Moronic Theist: Oh yEAh? WEll hOw did wE get herE, huH? SOmeThinG cain'T cOMe frOM NOThinG!
Rockstar: True. "Nothing" exists only in The NeverEnding Story.You see, there never was "nothing". Time and space are constant; without one the other can't exist. And if you don't think time and space are constants in the universe, please submit your research for the next Nobel Prize. Since time and space began at the same time, and dictate the rules of the universe as we know it, your sky god/gods are no longer necessary in the equation.
Solution:
There has always been "something" - the universe. If there was a thing that lay outside the laws of physics that existed prior to time, like your sky god/gods, then she/he/it/they/spaghetti can't be proven by science.
Unable to be proven by science = no observable effects.
Does anyone know what the only thing in science that has no observable effects is? That's right!
Nothing.
(P.S. - So I'm doing a Google image search for "god"...)
5 comments:
Variant of that annoyance: "The Big Bang said nothing exploded and..."
Before the Big Bang (or at T=0... whatever), everything was crammed together at one point, including space/time. The Big Bang said that singularity rapidly expanded... In other, less accurate, words, everything exploded: the exact opposite of that straw man.
Whoa, bro! How ya doin' Rockin' blog-dog?! Good to see ya postin' 'gain. Does this mean new job 'n' new PC? Sure do be hopin' so man.
And per the post: When a person says God has always existed, ask why then could not whatever initiated the Big Bang have always existed? Why must they assign it the name of God? Such being a silly superstition, why would they prefer to believe such a unsupportable concept, after considering the knowledge humans have gained in the last 100 years?
Human beings may never transcend (heheheh) this one Universe. As Joseph suggests, Human knowledge already has though.
Bronze Dog's singularity theory is also an excellent, and well researched, one of many theories in the realm of Cosmology.
Good to read ya 'gain RR!
This argument is part of a series I call "Troubling questions... that religion doesn't answer".
Leaving aside science, philosophically it strikes me that there are three ways the universe could've begun:
1. There was a first cause, which was itself not caused by anything.
2. There are an infinate amount of causes, each one being caused by the prievious cause.
3. There is a circle of causes, with one or more causes being the cause of themselves.
Now, none of these scenarios is particularly intellectually satisfying, but making one of the causes "God" doesn't make them any more satisfying then making one of the causes something that ISN'T anthropomorphic.
Christopher's pretty much got my point of view down, there.
The universe could be acausal - without cause. This one's particularly unsatisfying to me, since it's a negative hypothesis: The first "acausal" event might actually have a cause we can't grasp/perceive/whatever.
The universe could be a big causality loop. This *might* be provable.
Causality is an infinite chain. Also seemingly unprovable.
Butterfly Fox:
Looks like Ron has a parody up. Like, maybe and April Fool's joke..?
Post a Comment