atheistic view on creation....?

[xRadical_Wankerx]

we all know that christians think that god set off the very first thing that started it all.

but what do atheist think started the whole fucking thing?

[Digital_Savior]

The fact that you even have to ask that...

Oh, nevermind.

[flatplat]

Ask a science teacher?

no one

[RAOVQ]

no one knows why it started. people belive things, but anyone who is honest will say that they don't actually know.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fact that you even have to ask that...

Oh, nevermind.

It's a good question, because either an atheist must look to science for an answer, or stick his head in the sand and ignore the whole issue of how time started - when by definition before it did there can have been no causality.

The only current scientific theory that talks about how time might have "started" is called the ekpyrotic universe model. To understand it you have to know a little about string theory, which talks about "strings" as being one dimensional objects that exist in higher dimensions, but depending on how they behave we perceive them in our dimension is different particles or types of energy. The one dimensional objects are called strings, and if they are two dimensional they are called membranes (although one dimensional strings can be open or closed, I can't really understand that to be honest).

If these ojectes existing in higher dimensions have more than 2 dimensions, they are called p-branes (yeah, I know there's a joke in there somewhere) where p stands for whatever the number of dimensions is. The theory of an ekpyrotic universe is that there were two 3-branes were moving along a hidden extra dimension, and they collided. It was their collision that supposedly caused the Big Bang, they stuck when they hit each other, and the kinetic energy of the collision was channeled into the huge explosion of energy that created our universe.

One of the things about the ekpyrotic model is that it's not certain why the two branes don't just become unstuck, even the physicist who came up with the theory doesn't know. It's possible that they will in fact become unstuck again, which will cause the end of our universe. This is one possible explanation for universal expansion, that it is being caused by the two branes begninning to move apart.

An interesting thing about the theory is where its name comes from. Ekpyrotic comes from the ancient Greek Stoic philosophers, who said that the universe was created in an explosion of fire. They also said that the universe is regularly consumed again, and remade from this fire in a process called ekpyrosis.

Funky theory anyway.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-17-2005).]

I meant this theory explains the acceleration of universal expansion, that didn't make sense what I said. The alternative is the whole dark matter business, which has no more a solid foundation than this does.

quote:Originally posted by xRadical_Wankerx:

we all know that christians think that god set off the very first thing that started it all.

but what do atheist think started the whole fucking thing?

maybe you haven't heard - atheists don't have a bible. there is no compelled belief in atheistic thought as to the origins of the universe.

many atheists don't even contemplate the question, opting instead to place their confidence in the ability of math and science to resolve it in due time. in the meanwhile, most are content to accept the possibility (likelihood?) that current human understanding is nowhere near able to even understand the answer... if it even exists.

edit: what's the big deal anyways? why is it so important to understand the exotic quantum physics responsible for the generation of sub-atomic structure, when most of us can hardly balance a checkbook?



[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 04-18-2005).]

I'm an atheist.

I think that the universe has always been, personally.

Ekpyrotic theory also suggests that the omniverse may have always existed, having no beginning, and therefore requiring no agent to create it.

string theory

string theory also MAY support diffrent "wolrds" or universs(sp?) also known as parallel dimensions.

[---Beany---]

I don't see why it's so hard to consider that everything is the imagination of consciousness.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I don't see why it's so hard to consider that everything is the imagination of consciousness.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by xRadical_Wankerx:

we all know that christians think that god set off the very first thing that started it all.

but what do atheist think started the whole fucking thing?

Can being come from non-being? Can existence derive from non-existence? Can there be nothing? Is it possible for nothing to exist? If the universe derives from a previous state is it in fact a continuation? Could the universe exist because there cannot be 'nothing'?

[---Beany---]

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That doesn't fit with my message. We know that, with chickens and eggs, one can't exist without the other. But with consciousness and the physical universe, one may exist without the other.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I don't see why it's so hard to consider that everything is the imagination of consciousness.

They don't have a view. I personally subscribe to the faith that it has always been, but it's just that: a faith.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

My theory is the egg. When you think about evolution, the modern day chicken cam from an evolveng ancectors.(I can't spell)

[ChickenOfDoom]

Why does the universe have to have a beginning? If it is infinite in all other dimensions, why must it be finite in time?

I believe that while the universe changes over 'time', there is no set starting point.

I have a theory, however, that somewhere out there, there may be an equal amount of antimatter than matter. It's plausible that somehow a beginning nothing became this, just as 0=0 can become 5 + -5=0. It's just an idea, though- I don't have any basis for it whatsoever, nor do I 'believe' it.

i say life=probability

mainly from reading the hitch hiker guide to the galaxy book

my theory is that a bunch of shit got smushed together making a blob (earth)then maybe milliong even billions of years later under the right circumstances a single cell organism emerged then multiplied etc etc then certain animals and plants were created by the cell merging with certain minerals/elements under the right circumstances in diffrent regions thus making diffrent species

hell if i know

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

when most of us can hardly balance a checkbook?

I balanced mine for about 30 seconds once...

But then the dog bumped the table.



imperfectcircle, all the ekpyrotic universe model does, is move the (excuse the pun) "timetable" back a few infinities. It really answers nothing, even if it were true.

quote:Originally posted by jimany:

My theory is the egg. When you think about evolution, the modern day chicken cam from an evolveng ancectors.(I can't spell)

I vote for the chicken because God said that he created the birds and commanded to be fruitful and do math.

[Hexadecimal]

Probably the egg. The offspring would have new mutations, present in both embryonic and adult stages, setting it as a chicken apart from whatever the last parent species of chickens is.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Probably the egg. The offspring would have new mutations, present in both embryonic and adult stages, setting it as a chicken apart from whatever the last parent species of chickens is.

Exactly...

Except, speciation is a process of gradual change, therefore offspring cannot be of a different species than parent, though it certainly can possess new mutations that, over time, will develop into a species different from the parent of the egg in question.

from an evolutionary perspective, the hard-shelled egg has been around much longer than the chicken.

from a common sense perspective, eggs are necessary for the existence of chickens... but since they are not the only animals to lay hard-shelled eggs, chickens are not necessary for the existence of eggs.

therefore, the egg was first.

VERY simple answer to ALL of this!

Ignorance = Bliss

well how bout neither one of them came first, how about a species of animal gradually evolved from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, allowing whatever animal to slowly change and eventually allow for the laying of eggs. im tired i dont think i explained well.

[This message has been edited by Nobuttsex4u (edited 06-10-2005).]

We don't have the understanding to know yet. Does that mean we should chuck it all up to some supreme being? If it makes you feel secure, then why not?

[sift]

Try thinking for a sec that if nothing existed what would be there.......... just try to picture it.......would it be all white??? no white doesnt exist. what about just black emptiness?nope black doesnt exist either. neither does emptiness