Quote:

---

If its spontaneous, then why can we slap absolutes like half-life onto radioactive atoms? Surely, if it just happened randomly then the value wouldn't always be constant.

---

Half-life is a statistical value derived from the probability of an atomic decay. The probability is a defined value, but an individual decay happens random and causeless. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity

Quote:

---

I take it, from reading your links, that you say matter can be spontaneously created by black holes with virtual particles?

---

No, spontaneous matter creation has nothing to do with "black holes". It happens even without the presence of matter and fields and is called "vacuum energy" or "vacuum polarization". The creation of virtual particles at the event horizon of black holes however is caused by the gravity gradient and produces the Hawking Radiation.

Quote:

---

Here's the problem I've noticed that materialists have. By your very nature, you're so convinced that all there is, is the universe, that you can't even imagine anything beyond it.

---

Here's the problem that I see creationists have: All your posts in these threads are full of phrases like "is unimaginable", "can never happen", "is impossible" etc - targeted at scientific theories of nature. I think I pointed out that many of your "unimaginable" is not only imaginable, but even observed - like spontaneous matter creation.

A limit of imagination creates gods, demons or supernatural forces for filling the gaps.

However even then you should not let your thinking stop there. If I believed that a god created the universe, earth, animals etc, I'd ask a lot of questions about why and how he existed at all and why and how he tampered with nature. I would not be satisfied with phrases like "God has no cause" and "his reasons are unfathomable".

By the way, what's your permanent problem with materialism? I'm not a materialist. If you don't know the difference between materialism and atheism, just look it up in Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

[Adding time to a God who created time] is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me. I just wouldn't have been so harsh about it.

---

All our minds are limited and narrow in a way. Some less, some more. One of the reasons for these threads is attempting to widen creationist's minds a little.

Quote:

---

I'd ask a lot of questions about why and how he existed at all and why and how he tampered with nature. I would not be satisfied with phrases like "God has no cause" and "his reasons are unfathomable".

---

These questions have been answered by not only Christians on this forum(I just did yesterday) but also from theologians for hundreds and thousands of years. As per usual, you just ignored it.

Quote:

---

Here's the problem that I see creationists have: All your posts in these threads are full of phrases like "is unimaginable", "can never happen", "is impossible" etc - targeted at scientific theories of nature. I think I pointed out that many of your "unimaginable" is not only imaginable, but even observed - like spontaneous matter creation.

A limit of imagination creates gods, demons or supernatural forces for filling the gaps.

---

Nope, as I have said before numerous times, we dont have "gaps" in our knowledge, we have no "gaps" to fill.

Science, your god, has gaps.

i would say "no" to 1 and 2.
thinking of time as a line doesnt sound good to me.

the whole creation as well has a problem that if god can exist since ever why not something else as well. maybe the universe is eternal.
or the time or better said the speed of time is not constant but getting faster as we speak.
Maybe the density of the initial mass made the time speed eternal near to 0.
imagine the whole universe stuffed into one small marble sized ball. its mass could be able to stop time or slow it down.

if now the universe expands a consequence would be a speed up of the time. well, till the break even point when the time and mass balance is shaken and it starts to collapse again into one small marble just to expand again...forever.

and what if time can be so slow that it "creates" a balance of mass. starting with nothing and a "frozen" time the rules of physic made the time create a outbalancing mass.

i also wonder why people think that the universe needs to be created when everything "none man made" is a conclusions of reactions, physical rules and constelations.
nothing i know of or can see had to be "made" (biblical creationism).

everything is a part of a circle/cycle but on the other hand we demand someone started it? why?

its kind of weired that it is obvious that anything elementar is circle shaped. from the quarks to the stars this form seams to be the basic masterplan.
and one thing all circles all over the world have in common: they neither have a start nor an end point

cheers

Unlike religion, science is not based on a fixed mind set that "we all agree" on. Science has several hypotheses, but no finished theory that would answer those questions. Most hypotheses, like the Gabriele Veneziano model, answer all 4 questions with "no". According to some models, baryonic universes like ours are permanently created by phase transitions within an eternal 10-dimensional space they are embedded in. All those universes have slightly different laws of nature, resulting in a 100% probability for life conditions in many of them.

While science is seriously exploring the beginning of the universe, and the possibility of other universes, there are no ready answers at the moment. String theory can not yet predict the topologies of universes formed this way. The required mathematical tools that aren't developed yet.

A foundation dedicated to those questions: http://www.fqxi.org/

In the way the are asked, the obvious answer to the questions is "no" because we can not agree on something that we do not even know. Intuitively, I would also say "no" to the underlying assumptions. I see no reason to make such limiting assumptions about our world as long as there's no evidence for them.

Bah, whatever. You guys are hopeless. Well, we don't really have anything to say about a self-creating universe, and since we don't know, we don't have to know. We just assume that it had nothing to do with God.

I thought my curiosities were pretty basic, anyone could grasp their concepts, but the only response I get is, "Science has a lot of guesses."

Why can't you have an open mind like that when it comes to God. Instead you keep repeating the same logical fallacies about him being part of time, or part of space, etc.

If you're too afraid to discuss the origin, in an elementary fashion, then suit yourself. I'm done with the God vs. Nothing debate.

That was me, by the by. I just want to say that what I've just seen is cop-out stonewalling at its best.

you are misinterpreting what is said.
science is not fighting god or any concept per se. the idea is to find sollutions/evidence and proof for problems and concepts.

while the string theory for example fits common laws of astrophysic (or at least as much as we yet understand about it) the creationism thru god does not. at least not the way hardcore creationism is thought.

is the existence of god possible (biblical description of god in this case)? yes
does any common law or rule support the existence of god? no

so the bottom line is: if there is not one single mathematical, physical or in any way scientific observation/fact/rule or law that god has created time and space from the scientific point of view he simply has not.


histroy is full of examples that support that method. starting from vulcanos to atoms and bacterias.
either is the errutpion of a vulcano "created" by a higher force or a result of physics.

problem with the universe is that it is far more complicated then a simple vulcano or the sunset.

and to connect science with guessing is not valid at all. and if complaining about none open minded people you should keep that in mind as well.

the idea that "someone" created the universe is against anything we have observered till present day.
if nothing else gets created then why the universe in the first place.
wouldnt logic demand that it fits into this sheme as well?

if i claim that i have created the universe and all being because i am allmighty, would this be justification or proof enough for you as well?
or wouldnt you keep sceptical untill you have enough evidence to agree or disagree.

cheers

Actually, the more I think about it and read other atheist-theist exchanges, I've decided I was on the right path. Its apparent, from atheist arguments on this board, and elsewhere that atheism isn't a positive position, but the only evidence an atheist can come up for his beliefs is that theist beliefs aren't consistent.

In other words atheism only exists in a theist vaccuum if you will. You don't need to have all the answers, as long as you think I don't have all the answers. This is why everytime I ask, "how can nothing create something" your only response isn't to work out this unsolvable paradox, but to say, "How can God do it?" That's not even an argument. However, its justification for you, because you believe that as long as my position doesn't make sense to you, yours doesn't have to make sense at all because its just automatically right.

So, then, I want to get back to my original line of discussion.

Before the universe existed, would there not be a general nothingness? Assuming God does not exist, wherein absolutely nothing (that means even less than a vacuum, because a vacuum requires a universe to exist) did time, space, and matter decide to spring into existence? As a curious objective observer to both arguments (...) I just want to know how you guys would answer this question.

Obviously time and space have a beginning. What started this process? How is it even possible? I'm just curious.

I don't even see an argument for matter appearing for no reason. There are two main problems with this point. No where in your link did it mention that matter can be created out of absolutely nothing. Perhaps you can steer me in the correct direction cause I might just be missing it.

The second problem with this argument is that it requires that the universe already be in existence. I does nothing in the way of getting rid of every cause for matter, because the universe is an indirect cause for the possibility of matter being created out of nowhere. In other words, if the universe doesn't exist, matter will never create itself out of nowhere.

Actually there's a third problem. This is a negative position. I can't prove that nothing causes matter to come into existence in certain cases. I can only prove that we don't know of a cause. The same thing happened with vestigial organs. We couldn't prove that they had no purpose, we could only prove that we didn't know the purpose. Then some time later we found out. So this is certainly not proof that there are things in the universe that lack a cause.


Back on another subject: If decay were truly random as you say, we would not be able to slap an absolute value like half-life on it. If half-life isn't a constant, then we can't be sure of the age of the earth. So out of curiosity, how do we know the radioactive decay won't randomly happen all at once and bring the half-life down to almost nothing?

And again, you can't prove it happens for no reason, you can only prove you don't know the cause. And in fact, I've read many other websites that claim there is a reason it happens. So I would like to know who is right, and why.

Either way, it has no bearing on my argument. You say random decay proves that nothing I say is right. But that's a non sequitor. (You can deny this is what you meant, but your statement "Things you've said were impossible are possible." doesn't leave much to the imagination). My question wasn't how does something happen for no reason once the universe is there for it happen for no reason, its how does the universe spring out of no where. This goes beyond the question of things happening for no reason, but asks where something springs from a void of anything, including cause and reason. For you its good enough to 'prove' that I was wrong on one thing, because then you don't have to address the paradox of nothing creating something.