There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[miguel]

Interesting. I feel the same.
I'd love to hear from people here that support Hawkins "nothing" theory.

[Khris]

Edit:
Hawking.
The other guy is called Dawkins.

As far as I understand the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't include what happened at time = 0, just immediately afterwards. According to Wikipedia, it describes the early development of the universe. It's not a hypothesis, it's a scientific theory, which means it explains observed facts and makes accurate predictions, and it can be tested and verified and has actually passed those tests.
The notion that "nothing exploded into the universe" is not part of the Big Bang Theory afaik, just like abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution.

The problem with deism is that it boils down to a huge argument from ignorance ("I can't think of another reason therefore god"). The notion that a god started the universe is useless and intellectually unsatisfying because it doesn't explain anything. An explanation is something like "the window is broken because I smashed it with a hammer". In contrast, stating that an undetectable, magic force smashed the window is not an explanation, because it just moves the mystery somewhere else.

Edit:
If you believe physicists like Laurence Krauss, the total energy of the universe is actually zero. In my book, this is a pretty strong indication of the universe occurring by natural processes.

[miguel]

Edit:
Hawking.
The other guy is called Dawkins.

Thanks.

Khris, regarding the questions I raised I did not consider god into the equation.
All I asked was pretty simple.
I took the Big Bang theory as a start and since scientists can't go beyond that 0 period and because they consider it "the zero period" in time, then it is safe to say that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

[Khris]

No, because I already disagree with the "before" part.
But you asked whether I'm comfortable with our limited knowledge on the origin of everything. Actually: no. Still no reason to just make stuff up though.
(Why are you bringing this up? I assumed you consider this an argument for deism.)

[miguel]

You didn't disagree, you kind of told me how far the BigBang theory goes/starts. You actually prefer to not consider a "before".
I start to conclude that not considering equals nothing.

Still no reason to just make stuff up though.

This was unnecessary.

Why are you bringing this up?

Because I want to know how non religious deal with the possibility of nothing. I am not bringing god to the subject, please.

Edit: Okay, this last phrase didn't sound right, but can we discuss this without you assuming that I am trying to convince you of anything?

[Atelier]

It is both impossible to predict what happened before the Big Bang, and meaningless to talk about it anyway; at the singularity, the laws of physics did not apply, meaning anything that happened is inconsequential and had absolutely no effect on how our universe is today. So it can be taken completely out of the equation. miguel, that is why most people say there was nothing before the Big Bang.

[miguel]

Atelier, interesting. Actually it's not.
It fails to fill my thirst for knowledge about the beginning of the universe. I still want to know more, even if you (most people) tell me that it is irrelevant.
It also kind of chains people into the belief that only things where the laws of physics can apply do matter/ are relevant.
I am not satisfied with this explanation at all. I think men and women are much more than apples falling on the head.

[Khris]

Now here's something we can talk about: you think that we are more than just molecules, correct? Why?

[Atelier]

I think men and women are much more than apples falling on the head.

Why would humans be independent from the laws of physics? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

[Stupot]

Three posts since I wrote this.

It is both impossible to predict what happened before the Big Bang, and meaningless to talk about it anyway; at the singularity, the laws of physics did not apply, meaning anything that happened is inconsequential and had absolutely no effect on how our universe is today. So it can be taken completely out of the equation. miguel, that is why most people say there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I agree that it is (currently, and probably eternally) impossible to predict what happened before the big bang, if indeed there was a 'before'.  But I don't think it is meaningless to talk about it.  The laws of physics ALWAYS apply.  That's why they are laws. If there is a mismatch between 'our' laws and the 'actual' laws, then we need to make amendments, even if that amendment is 'utter immeasurable chaos'.  but lets at least keep talking about it just in case someone does think of a solution, even if that involves writing off everything we think we know about maths and physics and starting from a totally new model.  We should ALWAYS keep asking.

[miguel]

Now here's something we can talk about: you think that we are more than just molecules, correct? Why?

Now, Khris, this is not how it works. First you answer my questions.
How do you deal with the possibility of nothing?

Why would humans be independent from the laws of physics? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Well, I imagine that in the grand scale of cosmos, planet Earth is less than a grain of dust. And just like what happens to sub-atomic molecules where laws of physics do not apply, there is the possibility that humans and our planet escape the same laws of physics considering the same quantum principle.

[Khris]

...yeah.
I don't understand the question. How do I deal with it? Like I said, "before the Big Bang" is not defined. I deal with it the same way I deal with the result of 1 divided by 0: not defined. If you asked me "what was there 14 billion years ago, at the place where there's now the universe", it's the same thing: not defined. It's like asking "where were you 10 months before your were born?"
I guess the most reasonable answer would be "in a state of non-existence".

Regarding your "earth is small in relation, so the laws of physics don't apply": that's nonsense. Subatomic particles don't follow Newton's laws of motion, but they still follow the laws of physics.

[Atelier]

Well, I imagine that in the grand scale of cosmos, planet Earth is less than a grain of dust. And just like what happens to sub-atomic molecules where laws of physics do not apply, there is the possibility that humans and our planet escape the same laws of physics considering the same quantum principle.

So, because the Earth is small relative to the universe, and because particles are small relative to us, and they're not affected by physics (which is just ridiculous anyway), one can extrapolate that to the Earth not being subject to the laws of physics? By that logic, any arbitrary planet or star would also be removed from physical laws, because they are all tiny compared to the universe.

[Stupot]

It's like asking "where were you 10 months before your were born?"
I guess the most reasonable answer would be "in a state of non-existence".

Interesting analogy, but the thing with this is that prior to the existence of the foetus, the ingredients for his formation are still there. 10 months before I was born, I didn't exist as an entity called 'Stupot' yet but bits of my DNA were being formed inside my parents' reproductive organs, which in turn was formed from the various molecules from the elements and substances that make up DNA. A generation before that, the exact same process formed my parents, and their parents before them. As far as my existence is concerned, time began on the night of my conception, And if I didn't have a mind such as we humans are gifted with I might have assumed that nothing ever had come before me.

So why can't the same be said of the universe?  Sure, the big bang gave birth to all the matter known as the entity called 'our universe', but who's to say that it wasn't just one in a long line of generational big bangs.  Perhaps on a cosmic level, we humans just aren't quite gifted enough to be able to see what came before us.

[kaput]

I really can't help myself... Someone has to do it...

I guess you can say we all came from a... Big bang *Duh-dum-dum-tsh*

On topic - I have to agree with Stupot, here.

[Khris]

I was talking about the personality, the product of the brain we call "I". This clearly doesn't exist before the conception, and not for several weeks (?) afterwards. The molecules are all around somewhere, sure. But yeah, it wasn't a very good analogy, because the question is whether it makes sense to say that my consciousness is something that exists (as opposed to being a property of a living brain).

[Scarab]

- Quantum stuff... how big is planet Earth in the cosmos? Can we relate our size in the cosmos to the size required to experience quantum effects as studied today on sub-atomic levels? If so, is it possible that we (the planet) can simply shift position, disappear and reappear on a different location? Can it happen without us being aware? Can it happen, period?

I don't think it's possible for that to happen. As far as I understand, the differences in the way the macro-scale world and the micro-scale world work is not to do with the size difference from our perspective, it's to do with the number of particles and interactions between them. In large systems, there are many dynamic sub-systems which are all interacting with each other, observing each other, which is not the case for the microscopic scale.

- The fact that the outcome of quantum experiences is different IF we are "looking" at it or not, does it raises the question: If planet Earth doesn't change position (we watch the skies since the Sumerian, at least) as it was never reported so, is something watching us or not watching us?

The observer effect isn't talking about whether or not a process is being perceived by conscious being, it's about particle interaction. If we want to observe an electron visually for instance, we have to bounce at least one photon off it. To my understanding, this is what 'collapses' the wave-particle duality of the electron, and causes it to change into a non-quantum state (one place at one time, etc.).
The photon later ending up in an instrument or someone's eye is of course important for us to know about it, but that is not the observation which caused the change.

This is an interesting talk on the topic of why large objects don't behave like quantum particles. He and his team managed to make a small, but macroscopic (approximately 60 micrometers long) wafer of silicon inhabit two states of vibration simultaneously, just like a quantum particle. This is made possibly by removing all the external forces which are acting as observers to the wafer.

He speculates how, in theory, the concept might scale to larger objects, but the fact that for this to occur for the wafer required a vacuum, completely without light, and had to be cooled to a hundredth of a degree above absolute zero, suggests that these conditions would be unattainable for anything significantly larger (which ties into your first question).

[Cyrus]

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed over unfounded and superstitious beliefs.

Cough. Cough. There is a treatment for a genetic disorder, and LGBT groups oppose it because - oh my God! - this may turn the girl heterosexual instead of lesbian. Would it be better to let the girl live with the disorder, instead?

(sorry for digging up an old reply, btw)

[Khris]

What exactly is your point? And are you comparing a group's fundamental doctrine to the personal opinion of a few members of another group?

[dactylopus]

What I hate about religion is not jesus or the bible, what I hate is how religious people remain willfully ignorant, and how they get people killed over unfounded and superstitious beliefs.

Cough. Cough. There is a treatment for a genetic disorder, and LGBT groups oppose it because - oh my God! - this may turn the girl heterosexual instead of lesbian. Would it be better to let the girl live with the disorder, instead?

(sorry for digging up an old reply, btw)

I bet they can genetically engineer a 'cure' for heterosexuality as well.