You start with questions. Are you looking for answers or do you only want
to preach. If the latter, have at it to your heart's content. If the 
former, though
this may be "off-topic", I and probably others may be able to suggest 
answers--
or maybe more questions. :)

David


Darren New wrote:
> What is it with the creationists who as "do you believe nothing came 
> from something?"
> 
> Why do they think there's evidence the universe ever didn't exist?
> 
> Often creationists will say "matter can neither be created nor 
> destroyed, hence God must have created it."
> 
> If you don't accept that, but if you instead think there are natural 
> situations under which matter can be created, then there's no need for 
> God to answer the question "can everything come from nothing".
> 
> If you *do* accept that, then there's no reason to believe there was 
> ever "nothing" to start with.
> 
> Think about the Big Bang, and how we know about it. Stars are spreading 
> apart, and the farther away they are, the faster they're moving away. 
> Logically following back in time, that means all the stars were squished 
> together some billions of years in the past.
> 
> Now, if you believe the universe is closed (i.e., has enough matter that 
> there's a bounded amount of space), then this means that all matter was 
> squished into the minimum amount of space possible. If there were areas 
> where it couldn't be squished further, gravity would quickly iron them 
> out.  (Indeed, this is the cause for the interest in the details of the 
> variations of the background radiation - why is it irregular, if 
> everything started out uniformly?) It does *not* mean there was nothing. 
> Instead, it means there was *everything*.  The entire universe was 
> uniformly packed as absolutely chock full of matter as possible.
> 
> If you believe the universe is open (i.e., that space is flat and 
> infinite), then following back in time just means that everything comes 
> together into an infinitely large infinitely dense universe of matter 
> and energy. Actually quite 100% opposite of "nothing". This may seem 
> nonsensical unless you're used to dealing with infinitites, but if you 
> imagine stars coming closer together and there's always more stars to 
> replace the ones coming in from far away, it makes perfect sense, just 
> like there's the same number of even integers as there are integers.
> 
> In neither case does the Big Bang imply "nothing," any more than a 
> demolition of a building implies the rubble came out of "nothing." 
> There's no "common sense" reason to believe there was ever a time when 
> there was "nothing," and the very idea that there was "time" without 
> "something" is nonsensical. After all, if you're going to argue religion 
> based on the Big Bang, you ought to be accepting the rest of General 
> Relativity too. As far as I know, there's no scientific reason to 
> believe there was ever a time when there was "nothing" either.
> 
>

Post a reply to this message