Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

“O ‘He’ of whom no one knows What ‘He’(God) is, nor How ‘He’ is, nor Where ‘He is, nor in Which direction, ‘He’ is except ‘He’ Himself”

Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib(as)

 

I have avoided the discussion of “The God” and aspects and working, so we do not get distracted and dwell in the realm( of Evil, Mercy, Love, help, present/absent, why does he not act, or why he/ she is silent, why allow all this, that is going on ) that is out of our domain for this discussion at this point in time.

If there is a need, I(Layman opinion) will say, The one who  created me, doesn't owe me anything, beyond guidance. If anything exists it's the lack of follow through or rejection of the guidance. I.e. If the humans allow conditions to develop, and there is oppression. Where is God is not the question. Question, is Humanity has been guided at two levels ( inner and outer), rejection of both is the issue not why God does not take away this evil person that we elected or tolerated until he/she turned on us(we were fine up untill it was happening to others). We human need to do our job, instead of having entitlement mentality, and deflect it to it's your fault God., where are you and why you do not help. We have been helped. Intellect/Guidance( brief understanding, as a layman).

Maybe not the best example but it will suffice, We would not expect the Mars rover to dwell in the realm of our working, instead it should be concerned with its prime directive, and we are to provide it guidance to accomplish its work.

There are may misunderstanding, in  definition, version, understanding due to linguistic, terminology(old/new), cultural (East/West) and lack of Conceptual discussion at the basic fundamental level instead of technicalities and mechanic(which is subconsciously embedded in the way we have been groomed in schools and universities).

A charged and contentious environment does not help in getting to any resolution. It's usually tit for tat, and pride get in the way in different threads a that were responding to targeted and side issue out of context.

No one to the best of my knowledge and understanding denies we are limited creations in all  aspects. Your creation and Your surrounding creation(s) , are proof of something that  can not be denied. So, there is a Cause, the unlimited, infinitely powerful, Unknown/Unseen Source of all this. What you(non Muslims) call that source is not relevant - you can call it a system,  I call it God. So, there are no Atheists or Agnostic here.

What an Atheist/ Agnostic may be, saying is that they do not believe in the God of Islam as “presented “or as understood or as described. That is a very different issue. But this issue, gets mixed up with other issues dealing with the mechanics in other threads which are on specific topics.

Getting back to the Topic.

We turn now to Stephen Hawking. He proposes M-theory, a variant of string theory, to explain the origins of the universe. The conclusion of his last book, The Grand Design, states:

Quote

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]

He added: "According to M-theory ours is not the only universe. It predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing."[55] Therefore, he claims, there is no need for God.


Stephen Hawking is a SME ( Subject Matter Expert) in his field of Study. If he gave his scientific theory and left it at that. I would not care nor it should be my concern, as there are many SMEs and have their theories in the Scientific world about may things.  His connecting it to and concluding that there is no need for god( his understanding of what god is to him). Is the issue, I am highlighting it not only because of what he said, because he or people like him are followed and the laypeople use these ideas to formulate their ideology. This is something, prevalent, using  fiction which they call ‘Science” as a tool to attack Divine Religion.

This is where this talk and connection / implication that this is the god and of you can’t pray to or ask for help form gravity, or physical laws are not empathetic, and are cold  and have no concern for the humans ….This connection makes no sense. Comparing apples and oranges and mixing stuff that is confusing. This mentally is delusional and it stems out of misunderstanding of the concepts of pray, or help, mercy, etc..or implications that ignorant people believe in miracles and angels. Or we can’t carbon date the text, or evidence of such and such event.

In short ignorant conclusions by apparently learned people in their field of study Trickle down effect, and the lay Atheists/Agnostics take these talking point and formulate an opinion and argument with it. Objectivity is also an issue, here. Double standards. Scientific theories are not subject to the same rigorous, and shredding mentality.  

Its 5000, 2000, 1400 old stuff, we are Technically advanced. We forget that this advancement is in Technology,(only). The basic alphabet  in terms of Social behavior, is as old as the cave people. 

Moving beyond, Mechanics, working, Techinacilities and this attitude of the best generation to exist, every preceding generation had the same attitude. and we will be looked at and our theories considers as old and outdated by the new generations. 

Its a Point is time assessment. 

What are the benefits of the revealed information- i.e Revealed to us through our struggle and study through discovery of us and whats around us.?

Do we follow the Laws, derived from this new knowledge?  If not what are we rally arguing about. If a person can't even at least in Theory acknowledge the laws of Nature for our(Humanity)  Benefit. If you were to do that, you may rethink you position, because you may realize that you have been arguing against something that Natural laws actually prove. 

This is what concerns me, at this point. Why can't the objective, learned and "technically" advanced people  see that and make this connection?

Technical stuff/mechanic, of Biological change, next stage, or toasters, cars, bridges, space race, new medicine and quest of the common animal are of what consequence except for knocking a book or theory of descent or maybe some new medicine may develop form the finding. If the theory of micro evolution as marketed to support the a particular version of evolution ,  is inserted here, its argues that we will always be a step behind and they(Virus) will mutate, or accomplishing something making life better and having some toys and pride issues over other nations that we went to pluto..so what ? 

How does this help us , solving the social problems of Humanity? (That is what Divine Religion is about).. Is there a comprehensive Social theory under development due to above technical advancements. ? 

Is there a comprehensive Social theory out there? (maybe not to the liking of the people due to Nurture, but is there)

To, me it looks like a willful denial of the Nature, a clash of Nature vs Nurture. People are finding any thing to latch on to stay free of any obligation/accountability. 

Correct me if I am wrong, I am a layman, average person. I read , what is written by people , i assess and drive at a conclusion. So, I post to be criticized, constructive criticism. So, I can better understand and remove misunderstanding(s) to gain better knowledge. 

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Can't we conclude that this "external force" was God? I want to get your opinion.

Sorry, I didn't mean  to quote this...pressed the wrong button  :)

 

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, M.IB said:

Can't we conclude that this "external force" was God? I want to get your opinion.

My opinion:

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists.
It is not the case that everyone knows God exists.

Surely a God who desires that humans jump through hoops to avoid eternal damnation would be capable of delivering a single unambiguous demonstration of his existence... don't you think? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Quisant said:

My opinion:

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists.
It is not the case that everyone knows God exists.

Surely a God who desires that humans jump through hoops to avoid eternal damnation would be capable of delivering a single unambiguous demonstration of his existence... don't you think? 
 

The one  who created you will judge you based on your efforts and capabilities. If after a genuine, sincere effort, you have reached this point.

You have your answer on the day of judgement.  The intellect you gave me, I came up with this conclusion.

End of your anxiety/ problems.

You,  may get stuck in the follow up questioning, regarding your activity, if you were not sure or  could not reach a conclusion..about the "Nature "- after recognizing that there must be one who is the creator of you and what's around you and you will be returning( based on observations/data) mortal temporal life on Earth. Did you take a cautious path, just in case you were on the wrong path or you went all out to dissuade others...

Because what we do will not 

Quote

An atheist entered the presence of al-Rida (as) when he had some people in his presence.

Therefore, Abu al-Hasan al-Rida (as) asked him: O man! Can you not see that if your view is correct, and it is absolutely not, then we are equal, despite our prayers, fasting, alms-giving, and the beliefs we profess have not harmed us?

The atheist remained silent.

Then Abu al-Hasan (as) added: However, if our view is the correct one, which is certainly the case, then you are lost, and we are saved.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235051040-atheism-everywhere/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-3065892

Its time you cut your losses, and 

Lets move beyond the usual, Entitlement ,Attributes, and Why questions are not really, the main topic here: 

The Delusions of the Atheists.

 

FYI:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235052378-the-delusions-of-atheists/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-3099170

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

The one  who created you will judge you based on your efforts and capabilities. If after a genuine, sincere effort, you have reached this point.

You have your answer on the day of judgement.  

"When once you hear the roses are in bloom,

Then is the time, my friend, to pour the wine;

Houris and palaces and Heaven and Hell-

These are but fairy-tales, forget them all. " - (Omar Khayyam)

:)

 

 

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

"When once you hear the roses are in bloom,

Then is the time, my friend, to pour the wine;

Houris and palaces and Heaven and Hell-

These are but fairy-tales, forget them all. " - (Omar Khayyam)

:)

For your understanding, Halal mean. Whats good for and your community. 
Haram: What is bad for you and your community. 

When you do Halal or Haram you do not impact the Law Giver, like you acknowledge or not. You do not change reality. 

So, 

Why would you promote a vice when Drunk driving, Sexual assault, Alcohol relate Crimesnot to mention Health related issue. Rehab etc...

So, Based on Data and observation, and someone who is a proponent of "Neo Evolution" - 

Religion of" evolution"/Science allows and permits and wants you promote such destructive activity.  Based on the laws of Nature, such activity will be not good for you and your community( Haram). What kind of genetic material you think a chronic drunk or diseased liver will pass on ....This would be the evolution way of discarding the unwanted genes from the gene pool for next generation..

This is against Nature, Natural laws and "scientific" data and observations. So, You not only have a problem with Divine Religion, its the clash of Nature vs Nurture. 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

"When once you hear the roses are in bloom,

Then is the time, my friend, to pour the wine;

Houris and palaces and Heaven and Hell-

These are but fairy-tales, forget them all. " - (Omar Khayyam)

:)

 

 

Asateer ul awwaleen (fairy tales)! 

Surah An-Naml, Verse 68:
لَقَدْ وُعِدْنَا هَٰذَا نَحْنُ وَآبَاؤُنَا مِن قَبْلُ إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

We have certainly been promised this, we and our fathers before; these are naught but stories of the ancients
(English - Shakir)

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 25:
وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا وَإِن يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءُوكَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ

And of them is he who hearkens to you, and We have cast veils over their hearts lest they understand it and a heaviness into their ears; and even if they see every sign they will not believe in it; so much so that when they come to you they only dispute with you; those who disbelieve say: This is naught but the stories of the ancients.
(English - Shakir)

via iQuran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are trying to find out, if the issue is Divine Religion or its all out rebellion against Nature and even the information/Data/Observations from Current Studies/Knowledge. In this case, all this scientific talk is a smoke screen to avoid responsibility/accountability to self and community. Total freedom at any cost, All excuses are valid and will be offered, as long as they can get away with it. We are dealing with Religion of individualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 10:42 PM, iCambrian said:

I would be hesitant to...say, as an example, whatever is causing space objects to move apart is an external force, and is therefore God.  Because then you might end up figuring out that what causes the spreading, and it may not be a force that is materialistically different than any other force. Then people sort of push God back. 

Its like the whole God of the Gaps thing. God shouldnt be confined to some sort of abstract beginning force that nobody can explain. Because then when we do find out how to explain it, God gets pushed back.

I think the question should be approached differently, where God isn't necessarily absent or beyond forces around us, that currently operate.

Someone the other day shared a video with some young earth creationists in it. And they said, theistic evolution is a pseudo deism, where God created, then sat back and watched without intervening.  But, would that not mean that God is also absent from something like...the birth of your son or daughter? Would it not mean that God is absent from...love? Or relationships?

Just because God is not actively transforming reality before our eyes in wild and crazy ways, it doesn't mean that God should be assumed as absent. 

And I think when God is described as an "external" force, you are pushing God, to the outside, like God isn't present within and around us. And it turns into a situation where the true deists are the ones arguing in favor of the existence of God, using kalam style arguments.

So i think the question should be framed differently.

Alright, Thanks. I apologize also since I thought you were an atheist (I saw the "Christian humanist" recently). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quisant said:

If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists.
It is not the case that everyone knows God exists.

I quote from a research done by Doctor "Justin Barrett' about if God was "proposed" by Humans to be the creator, it clearly contradicts you:

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”.

“We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,” he said.

5 hours ago, Quisant said:

Surely a God who desires that humans jump through hoops to avoid eternal damnation would be capable of delivering a single unambiguous demonstration of his existence... don't you think?

God already established this idea in your birth primitiveness, and you were born into it. It's not until you diverted away, mostly at "atheistic" countries which are pretty away from the idea of an omnipotent creator. And this asserts that society does affect in ones' inner thoughts, as the Doctor also referred:

“Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.”

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M.IB said:

I quote from a research done by Doctor "Justin Barrett' about if God was "proposed" by Humans to be the creator, it clearly contradicts you:

Dr Barrett is described in the New York Times as an observant Christian who believes in “an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God who brought the universe into being". ...so he would say that.

Dr Barret was talking about young children and he was wrong in suggesting that "religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,”  what he should have said is that children believe anything their parents tell them. For good evolutionary reasons children are extremely credulous. And it is not God they believe in, it is Magic - The Tooth fairy, the Easter-bunny, Father Christmas etc...whatever the society they live in  happens to throw at them.

Children are naturally gullible up to the age of 6, after that they discover that they have a mind of their own and they begin to make own choices of belief. This is why schooling and other forms of brainwashing start at the age of 6 / 7.

A recent survey  by British Social Attitudes  shows that more than half UK population has no religion ...so the original credulity doesn't continue for very long.   

Article here about Justin Barret:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html

wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monad said:

What benefit, does man gain from proving God?

What benefit, does man gain from disproving God?

Hello Monad, long time no speak....

Religion is a force that wishes to dim out the lights your curiosity switches on.
It aims to imprison and brainwash you into accepting intellectual mediocrity. 
Blind obedience is praised, imagination and questions discouraged.

Belief in God and the supernatural promotes lack of personal responsibility. 
It induces indifference towards Nature because God looks after and sustains everything.
Theists witness with apathy the destruction of Nature which is daily poisoned, raped, burnt and exploited with increasing efficiency.   

Rant over.  :)

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Hello Monad, long time no speak....

Religion is a force that wishes to dim out the lights your curiosity switches on.
It aims to imprison and brainwash you into accepting intellectual mediocrity. 
Blind obedience is praised, imagination and questions discouraged.

Belief in God and the supernatural promotes lack of personal responsibility. 
It induces indifference towards Nature because God looks after and sustains everything.
Theists witness with apathy the destruction of Nature which is daily poisoned, raped, burnt and exploited with increasing efficiency.   

Rant over.  :)

*
 

This answer above is nothing except your opinion of God. 

And opinions are known to vary between ones mind and others' thoughts.

The article you provided for me above is a pretty biased anti religion, and the first proof is the presence of the word "childish". However for him who is a doctor they are divine and important things one should hold. In addition that I quited a research, not someone hating over someone's system of beliefs.

 

Wassalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

Theists witness with apathy the destruction of Nature which is daily poisoned, raped, burnt and exploited with increasing efficiency.   

Hello Quisant,

Well, Syed Hussain Nasr, answers this through theism. I cannot recall which works or lectures, it has been a while for me.

Youtube it or archive.org has his works for free.

Also, regarding destruction, all humans are responsible for this, religion is not really to blame. Perhaps the education of it was poor in regards to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

Rant over.  :)

You have the freedom to start a new Thread to 'Rant", or Talk about whatever you wish.

You may be averse to any kind of structure,read the Title of the Thread.

The Delusions of Atheists

Try not to distract or navigate discussion into God, Nature...If you have something productive to add to the topic or you would like to defend it. Its open.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The teachers avoid using the pronouns "him" and "her" when talking to the children.

Instead they refer to them as "friends", by their first names, or as "hen" - a genderless pronoun borrowed from Finnish.

Changing society?

It is not just the language that is different here, though.

The books have been carefully selected to avoid traditional presentations of gender and parenting roles.

So, out with the likes of Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, and in with, for example, a book about two giraffes who find an abandoned baby crocodile and adopt it.

Most of the usual toys and games that you would find in any nursery are there - dolls, tractors, sand pits, and so on - but they are placed deliberately side-by-side to encourage a child to play with whatever he or she chooses.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14038419

NAture vs NUrture. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quisant said:

 

Religion is a force that wishes to dim out the lights your curiosity switches on.
It aims to imprison and brainwash you into accepting intellectual mediocrity. 
Blind obedience is praised, imagination and questions discouraged.

Belief in God and the supernatural promotes lack of personal responsibility. 
It induces indifference towards Nature because God looks after and sustains everything.
Theists witness with apathy the destruction of Nature which is daily poisoned, raped, burnt and exploited with increasing efficiency.   

Rant over.  :)

*
 

Religion- A way of Life

Religion- my personal belief system

Separation of Church and state mentality allows you to make such claims. Otherwise - What is forced on to the young kids and adults is also called Brainwashing by the Secular System. Why can't an objective person see this Reality? 


Like not allowing any  alternative theory of beginning of Universe/Life in school system/Universities

Forcing Your version of social behaviours on young kids..(defining Nature)

There is no freedom of choice here- is Nurtured by the System.

Constitution is followed in secular countries( Law). You have limits under that constitution.

Social/political/national/peer pressure limit your freedom.

So, I do not see any point in your bringing up, stereotypes and implying Religion is this way or that way. If you are being objective- you will not reach above conclusion.

I see it as, not a Religion issue, it's a Nature issue. Nurture (acceptable norms) in clash with Nature and Science.

*****

How do you see this brainwashing, Forced, induced behavioral indoctrination  of kids in light of Nature/ "Evolution" - ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quisant said:

 

A recent survey  by British Social Attitudes  shows that more than half UK population has no religion ...so the original credulity doesn't continue for very long.   

 

Misleading. based on a selected definition of Religion. Anyone who is alive has a Religion(way of life). A set of belief(s). Again, based on judeo-christian version. 

"Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example:

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.[87]

In another description of his view on the concept of God, Sagan emphatically wrote:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.[88]  "

Again, either you are not aware or not really paying attention that world have moved on and we do not live in isolated villages anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, monad said:

What benefit, does man gain from proving God?

What benefit, does man gain from disproving God?

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God.[54]"

Why would a Scientist, need to say this? Why can't he just provide his actual data and conclude in Scientific terms for the benefit of Science? What is he agenda here? Why would  he be concerned with Religion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand “Scientist” a looking for a Common ancestor. No common ancestor has fallen into our lap that gave us Scientific clues to look for a connection. It's a induced search. On the other hand using fictional science to create new gods like Gravity. (Which they do not fully understand).

What is market as a personal belief is wrong/misinformation hiding the Truth.  They fully understand the Truth, as indicated by their quest(s) described above. And restriction applied in Society/education etc... They understand Religion is a way of life.

Atheist/Agnostics/Secular individuals using these Flags and marching towards total anarchy against Religion but in reality it's really Nature/Science./Natural laws.

If asked to apply Natural laws/Scientific laws- they will come up with excuses. We should not be fooled by I do not believe in God. Yes you do(Yourself). And you want to promote your way for life( your constitution).

Great, if you are such a believer in Science/Evolution Theory --Inform us how are you using Scientific information ….for your personal(non materialistic)  benefit like what do you infer from the data and observations that your senses process to come up with conclusions about how to live ?

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054035-what-if-god-was-fictitious/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3096320

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 8:48 AM, Quisant said:

 

Our universe is around 14 billlion years old.
I believe that the raw material/matter that makes up this universe always existed. 
ws.

*

Hi, i'm truly intrigued by your above comment, when you have time can you possibly just expound on: Raw material/matter that makes up this universe alway exited? 

looking forward to hear from you.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, power said:

Hi, i'm truly intrigued by your above comment, when you have time can you possibly just expound on: Raw material/matter that makes up this universe alway exited? 

looking forward to hear from you.

Thanks.

Hi, nice to meet. 

Though we have good evidence that the observable universe began about 14 billion years ago, we know nothing at all about what existed before then. 

Science can only speculate what was before the Big Bang.The process of inflation erased all evidence of anything that may or may not have come before. 

There exist a few theories but they are a long way from being validated 

Personally, I find it reasonable to believe that there cannot be “nothing” before the Big Bang because “nothing” cannot produce something. From nothing, nothing can come. 

Something can only come from something, and that something is the universe in another form for some atheists or the necessary entity for some theists.

I also find it reasonable to add that If God creates the universe "out of His own being or mind”, that means the universe (or the 'raw material of the universe’) is eternal in the sense that (the raw material of) the universe is God's being. It didn't begin.
(This would contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

If God creates out of 'pre-existing' material it means that something was already there.

In either case you cannot say that the universe began, you can say that 'stuff' was transformed from one state to another. 

wslm.

*

That's me done for the day with the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Quisant said:

In either case you cannot say that the universe began, you can say that 'stuff' was transformed from one state to another. 

800px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

The black background is literally "nothing", there was nothing so the universe could actually form/change to.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.IB said:

The black background is literally "nothing", there was nothing so the universe could actually form/change to.

 

I am not sure I understand your point, I am wearing a lazy/dense Monday brain, so I apologise if I have misunderstood.

The standard definition of Universe is "all that there is". So logically there can be nothing outside out it. 

Big Bang cosmology, a by-product of theoretical physics, infers the existence of a singularity which expanded into our universe.

The universe is composed of matter and energy that is constantly being rearranged in different ways. Everything results from rearrangement of matter and energy already in existence. 

It's simply expanding, which involves the continuous formation of more space/time. There isn't any "place" or "thing" or even emptiness for the Universe to expand into. 

This is beyond anything in our experience, it is counter-intuitive and thus makes no logical sense on the face of it. But it is simply expanding. 

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×