How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

He doesn't have a science degree. He doesn't understand the most basic principles of science.

The thing about the Internet is, you can't really ever prove anything to anyone. I could scan my diploma and post it and you'd claim it was faked. There is no way for me to prove anything to you. I certainly DO have a degree in psychology. If not, I seriously need a refund of that student loan I repaid. I also understand the principles of science. They apply in a physical universe that exists. We are trying to discuss BEFORE the physical universe existed, and you are trying to apply something that doesn't exist yet.

Even after he posts videos that say in science time is not like the intuitive way we normally perceive it as a continuous flow, but like slices of bread or individual frames in a movie roll of film, IOW an order of events, when I tell him the same thing he posted in the videos he chose he thinks I'm wrong because he doesn't understand I'm saying the same thing.

That's really frustrating to me. You keep refuting my arguments yet presenting my evidence to do so, and pretending I've made a different argument. It's like you have this mental handicap where you can't agree with me even when you totally agree with me.

He thinks t=0, which in his own video would be the starting frame in the movie reel, means nothing exists.

In science t=0 is the starting point, starting space, starting place, whatever in an order of events. For example, if someone was going to take a trip in their car from their house to some city, t = 0 would be their starting point, it does not mean the car or the road or the city does not exist, it means they have not moved yet. I means the car has not yet moved from the garage over the road to the city at a constant rate of speed set by their cruse control.

I do not think t=0. Before a physical universe existed, t=0. Nothing existed. There was no physical reality. It's not the starting frame in the movie reel, it's no frame, no reel, no projector... they do not yet exist in physical nature because physical reality doesn't exist. t=1 is the first frame in the movie reel. At that point, time does exist, a physical universe and reality do exist, and all the laws and formulas of physics can apply to the physical universe which exists. t=0 is not the car in the garage, the car doesn't yet exist, the garage doesn't yet exist. At t>0, that's the car and the garage now existing, ready for the trip.

Time is not a constant. This is what Einstein proved with general and special relativity. Time is relative to the observer. It passes slower the faster you travel.

You can think of the event horizon as the mouth of the black hole. Once something passes the event horizon, it is gone for good. Once inside the event horizon, all "events" (points in space-time) stop, and nothing (even light) can escape. The radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, named after astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, whose work led to the theory of black holes.

And this theory is now being seriously questioned by people like Stephen Hawking. You present this as if it's a fact that is known and it's simply not. It's a theory, and one that has some paradoxical problems, which is why Hawking and others are not satisfied that we know.

At time, you seem to be a smart fella, but you're constantly being tripped up by your own thinking. You'll point out that space-time is all the fundamental dimensions of the universe and physical reality, then you're arguing about speed of light and laws of thermodynamics in a physical reality that doesn't exist at t=0. For anything in physical reality to exist, t>0.

 

[sealybobo]

Above is my first post in this thread, you worthless lying POS. Stop taking my shit out of context!

I have not lied or taken a thing out of context. I posted exactly what you said, you can follow the link back to the original post if you like. There is nothing there to indicate you were talking about a theory, you presented it as fact. Now you want to run back to another post you made to someone else, where you mentioned two theories for an infinite universe. However, even in THAT argument, you failed to mention the numerous theories of a finite universe which completely contradict those two theories. All through this thread, you have tried to strong arm your theories into fact by being a verbal bully. I've popped you in that smart ass nose a few times, now you want to get surly and call me names. I'm used to that on the Internet, it's how bullies behave here.

Why am I not surprised that such a loathsome worthless lying POS like YOU will not admit the truth.

First of all, the post was made to everyone in this forum who chose to read it.

Second, having said from the start that the Big Crunch was a theory, I do not need to repeat that it is a theory it over and over because YOU are a stupid f***ing too ignorant to remember what was said from the start.

And lastly, thank you for showing the board just how stupid you are when it comes to the English language. The post I answered said he didn't know a single astronomer who thought the universe was infinite. He obviously knew of the theories about a finite universe already and therefore didn't need to know about finite universe theories. It was obvious to anyone on this thread that he was only lacking knowledge about infinite universe theories, except to an ignorant boob like you that is. So why should I tell him what he already knows simply because YOU are a stupid ????

Now go F*** yourself

OMG aren't you the one who preaches piece, love understanding, patience and all that crap? So Boss even made you snap with his nonsensical bullshit? OMG. Boss, it's like you got Ghandi to hit you or curse you. WOW! Yea, his theories are obnoxious, huh? Almost as bad as your rambly posts.

But I didn't think you talked that way. I'm shocked you calling him an ahole. You go girl! Let it out. Even Jesus overturned the tables on the money exchangers. Then he went home and prayed

 

[edthecynic]

He doesn't have a science degree. He doesn't understand the most basic principles of science.

I certainly DO have a degree in psychology.

We are trying to discuss BEFORE the physical universe existed, and you are trying to apply something that doesn't exist yet.

Even after he posts videos that say in science time is not like the intuitive way we normally perceive it as a continuous flow, but like slices of bread or individual frames in a movie roll of film, IOW an order of events, when I tell him the same thing he posted in the videos he chose he thinks I'm wrong because he doesn't understand I'm saying the same thing.

That's really frustrating to me. You keep refuting my arguments yet presenting my evidence to do so,

He thinks t=0, which in his own video would be the starting frame in the movie reel, means nothing exists.

In science t=0 is the starting point, starting space, starting place, whatever in an order of events. For example, if someone was going to take a trip in their car from their house to some city, t = 0 would be their starting point, it does not mean the car or the road or the city does not exist, it means they have not moved yet. I means the car has not yet moved from the garage over the road to the city at a constant rate of speed set by their cruse control.

I do not think t=0. Before a physical universe existed, t=0. Nothing existed. There was no physical reality. It's not the starting frame in the movie reel, it's no frame, no reel, no projector... they do not yet exist in physical nature because physical reality doesn't exist. t=1 is the first frame in the movie reel.

Time is not a constant. This is what Einstein proved with general and special relativity. Time is relative to the observer. It passes slower the faster you travel.

You can think of the event horizon as the mouth of the black hole. Once something passes the event horizon, it is gone for good. Once inside the event horizon, all "events" (points in space-time) stop, and nothing (even light) can escape. The radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, named after astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, whose work led to the theory of black holes.

And this theory is now being seriously questioned by people like Stephen Hawking. You present this as if it's a fact that is known and it's simply not. It's a theory, and one that has some paradoxical problems, which is why Hawking and others are not satisfied that we know.

At time, you seem to be a smart fella, but you're constantly being tripped up by your own thinking. You'll point out that space-time is all the fundamental dimensions of the universe and physical reality, then you're arguing about speed of light and laws of thermodynamics in a physical reality that doesn't exist at t=0. For anything in physical reality to exist, t>0.

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

Next, it is YOU who is discussing YOUR opinion of a BEFORE the physical universe existed, I am discussing the Big Crunch Theory where all the energy of our present universe existed in the form of a different universe that compressed into the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang of our universe. You have pontificated that no theory is valid that doesn't conform to your opinion that there was no physical existence before the start of our universe. I don't accept your pontification that you and only you get to determine what theories are debunked or not.

I understand your frustration in my using your own videos against you, it shows you don't understand what is on them or you don't understand what I am saying or both, but the lack is undeniably yours.

Again, your pontification that t = 0 is not the starting point in the scientific study of the universe and t =1 just points your lack of understanding of the terms science uses. Whether the universe came from nothing or is recycled from previous energy, the starting point for both is t = 0 in scientific terminology. In you world at t=0 nothing exists, and in the Big Crunch at t=0 energy is compressed into a single space that is not moving. In both cases the starting point is t=0 in scientific terms.

And of course, your saying time is not a constant is just another of your Straw Men where you pretend I said something like that so you have something to argue with. I clearly and undeniably said the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum is a constant when you said the speed of light equals zero at t=0. And you know what, Einstein agrees with ME.

I have never argued the Laws of Thermodynamics or the speed of light in a physical reality that does not exist, that is your argument that you have been trying to impose on me based on your redefining the scientific terms to what you pontificate. If you were as smart as you try to pretend to be, you would have realized by now I will not let you impose your Straw Men on me. You are arguing something from nothing and I am arguing the Big Crunch, you cannot impose on me a requirement that the Big Crunch must be argued in the terms of something from nothing.
Get It?

 

[sealybobo]

He doesn't have a science degree. He doesn't understand the most basic principles of science.

I certainly DO have a degree in psychology.

We are trying to discuss BEFORE the physical universe existed, and you are trying to apply something that doesn't exist yet.



That's really frustrating to me. You keep refuting my arguments yet presenting my evidence to do so,



I do not think t=0. Before a physical universe existed, t=0. Nothing existed. There was no physical reality. It's not the starting frame in the movie reel, it's no frame, no reel, no projector... they do not yet exist in physical nature because physical reality doesn't exist. t=1 is the first frame in the movie reel.

Time is not a constant. This is what Einstein proved with general and special relativity. Time is relative to the observer. It passes slower the faster you travel.

You can think of the event horizon as the mouth of the black hole. Once something passes the event horizon, it is gone for good. Once inside the event horizon, all "events" (points in space-time) stop, and nothing (even light) can escape. The radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, named after astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, whose work led to the theory of black holes.

And this theory is now being seriously questioned by people like Stephen Hawking. You present this as if it's a fact that is known and it's simply not. It's a theory, and one that has some paradoxical problems, which is why Hawking and others are not satisfied that we know.

At time, you seem to be a smart fella, but you're constantly being tripped up by your own thinking. You'll point out that space-time is all the fundamental dimensions of the universe and physical reality, then you're arguing about speed of light and laws of thermodynamics in a physical reality that doesn't exist at t=0. For anything in physical reality to exist, t>0.

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

Next, it is YOU who is discussing YOUR opinion of a BEFORE the physical universe existed, I am discussing the Big Crunch Theory where all the energy of our present universe existed in the form of a different universe that compressed into the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang of our universe. You have pontificated that no theory is valid that doesn't conform to your opinion that there was no physical existence before the start of our universe. I don't accept your pontification that you and only you get to determine what theories are debunked or not.

I understand your frustration in my using your own videos against you, it shows you don't understand what is on them or you don't understand what I am saying or both, but the lack is undeniably yours.

Again, your pontification that t = 0 is not the starting point in the scientific study of the universe and t =1 just points your lack of understanding of the terms science uses. Whether the universe came from nothing or is recycled from previous energy, the starting point for both is t = 0 in scientific terminology. In you world at t=0 nothing exists, and in the Big Crunch at t=0 energy is compressed into a single space that is not moving. In both cases the starting point is t=0 in scientific terms.

And of course, your saying time is not a constant is just another of your Straw Men where you pretend I said something like that so you have something to argue with. I clearly and undeniably said the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum is a constant when you said the speed of light equals zero at t=0. And you know what, Einstein agrees with ME.

I have never argued the Laws of Thermodynamics or the speed of light in a physical reality that does not exist, that is your argument that you have been trying to impose on me based on your redefining the scientific terms to what you pontificate. If you were as smart as you try to pretend to be, you would have realized by now I will not let you impose your Straw Men on me. You are arguing something from nothing and I am arguing the Big Crunch, you cannot impose on me a requirement that the Big Crunch must be argued in the terms of something from nothing.
Get It?

Well said

 

[itfitzme]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

It didn't "get here". That is a nonsense concept. To "get here" it would have come from "somewhere". And if that were othen the next question is where did that come from.

Really, that's a four year old's question. That or contemplations of smoking good bud. I mean really, how long are you going to remain at being like a stoned four year old before you move on?

 

[itfitzme]

He doesn't have a science degree. He doesn't understand the most basic principles of science.

I certainly DO have a degree in psychology.

We are trying to discuss BEFORE the physical universe existed, and you are trying to apply something that doesn't exist yet.



That's really frustrating to me. You keep refuting my arguments yet presenting my evidence to do so,



I do not think t=0. Before a physical universe existed, t=0. Nothing existed. There was no physical reality. It's not the starting frame in the movie reel, it's no frame, no reel, no projector... they do not yet exist in physical nature because physical reality doesn't exist. t=1 is the first frame in the movie reel.

Time is not a constant. This is what Einstein proved with general and special relativity. Time is relative to the observer. It passes slower the faster you travel.

You can think of the event horizon as the mouth of the black hole. Once something passes the event horizon, it is gone for good. Once inside the event horizon, all "events" (points in space-time) stop, and nothing (even light) can escape. The radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, named after astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, whose work led to the theory of black holes.

And this theory is now being seriously questioned by people like Stephen Hawking. You present this as if it's a fact that is known and it's simply not. It's a theory, and one that has some paradoxical problems, which is why Hawking and others are not satisfied that we know.

At time, you seem to be a smart fella, but you're constantly being tripped up by your own thinking. You'll point out that space-time is all the fundamental dimensions of the universe and physical reality, then you're arguing about speed of light and laws of thermodynamics in a physical reality that doesn't exist at t=0. For anything in physical reality to exist, t>0.

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

Next, it is YOU who is discussing YOUR opinion of a BEFORE the physical universe existed, I am discussing the Big Crunch Theory where all the energy of our present universe existed in the form of a different universe that compressed into the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang of our universe. You have pontificated that no theory is valid that doesn't conform to your opinion that there was no physical existence before the start of our universe. I don't accept your pontification that you and only you get to determine what theories are debunked or not.

I understand your frustration in my using your own videos against you, it shows you don't understand what is on them or you don't understand what I am saying or both, but the lack is undeniably yours.

Again, your pontification that t = 0 is not the starting point in the scientific study of the universe and t =1 just points your lack of understanding of the terms science uses. Whether the universe came from nothing or is recycled from previous energy, the starting point for both is t = 0 in scientific terminology. In you world at t=0 nothing exists, and in the Big Crunch at t=0 energy is compressed into a single space that is not moving. In both cases the starting point is t=0 in scientific terms.

And of course, your saying time is not a constant is just another of your Straw Men where you pretend I said something like that so you have something to argue with. I clearly and undeniably said the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum is a constant when you said the speed of light equals zero at t=0. And you know what, Einstein agrees with ME.

I have never argued the Laws of Thermodynamics or the speed of light in a physical reality that does not exist, that is your argument that you have been trying to impose on me based on your redefining the scientific terms to what you pontificate. If you were as smart as you try to pretend to be, you would have realized by now I will not let you impose your Straw Men on me. You are arguing something from nothing and I am arguing the Big Crunch, you cannot impose on me a requirement that the Big Crunch must be argued in the terms of something from nothing.
Get It?

Posting on this forum alone calls a person's intelligence into question.

 

[Boss]

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

A bachelor of science degree in psychology, thank you very much. And I assure you, I do know and understand intimately, the basic principles and terms of science. That is why I don't let you get away with perverting them.

Next, it is YOU who is discussing YOUR opinion of a BEFORE the physical universe existed, I am discussing the Big Crunch Theory where all the energy of our present universe existed in the form of a different universe that compressed into the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang of our universe.

It's not MY opinion, it's simple logic. Before the universe existed, physical reality didn't exist. Time equaled nothing, space equaled nothing. There was no physical laws or science to apply to a non-existing physical universe or reality. This all came to exist when the universe came to exist. Before that, it simply didn't exist.

I've already told you, the "Big Crunch" is basically an obsolete and debunked "old world" theory. Virtually no astrophysicist, cosmologist or theoretical physicist accepts it anymore. Hawking even questions the "Big Bang" theory. According to him, there was no Singularity. I'm not telling you this to be mean or to embarrass you, go look it up for yourself.

You have pontificated that no theory is valid that doesn't conform to your opinion that there was no physical existence before the start of our universe. I don't accept your pontification that you and only you get to determine what theories are debunked or not.

Again... it's not MY opinion. You said yourself that space-time comprises all the dimensions of the universe. Well, if space-time is nil, there can be no dimensions of reality in a physical universe. I don't really care if you accept that or not.

I understand your frustration in my using your own videos against you, it shows you don't understand what is on them or you don't understand what I am saying or both, but the lack is undeniably yours.

No, I think it shows that YOU don't understand.

Again, your pontification that t = 0 is not the starting point in the scientific study of the universe and t =1 just points your lack of understanding of the terms science uses. Whether the universe came from nothing or is recycled from previous energy, the starting point for both is t = 0 in scientific terminology. In you world at t=0 nothing exists, and in the Big Crunch at t=0 energy is compressed into a single space that is not moving. In both cases the starting point is t=0 in scientific terms.

Again... The Big Crunch is an out-dated theory. Time is motion, so if you have no motion you have no time. Zero means zero. It can't mean more than zero. If time doesn't exist, neither does physical reality because the dimensions for it doesn't exist. Energy comes from mass, and if there is no space, there can be no mass. Without mass, there is no energy....with the possible exception of dark energy, which we know very little about.

Singularity has always been a problematic theory that I've had trouble accepting because it essentially requires space that isn't known to exist. An atom cannot occupy zero space. It has a nucleus and orbiting electrons, and these require space to function. They also require motion, which means they require time. How can an electron orbit it's nucleus if motion doesn't exist and space doesn't exist? So I am very pleased that quantum physics has come along to challenge this Singularity theory and people like Dr. Hawking have questioned it.

You, however, seem to be stuck in the 1980s.

And of course, your saying time is not a constant is just another of your Straw Men where you pretend I said something like that so you have something to argue with. I clearly and undeniably said the SPEED OF LIGHT in a vacuum is a constant when you said the speed of light equals zero at t=0. And you know what, Einstein agrees with ME.

No, Einstein doesn't agree with you. Speed of light is completely irrelevant at t=0. There is no speed or light without motion or space and physical reality. Light is a physical property that exists in a physical universe, it can't exist without time or space. Where Einstein comes into this debate is on time travel and the fact that time is relative. Being relative means we don't have to both be in the same time together. I could argue that we are NOT in the same time together... I'm in 2014 and you are stuck in 1980!

I have never argued the Laws of Thermodynamics or the speed of light in a physical reality that does not exist, that is your argument that you have been trying to impose on me based on your redefining the scientific terms to what you pontificate. If you were as smart as you try to pretend to be, you would have realized by now I will not let you impose your Straw Men on me. You are arguing something from nothing and I am arguing the Big Crunch, you cannot impose on me a requirement that the Big Crunch must be argued in the terms of something from nothing.
Get It?

There is no straw man, we are debating the "existence" of physical reality before the universe existed. Now, what happens AFTER the universe exists, there is no debate. Physics exists, time and space exists, laws and principles of physical sciences apply. I've not debated any of that. My ONLY argument is concerning BEFORE the universe existed.

Yes, you are arguing the "Big Crunch" an outdated 1980s theory of how our universe came to exist. I understand that. You may as well be running around talking about the "flat earth!"

 

[BobPlumb]

If a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? This discussion about time and the beginning of the universe reminds me of that famous question which depends on the definition of sound. It's much go do about symatics.

 

[Boss]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

It didn't "get here". That is a nonsense concept. To "get here" it would have come from "somewhere". And if that were othen the next question is where did that come from.

Really, that's a four year old's question. That or contemplations of smoking good bud. I mean really, how long are you going to remain at being like a stoned four year old before you move on?

You raise a very interesting point. Humans seem to suffer from this debilitating mental block known as "objective reality" where we can only imagine things in a physical or material sense, dictated by the laws, rules and principles of our physical universe and reality. Terms like "get here" and "somewhere" have meaning because we interpret them in relation to a physical reality. I will also add "come from" to the mix.

We observe electrons and subatomic particles simply disappearing from existence and re-appearing from nowhere, yet our minds tell us this must be explainable. We see black holes which defy physical principles and rationalize, there must be an explanation. Most importantly, we see a universe that is in motion, constantly expanding faster and faster, and our science and physics indicate some force must have set it into motion. Some theorize it is gravity, but why does gravity exist? What gave gravity the characteristics to start this motion? The bottom line is, we don't have the answers, and perhaps it is because of our debilitating mental block of not being able to comprehend beyond "objective reality?"

 

[edthecynic]

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

A bachelor of science degree in psychology, thank you very much.

I've already told you, the "Big Crunch" is basically an obsolete and debunked "old world" theory. Virtually no astrophysicist, cosmologist or theoretical physicist accepts it anymore.

Yeah, a BS in psych makes you a scientific genius.
You are definitely a BS artist.

The rest of your post is just the same pontification where you, as pompous BS in psych, anoint yourself to speak for virtually all real scientists. The fallacy of appeal to authority, a favorite of the pompous know-it-all.

I already told you why the Big Crunch is making a comeback, complete with a link to current experimental data that shows that dark energy, which is not well known but was believed to be PUSHING the galaxies farther apart, is now thought to be more properly called dark gravity, in which case it would be pulling the galaxies toward some unknown unseen mass, possibly a black hole.

In any case, real scientists, not the imaginary ones in your head, know there is not enough data or knowledge about dark energy/dark gravity to make a final determination on the ultimate fate of the universe, no matter how much you pontificate to the contrary. So it is actually you who is outdated and light-years behind the times.

 

[MaryL]

When you look at fractals, and the self sustaining self repeating infinite cycles that such things imply, there isn't any need for a beginning or need to explain origins...

 

[BreezeWood]

When you look at fractals, and the self sustaining self repeating infinite cycles that such things imply, there isn't any need for a beginning or need to explain origins...

... and the self sustaining self repeating infinite cycles that such things imply,


... self sustaining -


the self sustaining quality were it translatable from mathematics to Spiritual imortality would settle the issue once and for all.

.

 

[Boss]

As was obvious from your lack of understanding of the basic principles and terms of science, your degree is in psychology, not science.

A bachelor of science degree in psychology, thank you very much.

I've already told you, the "Big Crunch" is basically an obsolete and debunked "old world" theory. Virtually no astrophysicist, cosmologist or theoretical physicist accepts it anymore.

Yeah, a BS in psych makes you a scientific genius.
You are definitely a BS artist.

The rest of your post is just the same pontification where you, as pompous BS in psych, anoint yourself to speak for virtually all real scientists. The fallacy of appeal to authority, a favorite of the pompous know-it-all.

I already told you why the Big Crunch is making a comeback, complete with a link to current experimental data that shows that dark energy, which is not well known but was believed to be PUSHING the galaxies farther apart, is now thought to be more properly called dark gravity, in which case it would be pulling the galaxies toward some unknown unseen mass, possibly a black hole.

In any case, real scientists, not the imaginary ones in your head, know there is not enough data or knowledge about dark energy/dark gravity to make a final determination on the ultimate fate of the universe, no matter how much you pontificate to the contrary. So it is actually you who is outdated and light-years behind the times.

LOL... I never said I was a scientific genius, nor did I say I speak for all scientists. You accused be of being science illiterate and I mentioned I have a science degree. I didn't present that as my credentials to support my personal theories on the cosmos. I am merely presenting the theories of people like Stephen Hawking, who I doubt you have more science knowledge than.

This ominous sucking black hole is something completely different than the Big Crunch theory. I've never heard the term "dark gravity" before, do you have a link to some credible physicist making this argument? Hawking's "no black holes" comment came in January of this year.

Let's be perfectly clear about "pontification" here... I am presenting what credible physicists have theorized with the understanding that we simply don't have the answers and this question remains very much open at this time. YOU, on the other hand, are repeatedly presenting theories as if they are proven facts of science that can't be questioned... like the Big Crunch and Singularity. So who is pontificating?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

It recycles. Or they recycle. In fact, it always has recycled or they have always recycled. And that's a hint.

Think about it. Deja vue? No mistake. Just a loooong delayed memory.

 

[itfitzme]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

It didn't "get here". That is a nonsense concept. To "get here" it would have come from "somewhere". And if that were othen the next question is where did that come from.

Really, that's a four year old's question. That or contemplations of smoking good bud. I mean really, how long are you going to remain at being like a stoned four year old before you move on?

You raise a very interesting point. Humans seem to suffer from this debilitating mental block known as "objective reality" where we can only imagine things in a physical or material sense, dictated by the laws, rules and principles of our physical universe and reality. Terms like "get here" and "somewhere" have meaning because we interpret them in relation to a physical reality. I will also add "come from" to the mix.

We observe electrons and subatomic particles simply disappearing from existence and re-appearing from nowhere, yet our minds tell us this must be explainable. We see black holes which defy physical principles and rationalize, there must be an explanation. Most importantly, we see a universe that is in motion, constantly expanding faster and faster, and our science and physics indicate some force must have set it into motion. Some theorize it is gravity, but why does gravity exist? What gave gravity the characteristics to start this motion? The bottom line is, we don't have the answers, and perhaps it is because of our debilitating mental block of not being able to comprehend beyond "objective reality?"

What the fuck are you yammering about?

"debilitating mental block of not being able to comprehend beyond "objective reality"" is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

 

[edthecynic]

I mentioned I have a science degree.

No you don't, you have a undergraduate Psych degree. The most you might have had to take is a math course or two, and not on the level of calculus, probably no higher than algebra, and a survey course or two in science probably only 3 credits each and maybe a token 2 hour lab if any lab at all. My undergraduate general physics course alone was 5 credits with 5 hours of lecture and 4 hours of lab each week. Calculus was a prerequisite for the course.

Now one of my undergraduate school requirements was 2 semesters of general psychology and two semesters of adolescent growth and development, would you say that I have a psychology degree even though I probably have as much training in psychology as you have in science?

 

[Boss]

You should demand a refund, ed. It didn't take!

 

[Boss]

No you don't, you have a undergraduate Psych degree.

No, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology. I understand you physics people like to dis on psych grads, but Psychology is a Science whether you like it or not.

 

[edthecynic]

No you don't, you have a undergraduate Psych degree.

No, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology. I understand you physics people like to dis on psych grads, but Psychology is a Science whether you like it or not.

As sure as the speed of light can equal 0.

 

[edthecynic]

Psychology is a Science whether you like it or not.

All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
- Ernest Rutherford