: : : 1. The universe is created out of the blue.

: : 2. God is created out of the blue and he in turn creates the universe.

: : 3. Nothing gets created out of the blue. I.e. The 'family tree' of all objects goes on infinitely.

: : : : Number 2 is very similar to number 1. The only difference most religous people would claim would be that god is non-detectable by humans and is therefore not really in this universe with us. They would also argue that god controls most or all objects in the universe.

: : But if this god was created out of the blue, why can't we just forget him and accept number 1? If you're religous and you choose number 3, why can't you accept that god is not needed in the equation.

: : Pls focus specifically on one of these two questions in any response, thankyou.

: : LegendLength

: Recently, I had a conversation with a girl who mentioned that she believes time doesn't exist. Being the thinker that I am, this idea aroused my mind like nothing ever. And what was so weird about it was that this idea made sense. As an atheist, I have always accepted the Big Bang theory because it seems to make sense. Now I'll admit that I had an idea of what the Big Bang was but didn't know all the details. Obvioulsy, I don't accept the Creation theory. I'm not the smartest person on Earth. I don't claim to know everything. But since this new revelation of time not existing, I have really researched these two controversial theories more than ever as best as I can on the internet. And using my mind (being a freethinker allows me to do this), I've come to the conclusion that neither of these theories make any sense at all. I've been reading about them for weeks and weeks. I have not read any books on these theories because I'm assuming that the information I've read on the internet was sufficient enough for me to understand the theories without having to pour through tons of books only to basically read the same exact information masked by scientific and theological jargon. : I will attempt to prove that these theories are impossible. I will not babble on incoherently. I will try to be as clear and concise as I can. My dialect is pretty simple average everyday talk anyway. I tend to shy away from extravagant, wordy sentences unless I feel I need to go that route. If you can't follow what I'm saying then you have a problem and I suggest you fix that problem. : Okay, on with the show. There are two reasons the afformentioned theories just don't work. They are the non-existence of "nothing" and time.

: First reason: "nothing" doesn't exist. The Big Bang theory says that "nothing" existed before the event. Some kind of void existed that we can't possibly understand or even imagine because our minds are limited. Well, that's the first mistake. Our minds aren't limited. Sure, our minds die when we die but if we were immortal, then our minds would be unlimited. Just because we don't have any immortal humans existing today doesn't mean that it can't happen sometime in the future. There could just possibly be a future drug that can extend human life forever. Knowledge is not finite. Our brains aren't the file cabinet you think they are. There is no real "space" that knowledge is stored in. You don't run out of room to store knowledge. Let's say you learned everything you can. I know this sounds like a contradiction but what happens if you learn one more thing? Okay, so you forget many things throughout your life. That doesn't mean you lose that knowledge. Our minds are not limited. There's always something new to learn because knowledge is infinite. If we can't understand what "nothing" is today, it could be possible to understand it tomorrow. But, since the concept of "nothing" exists, I feel that we can understand the concept of a real "nothing" existing. You already have an idea what "nothing" is. Whether you envision total blackness or total whiteness, it's still your concept of "nothing". My concept of "nothing" could be a giant rabbit. Look, the point isn't what we use to symbolise "nothing", the point is that we can and do understand what the concept of "nothing" is. It's NOthing, the absence of anything, a void "universe". So why doesn't this "nothing" exist? Simple...if "nothing" existed, it would be something because of the fact that it would exist. If it exists, it's something. So "nothing" can not exist. Both, the Big Bang and Creation theories require a "nothing" that happened "before" their respective events. That alone should disprove the theories but it's not enough for most people so now I get to explain the...

: Second reason: time doesn't exist. Since "nothing" can't exist, time cant exist. If time can't exist then "nothing" can't exist. It's very simple. If the "nothing" existed, then time would have to exist within the "nothing". The Big Bang theory says this isn't so. It says that time and space were created as a result of the Big Bang. So...one common question is "What happened before the Big Bang?" Simple..."nothing". A complete void...then all of a sudden...BANG!!!! BUT, if this happened then think about 5 seconds before the Bang...5 minutes before the Bang...5 years before the Bang...5 billion years before the Bang. Of course nothing happened since it's "nothing" but time would have to exist within the "nothing" since you can actually think about 5 seconds of "nothing". If you could somehow be present before the Big Bang, you could actually count down the minutes and seconds until the Bang happened. The Big Bang theory says this isn't possible but it would be possible. It would be 5 uneventful seconds but seconds nontheless. Or minutes or hours, days, years et cetera. They would be uneventful measurements of time. That's all time really is: a measurement. The Earth goes around the sun once a year. That's what our time is based on. But the time I'm talking about, the time that would have to exist before the Big Bang can't exist. You see, if the "nothing" existed then time would have to exist within it, therefore making the "nothing" even more of a something. The Big Bang supposedly created everything yet here's two "things" that existed prior to the event.

: Ok, I've established that time and "nothing" can't exist so how's this disprove the Big Bang? Again, it's very simple if you really think about it. The Universe is EVERYTHING that exists. The Big Bang is said to have created the Universe. The Universe is one set. There aren't 2 sets consisting of a void universe and the Known Universe like most scientists think. The Universe is EVERYTHING that exists. I'm sounding like a broken record (record? what's that?) but I need to make sure I get this very important point across. Everything and anything that has ever or will ever exist(ed) must be inside the Universe. Since time and "nothing" exist before the Big Bang and since the Big Bang created the Universe, time and "nothing" exist outside the Universe. This is wrong. The Universe is EVERYTHING that exists. If time and "nothing" exist then they must exist within the Universe. They can't exist outside or before the creation of the Universe. So if "nothing" can't exist outside the Universe then what is the Universe expanding into? If "nothing" isn't beyond the Universe then what exactly is out there? I'll let you think about this for a couple minutes. When you're finished, read on.

: : Finished? Good, I was sick of waiting. :-) Ok, here's the answer. THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE AND ETERNAL. That's it. Very simple. Since the Universe is infinite and eternal then time and "nothing" can't exist. Since time and "nothing" can't exist then the Universe must be infinite and eternal. There is no other explaination. There can't be any other explaination. Since the Universe is infinite and eternal, then the Big Bang couldn't have created it. The Universe wasn't created...it always existed. The Universe won't end...it will always exist. There is evidence to support the expanding Universe. The galaxies are moving away from each other as if something caused them to (i.e. The Big Bang). I just disproved the Big Bang so what's causing the Universe to "expand"? Maybe some kind of bang did happen. If it did, it must've happened within the Universe. This is an area that I'm still unfamiliar with so I can't really comment too much about it but the fact remains...the galaxies are moving away from each other. Something caused it. God?

: I know what you're thinking...Wait a second, you haven't disproved Creation yet. Yes I have. It's very simple. Go back over everything I talked about and substitute Big Bang with Creation. Creation says the same thing. "Nothing" existed before then all of a sudden God decides to create the Universe. Since the Universe is EVERYTHING that exists, God (or any kind of Creator) must exist within the Universe. How can God create something that "he" must exist within? That's saying that "he" existed in the "nothing" which would really be something. If God is the answer to why the Universe exists then why can't we ask where God came from? We can and we do. All of us do at one time or another. It's what made some of us atheist or agnostic. Some will say that we can't understand God, that humans weren't meant to understand. Okay...then if we really don't know anything about God...then how do we know anything about God? "The Bible." Ha!! Sorry, no-can-do. There are thousands of religions. Chritianity isn't the right one. None of them are. Each and every religion feels their beliefs are the correct one. So the correct question is: If we don't really know anything about gods (and we don't), then how do we know anything about gods? : I don't have physical proof of the non-existence of the Big Bang and Creation theories. The proof lies within my mind. It can lie within yours too if you think about it.

I admire your tenacity in expressing your thoughts and feelings. I read your viewpoint, in its entirety, and honestly you reminded me of myself. I am also a deep thinker and quite involved with the study of astrophysics/cosmology and theology (specifically Christianity). However, I couldn't help but run into some points you had made without making some major qualifications...

The first premise I noticed was the foundation to your argument, and also the most in error. The premise of nothingness as you stated, as in a state of contingent existence is wrong. It may well be semantic to play the role of relating the opposite of something existing as to nothing existing, but this is not the case; a false dichotomy if you will. The act of nothing in 'existence' is a logical fallacy. Nothingness is not merely a state of zero energy or the absence of space/time continuum, it (if I can refer to the state of nothingness as "it") also is without the existence of time do to the following. Time is not a dimension, such as spatial dimensions are characteristic of. The existence of time requires the presence of matter; the act of measurement from one instant of being to another instant while maintaining the same matter. Matter and energy thus create their reciprocals, which are Time and Space. The reason matter gives forth to space is due to the existence of gravity. The gravitational field is space/time, and likewise there can be no gravitational field without matter, because matter is a manifestation of the field. The reason energy gives forth to time is due to one aspect, and this is velocity or rather motion. It is sometimes interesting to ponder the statement about the relationship of light and time in the following manor. Light travels at the 'speed' of time, and time travels at the speed of light. If one would imagine a given mass accelerating faster and faster, one would notice nothing really outside of normalcy so long as the velocity remained considerably below the velocity of light. However, if the object was accelerated, as to approach the speed of light, one would notice strange things happening. (from an outside reference frame) One, the length in the direction of motion would appear contracted. Second, the amount of contraction would correspond to an increase in apparent mass. Third, the object would emit photons that would be exponentially spaced further and further apart, thus would appear to dim. Forth, the light emitted from the object would become infinitely red shifted (dopplar effect), so long as the velocity of the object remained in an accelerating motion. And fifth, one would notice that the time onboard the object would dilate with respect to an outside frame of reference, "FOR". That is, the object in motion (say for example, .9999998c) would have time move slower than from a stationary observer.

Thus I can make the analogy of why light travels at its speed. Let me suggest for explanation that light actually travels (from its FOR) instantaneously from one end of the cosmos to the other, but it is because light travels on a fabric of spacetime that it travels at the speed of time. IOW, light doesn't need to travel 186,000 miles @ second, but because it is traveling on a gravitational induced fabric from matter, it travels at the given velocity. Now, that is why it is common to state that lightspeed is the benchmark of time. Because nothing else can travel faster than light, thus time is governed by energy/motion.

The reason being is due to our ever familiar equation involving relativity. The theories of special and general relativity are by far among the most verified and tested laws of physics. One cannot negate the validity of GR & SR for the sake of coming to an origin argument. One has to observe the laws that are currently known before endeavoring on a brainstorm that hopes to have any sense of relevancy or reality in its conclusion. It is fun to explore the mind, but also respect its limitations. You may disagree with me, and that is fine. I believe that it is possible to learn forever, but as to what "can" be learned gets further from our grasp. I firmly believe that mankind is not omniscient, nor omnipotent. We live finite lives and thus remain finite in knowledge, albeit we learn without bounds.

I hope this has helped and possibly spurned some questions. If the case, cool! Would enjoy a conversation...

God bless,

-nåte

• Re: empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise... - King_Johnny/">King Johnny - February 25, 1999 - 14:28 UTC
• Re: empirical evidence seems to suggest otherwise... - Jbrotherton/">Jbrotherton - March 14, 1999 - 19:40 UTC