Do you believe the universe came from nothing

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well its an opinion, its better than just believing in nothing.

Not really, particularly when the opinion is wrong. Personally I think its better be convinced of any opinion you claim to have (ie not have one just for the sake of having one), but recognise (hell, embrace) that it may need to change if new evidence comes along.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I dont have to lie awake doing the math Hawking and many others do the math. As i said its an opinion and unless you prove otherwise its as equally valid as the next.

No two different opinions are ever equally valid.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Well the problem there is you dont really believe it ... your just saying it to try and make some unknown point .........

The point I'm making is that not all theories are as valid as all others and not being able to disprove something is not the measure of its value

it is no point in arguing

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

it is no point in arguing

Indeed, you're really really wrong. Arguing would be pointless. Of course firing off this one liner and running is also quite petty but I suppose it's better than the Creationist approach.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

First let me clarify, I was only referring to you opinions on the physically measurable universe, not any other topic.

You can have your own opinions but not your own evidence or facts. You made a claim about the universe ("something created it), and then hypothesised that it could be part of a molecule. What we know about molecules would disagree that it is possible. While we can't know for certain, what is certain is that lying awake in bed thinking about it doesn't give answers.

Finally, the option isn't a fifty/fifty split between differing opinions; some are vastly more realistic than others. You seem to consider that your men in black idea is on the same level as the multiple big bang hypothesis or the saddle-shaped universe; it isn't, it is a stoner-level notion.



It is this attitude that makes me think I wasn't too harsh (and I had considered it). It's a typical "I don't have an answer so I'll find one that's made up and sounds really thoughtful and stick to it."

No i just use the men in black idea to explain to most people who have no interest or like for astrophysics .
And i do agree with what you say about molecules etc its unlikely its possible but its not impossible , with our current level of knowledge its hard to rule anything out , but yes some things
are more realistic than others.
If you were to ask me straight up i would say , i believe the big bang hypothesis , in the formation of matter and anti matter , And beyond the edge of the universe there is something else . I think that science is edging us closer to the answers and as new discoveries are made i will take stock of these and may change my mind .
Im not here for an argument , as far as im concerned its impossible to win any arguement because the evidence required to totally win any argument on this issue doesnt exist yet

Little Mickey wrote: »

The very simple answer the original question is that nothing comes from nothing.

Emm If nothing came from nothing then how can you be here to ask this question??

karlog wrote: »

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

Proof is a difficult thing. Suffice to say, I won't believe in anything until it has lots of evidence, and has more evidence than other hypotheses.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

No i just use the men in black idea to explain to most people who have no interest or like for astrophysics .

Non-mathematical astrophysics is a very easy to grasp subject, you shouldn't dumb down what you're trying to say. Furthermore, there is no room in astrophysics for the men in black-like idea, because astrophysics can only work within the confines of this universe; to speculate about what is outside it, or what came "before" it, is pointless from a scientific perspective.

Im not here for an argument , as far as im concerned its impossible to win any arguement because the evidence required to totally win any argument on this issue doesnt exist yet

I recommend you be a bit more sceptical then. What might be "beyond" the edge of the universe would be so outlandish any concepts we have about reality wouldn't apply. Also perhaps somewhat sadly, unless it is possible to travel faster than light, it is literally impossible to ever find out what the edge looks like.

[quite]i believe the big bang hypothesis , in the formation of matter and anti matter , And beyond the edge of the universe there is something else[/quote] The big bang has enough evidence now to be considered a solid theory. The vast majority of astro-physicists don't doubt it. Why do you actively believe there is something beyond the universe? What evidence have you to make that assumption? Why do you believe that instead of taking my stance, which is that it is an unknown? It seems to me you're making a leap of faith there.

karlog wrote:

So you wont believe in anything until its proven?

I'll believe things, sure. Everyone believes things. Some ideas I'd believe more readily than others. What I won't do is claim to know things unless there is powerful evidence for them. As it stands, I don't know how the universe works. There are many theories with evidence for them, but none which is so solid that I would say "I know". From the modest reading I have done, I'm inclined to think the universe might be saddle-shaped and I'm sitting on the fence with regards to multiple big bangs for example, but I wouldn't say to anyone "The universe is saddle-shaped".

Most importantly, even for things I think I know, I'll never say "I can't be wrong", because I can't know that.

Little Mickey wrote: »

Am, well now:
If you read the OPs question you would see that he/she is asking if you believe the universe came from nothing. If you read my previous posts you would see that I believe that the universe must have came from something - and I believe only nothing can come from nothing.
So to summarise for you again, I believe the universe must have come from something. But then we're left with the dilemma of where did something come from...

Posted this awhile back in the So If God ... Thread in the philosophy forum

MALTY_T wrote:

Why does it have to start somewhere, our minds may tell us that things must have beginnings but what if somethings have no beginings?
What if it they just always there? (Seems more plausible than something from nothing)

My belief simply is this :
Why do I think things had to be created i.e come from somewhere?
Personally, I'd like to think that this isn't the first universe. In time we shall have the answers...:D

There was always a something that does not work the way humans think things work. We're programmed to imagine causality but it obviously doesn't work becasue inifinite regress equals 'always existed'. What we are really asking is what was the nature of that which existed before our universe was created?

^ That post is such a perfect example of stupendously broken thinking.

Argument from Authority, specious reasoning, shifting the burden of proof, wishy washy rationalisations. Ugh.

karlog wrote: »

Respect my belief!!!UGH!!!

Get better beliefs.