How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

If EVERYTHING declined over time, no matter could exist. Does matter exist????

You were conned by unscrupulous Creationists who take advantage of your not knowing the difference between "never decreases" and "always increases" in scientific language.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated as, "In a closed thermodynamic system, entropy NEVER DECREASES."

LMAO... The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

If entropy always evolved toward maximum entropy, IOW entropy "always increases" rather than "never decreases" then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist. Entropy can and does = 0.

Obviously you know less about entropy than you do about quantum mechanics, and you know nothing about quantum mechanics.

Hey don't shoot me, I just quoted the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ...isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

...then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist.

Wow... so matter does require "SPACE" to exist? That's interesting, since you previously held this "Singularity" theory where space did not yet exist. Now, all of a sudden, atoms with orbiting electrons require space. Houston, we have a problem!

 

[Boss]

Fallacious correlation. We are just part of an existing Universe. That does not imply that there is any "creation" involved in the process by which we evolved.

So are you suggesting the universe is eternal ?

According to the Laws of Physics the matter/energy of the Universe has always existed and will always exist because it can neither be created not destroyed.

The current matter/energy state of the Universe where we exist is transitory but the matter/energy will continue to exist throughout eternity in some form or another.

Well then you've solved the question. GOD is the universe. GOD is energy/matter.

Well done!

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

If you can prove that, you win.

Survival of the most fit in a dog-eat-dog world sure fits the historical evidence better than the ancient stories of a God with a plan, but that's just one humble opinion among many regarding an unprovable subject.

Statistically at least, all human speculations on origins, after-life and God, both ancient and modern, have equal odds of being correct, historical and other evidence be damned.

​

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Oh, definitely! The same can be said for every conceivable argument against God. It's the ability to give equal consideration to possibilities and to probabilities that makes Monkeys so beautifully Human.

When theories and evidence on the unprovable subjects are considered in the privacy of one's own mind is when the conversation in a Monkeys head can get truly interesting. But statistically, all theories that a Monkey cares to consider (or not) have exactly the same odds of being correct - other wise, the subject wouldn't be unprovable.

And I do understand what you're getting at with regards to the statistics behind the evidence - as in very few ancient stories about any given god versus the modern concepts of Geology, Biology, History, Evolution and Chemistry. When I say that statistically all theories have the same chance of being golden, I base that statement on the assumption that beliefs are like nipples - every Monkey has a set and no two sets are identical.

If every living human has their own unique and dynamic set of beliefs, statistically speaking, everyone has exactly the same odds of being correct.

To possibilities!​

 

[Montrovant]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

If you can prove that, you win.

Survival of the most fit in a dog-eat-dog world sure fits the historical evidence better than the ancient stories of a God with a plan, but that's just one humble opinion among many regarding an unprovable subject.

Statistically at least, all human speculations on origins, after-life and God, both ancient and modern, have equal odds of being correct, historical and other evidence be damned.

The good news is that we all get to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves, and NObody can take that away.​

It goes beyond our planet, Joe.

How perfect do the rules that govern gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism need to be to give us solar systems and galaxies and suns, instead of a dark universe of cosmic dust.

What do you mean they are perfect? Perfect compared to what? What other universe, with different physical laws, can you compare our to to determine ours is perfect?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.

complexity isn't intended to prove the existence of a god.....it is intended to prove the stupidity of "random shit just happens randomly" as the solution.......because complex things don't happen randomly......

Do you know that for a fact?

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

lol, dude.....you want to calculate odds?......under your theory, in any given event life may not happen (0) or it may (1).......now, create any type of formula you want that determines how many instances of such possible events there might be in a billion years......multiply that number times 0 and tell me what result you have.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.

complexity isn't intended to prove the existence of a god.....it is intended to prove the stupidity of "random shit just happens randomly" as the solution.......because complex things don't happen randomly......

There are plenty of examples of both elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and building both toward the more complex, and toward the less complex.

'Chemistry' should be a verb! LOTS of action there!​

and yet there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living......let alone something complex enough to reproduce.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

There is no clock without a clockmaker.

Think about this.

You have a pile of oddly shaped pebbles and a set of weighing scales.

How long would it take to take the pile, split it up, and achieve balance.

Yet, look at the balance around us.

Should not one variable run a muck and ruin the equation?

But it doesn't...the system is set up in a way that it cannot.

Is this the result of random chance? I think not.

If you can prove that, you win.

Survival of the most fit in a dog-eat-dog world sure fits the historical evidence better than the ancient stories of a God with a plan, but that's just one humble opinion among many regarding an unprovable subject.

Statistically at least, all human speculations on origins, after-life and God, both ancient and modern, have equal odds of being correct, historical and other evidence be damned.

The good news is that we all get to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves, and NObody can take that away.​

It goes beyond our planet, Joe.

How perfect do the rules that govern gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism need to be to give us solar systems and galaxies and suns, instead of a dark universe of cosmic dust.

That's the beauty of it all... it needn't be 'perfect' - within the range of tolerances will do nicely.

 

[sealybobo]

complexity isn't intended to prove the existence of a god.....it is intended to prove the stupidity of "random shit just happens randomly" as the solution.......because complex things don't happen randomly......

do you know that for a fact?

calculating the odds that life could begin by chance

lol, dude.....you want to calculate odds?......under your theory, in any given event life may not happen (0) or it may (1).......now, create any type of formula you want that determines how many instances of such possible events there might be in a billion years......multiply that number times 0 and tell me what result you have.......

42?

 

[AVG-JOE]

and yet there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living......let alone something complex enough to reproduce.....

No?

I have heard of one little wet rock floating in space that might fill the bill...

Possibilities!​

 

[edthecynic]

LMAO... The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

If entropy always evolved toward maximum entropy, IOW entropy "always increases" rather than "never decreases" then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist. Entropy can and does = 0.

Obviously you know less about entropy than you do about quantum mechanics, and you know nothing about quantum mechanics.

Hey don't shoot me, I just quoted the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ...isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

...then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist.

Wow... so matter does require "SPACE" to exist? That's interesting, since you previously held this "Singularity" theory where space did not yet exist. Now, all of a sudden, atoms with orbiting electrons require space. Houston, we have a problem!

You should have read more than just the first sentence in Wikipedia.

Of course, you continue to lie like a rug, deliberately misrepresenting what you claim I said while only stating what YOU said. I never held that "SPACE" did not exist, you and you alone own that BS.

I said that all the energy of the universe was compressed into one point, (obviously a point occupies space to everyone but you), at the singularity. What I said was that for a singular moment, while the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, TIME did not exist. Again TIME as understood in Physics as the order of events and not time in the intuitive sense that you try to pass off as Physics.

 

[sealybobo]

There are plenty of examples of both elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and building both toward the more complex, and toward the less complex.

'Chemistry' should be a verb! LOTS of action there!​

and yet there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living......let alone something complex enough to reproduce.....

No?

I have heard of one little wet rock floating in space that might fill the bill...

Possibilities!​

Can you imagine the priests sitting around questioning the scientists trying to poke holes in their theories and anything the scientists can't say for 100% sure they are sure about, the priests take good notes. It would go something like this:

So what you are saying is that there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living? Oh really? And nothing complex enough to reproduce anything that you know of? Well. And the scientist will want to continue explaining but the priests have heard all they need to hear and they dismiss him quickly. And there lies their PROOF god exists.

 

[sealybobo]

If entropy always evolved toward maximum entropy, IOW entropy "always increases" rather than "never decreases" then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist. Entropy can and does = 0.

Obviously you know less about entropy than you do about quantum mechanics, and you know nothing about quantum mechanics.

Hey don't shoot me, I just quoted the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ...isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.

...then the negatively charged electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom would lose speed as its entropy increased and would be drawn into the positively charged nucleus and no matter could exist.

Wow... so matter does require "SPACE" to exist? That's interesting, since you previously held this "Singularity" theory where space did not yet exist. Now, all of a sudden, atoms with orbiting electrons require space. Houston, we have a problem!

You should have read more than just the first sentence in Wikipedia.

Of course, you continue to lie like a rug, deliberately misrepresenting what you claim I said while only stating what YOU said. I never held that "SPACE" did not exist, you and you alone own that BS.

I said that all the energy of the universe was compressed into one point, (obviously a point occupies space to everyone but you), at the singularity. What I said was that for a singular moment, while the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, TIME did not exist. Again TIME as understood in Physics as the order of events and not time in the intuitive sense that you try to pass off as Physics.

I knew he was using flawed logic but I needed someone smarter to come along who could point out where how and why he's so wrong. Great job. I will look for his reply tomorrow.

 

[Boss]

I said that all the energy of the universe was compressed into one point, (obviously a point occupies space to everyone but you), at the singularity. What I said was that for a singular moment, while the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, TIME did not exist. Again TIME as understood in Physics as the order of events and not time in the intuitive sense that you try to pass off as Physics.

Einstein proved space and time are the same thing....space-time. There is no special way physics 'understands' things. This just seems to be YOUR special way of understanding things. You write these special caveats for yourself whenever needed to avoid contradiction. There was no "singularity" because energy doesn't compress itself. Matter comprised of atoms require space to function. So this "compression" you're dreaming of, never happened. Gravity didn't cause it because gravity is caused by mass, and mass is made of atoms which.... again... require space to exist. We keep running into this problem that physics can't solve, it never has been able to. That's why people like Hawking are questioning the whole idea of Singularity and Big Bang theories and why we're developing quantum mechanics. BUT... the problem with quantum physics is, it renders the possibility of multiple universes with multiple dimensions, all of which can be completely different than our own with completely different functionality. That means things we think of as "spiritual" or "metaphysical" can most certainly exist in the cosmos, and probably do.

 

[Boss]

I have heard of one little wet rock floating in space that might fill the bill...

You've got some evidence that chemicals and molecules produced something living and capable of reproduction? Funny how that is never produced in these arguments.

 

[Boss]

Can you imagine the priests sitting around questioning the scientists trying to poke holes in their theories and anything the scientists can't say for 100% sure they are sure about, the priests take good notes. It would go something like this:

So what you are saying is that there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living? Oh really? And nothing complex enough to reproduce anything that you know of? Well. And the scientist will want to continue explaining but the priests have heard all they need to hear and they dismiss him quickly. And there lies their PROOF god exists.

What the hell are you rambling about now, dimwit? Stop imagining things! You're fucking dangerous!

Atheist "scientists" (I use the term loosely) want to continue explaining things in big giant circles which keep ending in contradiction and/or uncertainty. Instead of just admitting they don't know whether God exists, like most rational people would conclude, they want to try and prove something that can't be proved. You're a classic example. You'll sit here and run your mouth about how we aren't sure, we don't really know... but then, suddenly... we've nearly proven it! We pretty much DO know! You don't have any science to back that up, you keep being made a fool of, but you just keep on yammering like the fucking energizer bunny!

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have heard of one little wet rock floating in space that might fill the bill...

You've got some evidence that chemicals and molecules produced something living and capable of reproduction?
Funny how that is never produced in these arguments.

Certainly! I posted a picture of their world above. Shame the devil and tell the truth, it is possible that life on earth is merely the result of Liquid Water + Sunshine, Chemistry and Time.

Is that proof of our origins? Of course not - Origins is one of the unprovable subjects.


Do you have evidence that intelligent design is behind it all? Of course you do!

Shame the devil and tell the truth, it is possible that the ancient stories actually were inspired by, for lack of a better word, 'God', the origin stories within are absolute truth, and Heaven awaits those who can figure out how to use those ancient tomes to understand exactly what the deal is concerning The God of Abraham, as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran.

Is that proof of our origins? Of course not - Origins is one of the unprovable subjects.

The questions we each now get to discuss in the privacy of our own minds are, What does the evidence say to ME? What are MY reasons for believing what I believe about Origins, God and Death?

Possibilities!​

 

[edthecynic]

I said that all the energy of the universe was compressed into one point, (obviously a point occupies space to everyone but you), at the singularity. What I said was that for a singular moment, while the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, TIME did not exist. Again TIME as understood in Physics as the order of events and not time in the intuitive sense that you try to pass off as Physics.

Einstein proved space and time are the same thing....space-time. There is no special way physics 'understands' things. This just seems to be YOUR special way of understanding things. You write these special caveats for yourself whenever needed to avoid contradiction. There was no "singularity" because energy doesn't compress itself. Matter comprised of atoms require space to function. So this "compression" you're dreaming of, never happened. Gravity didn't cause it because gravity is caused by mass, and mass is made of atoms which.... again... require space to exist. We keep running into this problem that physics can't solve, it never has been able to. That's why people like Hawking are questioning the whole idea of Singularity and Big Bang theories and why we're developing quantum mechanics. BUT... the problem with quantum physics is, it renders the possibility of multiple universes with multiple dimensions, all of which can be completely different than our own with completely different functionality. That means things we think of as "spiritual" or "metaphysical" can most certainly exist in the cosmos, and probably do.

No he didn't, he included time as an extra 4th dimension of space he called a space time CONTINUUM.

The more you post the more you PROVE your stupidity.

 

[Missourian]

If you can prove that, you win.

Survival of the most fit in a dog-eat-dog world sure fits the historical evidence better than the ancient stories of a God with a plan, but that's just one humble opinion among many regarding an unprovable subject.

Statistically at least, all human speculations on origins, after-life and God, both ancient and modern, have equal odds of being correct, historical and other evidence be damned.

The good news is that we all get to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves, and NObody can take that away.​

It goes beyond our planet, Joe.

How perfect do the rules that govern gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism need to be to give us solar systems and galaxies and suns, instead of a dark universe of cosmic dust.

What do you mean they are perfect? Perfect compared to what? What other universe, with different physical laws, can you compare our to to determine ours is perfect?

Anthropic Principle : The success of science in understanding the macroscopic, microscopic and cosmological worlds has led to the strong belief that it is possible to form a fully scientific explanation of any feature of the Universe. However, in the past 20 years our understanding of physics and biology has noted a peculiar specialness to our Universe, a specialness with regard to the existence of intelligent life. This sends up warning signs from the Copernican Principle, the idea that no scientific theory should invoke a special place or aspect to humans.
All the laws of Nature have particular constants associated with them, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant from quantum mechanics. Some are derived from physical laws (the speed of light, for example, comes from Maxwell's equations). However, for most, their values are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants had different values, although the resulting interactions would be radically different.
Examples:

• gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.
• strong force coupling constant: Holds particles together in nucleus of atom. If weaker than multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, all elements lighter than iron would be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, which heats core of Earth.
• electromagnetic coupling constant: Determines strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If less, than no electrons held in orbit. If stronger, electrons will not bond with other atoms. Either way, no molecules.

All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these constants is very narrow, only about 1 to 5% for the combination of constants. Outside this range, and life (in particular, intelligent life) would be impossible.


Anthropic Principle
​

 

[Montrovant]

It goes beyond our planet, Joe.

How perfect do the rules that govern gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and magnetism need to be to give us solar systems and galaxies and suns, instead of a dark universe of cosmic dust.

What do you mean they are perfect? Perfect compared to what? What other universe, with different physical laws, can you compare our to to determine ours is perfect?

Anthropic Principle : The success of science in understanding the macroscopic, microscopic and cosmological worlds has led to the strong belief that it is possible to form a fully scientific explanation of any feature of the Universe. However, in the past 20 years our understanding of physics and biology has noted a peculiar specialness to our Universe, a specialness with regard to the existence of intelligent life. This sends up warning signs from the Copernican Principle, the idea that no scientific theory should invoke a special place or aspect to humans.
All the laws of Nature have particular constants associated with them, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the electric charge, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant from quantum mechanics. Some are derived from physical laws (the speed of light, for example, comes from Maxwell's equations). However, for most, their values are arbitrary. The laws would still operate if the constants had different values, although the resulting interactions would be radically different.
Examples:

• gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.
• strong force coupling constant: Holds particles together in nucleus of atom. If weaker than multi-proton particles would not hold together, hydrogen would be the only element in the Universe. If stronger, all elements lighter than iron would be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, which heats core of Earth.
• electromagnetic coupling constant: Determines strength of electromagnetic force that couples electrons to nucleus. If less, than no electrons held in orbit. If stronger, electrons will not bond with other atoms. Either way, no molecules.

All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these constants is very narrow, only about 1 to 5% for the combination of constants. Outside this range, and life (in particular, intelligent life) would be impossible.


Anthropic Principle
​

That didn't really answer me.

 

[Boss]

I said that all the energy of the universe was compressed into one point, (obviously a point occupies space to everyone but you), at the singularity. What I said was that for a singular moment, while the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, TIME did not exist. Again TIME as understood in Physics as the order of events and not time in the intuitive sense that you try to pass off as Physics.

Einstein proved space and time are the same thing....space-time. There is no special way physics 'understands' things. This just seems to be YOUR special way of understanding things. You write these special caveats for yourself whenever needed to avoid contradiction. There was no "singularity" because energy doesn't compress itself. Matter comprised of atoms require space to function. So this "compression" you're dreaming of, never happened. Gravity didn't cause it because gravity is caused by mass, and mass is made of atoms which.... again... require space to exist. We keep running into this problem that physics can't solve, it never has been able to. That's why people like Hawking are questioning the whole idea of Singularity and Big Bang theories and why we're developing quantum mechanics. BUT... the problem with quantum physics is, it renders the possibility of multiple universes with multiple dimensions, all of which can be completely different than our own with completely different functionality. That means things we think of as "spiritual" or "metaphysical" can most certainly exist in the cosmos, and probably do.

No he didn't, he included time as an extra 4th dimension of space he called a space time CONTINUUM.

The more you post the more you PROVE your stupidity.

Are you a functional illiterate?

CONTINUUM:
1. a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees.

Yes, Time is a dimension of space. Space without all it's dimensions is like your brain, it doesn't exist in reality. Singularity is like your intelligence, a figment of imagination.