This is elementary stuff here.

You are just making things up. First of all, there is NO evidence that quantum fluctuations can happen without space. All fluctuations we know require them. Secondly, the math of the Casimir effect requires there to be a false vacuum. Therefore, it is not even mathematically possible for what you are saying to be true.


If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

So you have resorted to just making things up....

No, I have not. If YOU do not know something that does not mean it is being made up.

There is nothing to know. You are just making crap up ,proving you haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you talk about quantum fluctuations without a background space in a physics class you would get laughed at.


Ok then. Pick up a physics textbook... The Casmir effect has no meaning with a false vacuum, and a false vacuum has no meaning without space.

Again, quantum fluctuations happen in empty space, the closest thing we can get to true nothingness in our universe. If you are going to resort to acting like a self superior bigot then by all means, continue.

Space is FAR from nothing. Space is something. Again, the reason I act superior is because I am. Your knowledge of quantum mechanics is embarrassing.



The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.

Actually, it is the worst explanation. It is not even possible...

Again, it MIGHT be possible. WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN!

No, we know a priori that it is not possible.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:01:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That last point isn't true at all; we do not know anything a priori about what happens 'outside' our universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:04:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:53:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:45:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
But do they?

Yes.

And your evidence?

We have observed our universe and can make guesses about what existed before, but do we know what it was like before the universe actually started? No.

We know the universe cannot be due to a quantum fluctuation.

But why do you say that?

Also, quantum fluctuations do not require, as far as anyone knows, anything but the laws of quantum mechanics.

False. You clearly know nothing about QM.. Quantum Fluctuations require a false vacuum, which is basically space with a certain amount of pressure. So, not only do you need quantum laws, you need space. This is elementary stuff here..

Then you must be behind on quantum mechanics. A quantum fluctuation happens inside of a quantum vacuum AND in empty space based on our observations, the closest things to nothing that we have. We can not know if space itself is a requirement or not since it is not yet possible for us to experiment in a space-less area. This is elementary stuff here.

If there are the laws of quantum mechanics then there will be quantum fluctuations. When a fluctuation happens it could create the space it inhabits and when it eliminates itself it might eliminate that space as well.

So you have resorted to just making things up....

No, I have not. If YOU do not know something that does not mean it is being made up.

Ok then. Pick up a physics textbook... The Casmir effect has no meaning with a false vacuum, and a false vacuum has no meaning without space.

Again, quantum fluctuations happen in empty space, the closest thing we can get to true nothingness in our universe. If you are going to resort to acting like a self superior bigot then by all means, continue.


The correct answer is that we do not know, but we can make our best guesses until we can find out for certain. At this point in time we see that quantum fluctuations are one of the best explanations that are out there.

Actually, it is the worst explanation. It is not even possible...

Again, it MIGHT be possible. WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN!

Now, in Quantum Mechanics, there is nothing stopping a quantum tunnelling event from occurring without a background space. However, a quantum fluctuation always a background space. So, models in which the universe tunnells into being are far greater than fluctuation models.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:05:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 1:59:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

No, we know a priori that it is not possible.

Prior to QM's discoveries regarding vacuum fluctuations, it would have just as much been said that we know a priori that that was impossible, too, don't you think?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:05:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:01:54 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
That last point isn't true at all; we do not know anything a priori about what happens 'outside' our universe.

Yes we do. I know that there are no married bachelors outside the universe. I know that if there is an outside the universe, it obeys the laws of logic.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2014 2:06:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/8/2014 2:05:33 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2014 1:59:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

No, we know a priori that it is not possible.

Prior to QM's discoveries regarding vacuum fluctuations, it would have just as much been said that we know a priori that that was impossible, too, don't you think?

Not at all. There is nothing a priori impossible about QM.