Origin of The Universe, Time and Arguments For God?????

It does appear that all theists are obsessed with using the origin of the universe to assert their god.

They naively assert that there was no time, no energy, nor matter, prior to the origin of the universe.

The major flaw with this is that the only time that began with the beginning of our particular universe is our time and not all time.

Firstly, there must be matter/forces outside our universe, as nothing would mean that there is a complete and absolute vacuum outside our universe.

If this were anywhere near true, our universe would not expand like a bubble in water, it would be ripped apart by the internal forces, since there are no forces outside the universe to hold the outer shell of the universe together.  Because we can gain images of the outer surface of our universe as if we are inside a bubble, then there must be pressures outside our universe holding some uniformity in the outer surface.

In other words, if there were nothing outside our universe, the limits would simply dissipate, or our universe would simply vaporize.

This supports the quantum concept that the cosmos is simply an infinite expanse of sub-atomic particles and energies. Which also supports the 'String Theory'. 

The Big Bang, simply welded these sub atomic particles to form solid matter as we know it and propel this matter to produce the movement of matter that we use to reference our universe's time frame.

The soup of sub atomic particles in the infinite cosmos outside our universe, must also have movement, and movement naturally produces time, thus there exists time outside our universe, though since sub atomic particles are invisible, to something viewing this infinite soup, there would appear to be no time.

Yet we know that these sub atomic particles are constantly moving throughout our universe.

Scientists have tried to in vain to create an absolute vacuum, originally it was in a cubic cm, but they could not prevent the constant flow of sub atomic particles through it, actually this gave the idea of discovering such particles as gluons, quarks and bosons.

They have tried to produce an absolute vacuum in a space far smaller than a cubic centimetre, and still failed.  

It does appear that to create an absolute vacuum is impossible, and likely to create such a vacuum the size of a tennis ball, would possibly require more energy than required to create our planet.  

So we can kill any Theist notion that there was nothing prior to our universe, as nothing cannot support a universe and if a god entered an absolute vacuum (nothing) the internal forces of that god would simply vaporize the god, as it would our universe.

Also, time existed prior to our universe, but it was not the time initiated by the Big Bang that we measure by referencing movement of the particles and light initiated by the Big Bang.

It's like blowing bubbles with living intelligent beings within them.

The apparent time to the intelligence within the bubble would be different to intelligent beings outside that bubble.

We are simply viewing time from within a bubble, we see our bubble expanding.

From outside the bubble, time would be the vector movement of our bubble in relation to other bubbles.

This is my concept I have gathered from reading and listening to Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil, de Grasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and many other notes and videos on the subject, such as both of the Cosmos videos.

It still pretty much still supports the spark in infinite cosmic soup concept I learned in year 7 science in the 1970s, it appears that cosmology is returning to that theory.

Some physicists/cosmologists hypothesize that it may have been the Higgs-Boson particle that sparked the Big Bang, thus labelled the god particle. 

Refs:

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/research-areas/cosmology...

Views: 299

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From what I've read there's nothing more unstable than nothing.

Sort of true.

If there was a cosmos of nothing, it would be stable, but no something, not even a god would be able to exist within it, because a something has internal forces and needs external forces to balance the internal forces, so it stays together.  

So it is not the nothing that becomes unstable, but the something suddenly appearing within the void (nothing), as it has only internal forces, but no external forces to equalize, so it will simply disintegrate instantly on appearing within the void.  Christians don't realize this, as their misconception of nothing and of god, blinds them to reality.

Though if you created a nothing inside something, it would merely draw everything around it, into itself or in reality the external forces, created by the imbalance will push subatomic particles into the void and eventually the entire structure will collapse into and end the void.

It's the principle of equilibrium, for anything to hold form, the forces inside, must be equalized by the forces outside.  Anything put into a void will disintegrate and a void put into anything will act like a black hole until the equilibrium is reached.

 

 

Those words make sense and I can see it, DOG. The problem is that the theist can see it too and that's why they have god existing outside of our universe. Very convenient that god can come into our universe, do whatever he wants to, and leave no trace of anything. It's 2 fish bowls.God's almost as good as my pet alein named Fred, and just about as real.

I can imagine future apologists now who would use this to explain god. He always existed as far as our universe went but his origin was in the universe outside of ours, and time is very different there. God died after millenia of existance. That's why today we worship him in memory of what used to be.

Wait a minute. WTF! Even when you get rid of this being you cannot get rid of him!

A state of nothing is outlawed by quantum physics. We either believe in the quantum world or we don't. If we consider that quantum physics has been proven to be correct to 10 to the power of 31 and the god hypothesis is probably the inverse, we'd be wiser to stick with the quantum.

It is easy to see why a state of nothing is outlawed, its existence is impossible.

:-D~

I might point out that when Lawrence Krauss talks of "Something From Nothing" he admits that there is still something there. The thing is, they do not know what it is just yet.

Yes, Michael, the evidence is there, but nobody can say for sure what it is.

It's all just speculation at best, some believe that those sub-atomic particles are moving through our universe from the outside and possibly pass right through it.

We know they pass through any attempts to create a total vacuum and right at this moment, they are passing through our bodies and all the solid objects as well.

They cannot be stopped.  So while such invasive subatomic particles exist, there cannot be nothing, as they would invade any attempt to produce nothing.

In that way, they also must pass through the infinite cosmos, outside our universe and through other universes as well.

Some suspect that this is the soup that existed prior to our universe.

Anyway, I like this theory, in that it shuts theists up completely.

They just shut up and walk away looking like stunned mullets. 

So, even though it cannot be proven, it is a very useful hypotheses.

:D

So true Michael, Special Pleading is by far their favourite fallacy.

There are no honest logicians in theism.

I've watched practically every debate ever publicized and that error in logic exists in every single one.

Even when like William Lane Craig, they state that they are not going to commit logical fallacies, he and they, simply cannot avoid doing so.

Because their entire concept is fallacious.

:D 

It's fun watching them and playing, spot the fallacy.

I'm learning about fallacies that way and nearly every debate, their side commits at least a dozen in a single presentation.  Especially WLC.

One thing about subatomic particles obeying quantum fluctuations, is that they are never at rest.

This also supports the cosmic soup concept that before the universe was sparked, the cosmos may have had a build up of quantum forces allowing the spark to occur.

Recent research suggests that even larger and solid matter also obeys quantum mechanics and themselves are never still.  What we perceive as stillness is actually an illusion, created by our limited, largish frame of reference.  In fact, everything in the universe and possibly outside the universe is constantly in motion.

This also supports the concept of String Theory.  Where the cosmos is filled with an infinite array of strings instead of subatomic particle soup and that all those particles within the soup are simply knots in these cosmic strings which resonate, disappear and reappear randomly throughout the universe, so a quark may simply vanish (as the knot in the string that formed it unties, but the string may gain a knot elsewhere and thus another quark or another particle, depending on the size and resonance of the knot, may suddenly appear.

Fascinating stuff.

Aye M8z!

Here is a reference to the concept that everything is following the laws of quantum physics/mechanics.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150828142944.htm?utm_s...

In the past, from reading in between the lines, I've come to the conclusion that nothing is not really nothing, but this talk makes that very clear.  Thanks DOG.

Thanks Idaho, that is right, apart from 'nothing' being a word, it is purely theistic wishful thinking, 

It is what theist's evidence produces.

Or what they aspire to.

:-D~

RSS

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service