1. Post #1
    Mr Kirill's Avatar
    January 2008
    329 Posts
    What world creation theories are there that are not based on any deity activity? It is very hard to believe there's an old bearded man in the skies that made everything, but it is also hard to explain why the world is as it is - why do atoms act like they do, why are organisms so complex yet so 'smart' to function properly and so on?

  2. Post #2
    Gold Member
    RichyZ's Avatar
    September 2007
    15,983 Posts
    big bang theory, look it up
    tl;dr for it, dense as fuck singularity expands forming planets and stars on the way

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    DeEz's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,878 Posts
    We don't know everything there is to know yet, that's why we have science.

  4. Post #4
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    why does it have to be "created". because then you'd have to have a creator.

    What about if the universe is said to be "uncreated".

    Edited:

    We don't know everything there is to know yet, that's why we have science.
    It's a question science will probably never be able to answer. Just like "what happens after you die".

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    The universe wasn't created. It's always existed in some form, and it exploded.

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,647 Posts
    why does it have to be "created". because then you'd have to have a creator.

    What about if the universe is said to be "uncreated".

    Edited:



    It's a question science will probably never be able to answer. Just like "what happens after you die".
    It will probably never be proven but science can atleast make theories.

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    It will probably never be proven but science can atleast make theories.
    Sure, doesn't have to be "scientific" though. Because it's all imagination.

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,647 Posts
    Sure, doesn't have to be "scientific" though. Because it's all imagination.
    It is science though, it's based on scientific facts and theories. They don't just make it up on the spot, it has to fit in with how all the different laws of physics work.

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    Murkrow's Avatar
    April 2005
    4,854 Posts
    At first, there was nothing. And then it exploded.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    It is science though, it's based on scientific facts and theories. They don't just make it up on the spot, it has to fit in with how all the different laws of physics work.
    Sure, but again, we're talking about imaginative things. You must understand that just because they are in a journal, they aren't set in stone.

    The Big Bang theory was imagined, and then scientific pieces were able to fit into the theory.

  11. Post #11
    Man Without Hat's Avatar
    September 2011
    969 Posts
    If I remember right, there's an anomaly in which basic matter is spontaneously formed (yes, from nothing). This allows the creation of (over a lot of time) large amounts of matter and anti-matter. When the two collide, there is a massive explosion.

    I'm probably talking shit though; but that's how I think the big bang happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    booster's Avatar
    July 2006
    21,091 Posts
    Star explodes and sends matter all over the place.

    A bunch of hot matter gather into one huge ball, heaviest matter the furthest in, and the lightest the furthest out. The Lithosphere was created

    Volcanic activity provided us with the necessities and gasses for an atmosphere, and with this the world slowly heated and created vapor and thus the hydrosphere was created.

    And with all those things combined + a stable ozon layer. We have our planet.

    This is shorted down version over how I think our planet was created.



    Oh wait, is this thread about the universe or our planet?

  13. Post #13
    Man Without Hat's Avatar
    September 2011
    969 Posts
    The universe

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    In all reality. From one person's own perspective, if they were the centre of their existence, why would they only exist in a small portion within the universe's existence.

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,647 Posts
    Sure, but again, we're talking about imaginative things. You must understand that just because they are in a journal, they aren't set in stone.

    The Big Bang theory was imagined, and then scientific pieces were able to fit into the theory.
    I know what you are trying to say, but most science isn't set in stone, it doesn't make it anyless scientific.

  16. Post #16
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    I know what you are trying to say, but most science isn't set in stone, it doesn't make it anyless scientific.
    I didn't say it made it any less scientific, I said it didn't make it any less imaginative.

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    squids_eye's Avatar
    July 2006
    5,647 Posts
    I didn't say it made it any less scientific, I said it didn't make it any less imaginative.
    Sure, doesn't have to be "scientific" though. Because it's all imagination.
    That sort of implied that you did.

  18. Post #18
    AgentBoomstick's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,723 Posts
    I'm stealing a bit of theory from Stephen Hawking here, but humans have a hard time thinking of things that don't have a beginning or an end. Everything in our lives begins or ends at some point, including our lives themselves. So when you try to tell someone that the world simply came into existence from nothing, it's hard to even imagine it. It goes against everything we've ever known or seen. You grow up seeing everything begin and end, so when you finally hear the theory that there was no "beginning" it's a good headache-inducer.

  19. Post #19
    joes33431's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,580 Posts
    In terms of Earth, the planet's base materials were around billions of years ago, in the stage which the Solar System was simply a collection of gas and dust called a solar nebula. Over time, hydrogen molecules in the center of this nebula continued to gain gravitational pull, compacting on each other until the point that enough heat was generated from the extreme pressure to begin a process called nuclear fusion. In nuclear fusion, hydrogen molecules collide at extreme speeds to create helium, which leads to the exertion of a large amount of energy such as heat and light, along with other forms of solar radiation. This became the Sun. Materials surrounding the sun collided and compacted to the point that their gravitational pulls were substantial enough to pull in surrounding bodies of matter, thus becoming planets.

    In terms of the universe, scientists have theorized that all matter in the universe was compacted into an extremely small space, called a singularity. This singularity expanded, over time becoming the universe we know today.

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

    In terms of organisms and their behavior, it is actually the result of millions of years of evolution over the scale of geological time.

    It began in the Precambrian Eon, in which the conditions on Earth were just right for the formation of amino acids and proteins. This led to the formation of archaea, a very basic and ancient bacteria which can live in extreme conditions. These original bacteria were anaerobic, meaning that they utilized chemicals other than oxygen to survive. These archaea eventually developed the ability to photosynthesize, or produce their own food from sunlight and carbon dioxide (the carbon dioxide was produced by gas being released from the earth's crust). Over time, the oxygen levels in the atmosphere steadily increased to the point that more advanced, single-celled eukaryotes* began to take form. From there, you have multicellular organisms coming into formation and evolving into the sea-bound invertebrates of the Paleozoic, the reptiles of the Mesozoic, and the mammals of the Cenozoic. One of the misconceptions is that these creatures actually changed directly from fish to reptiles to mammals, however it was moreover that a branch of species with basic reptilian and mammalian traits survived the mass extinctions which marked the ends of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.

    *Eukaryotes are organisms with nuclei to contain their RNA and DNA, as opposed to prokaryotes whom are single-cellular bacteria and archea with no membrane-bound DNA.

  20. Post #20
    Eudoxia's Avatar
    July 2009
    6,009 Posts
    The anthropic principle is kinda eeeehh but a good explanation as to why things are the way they are -- Because if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ponder why they are so different.

    It's dismissive, but whatever.

  21. Post #21
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,514 Posts
    The big bang is long-gone history. No need to go prove it, since we can't go back to a place where any big bang would occur.

    SO! How can we trigger a new big bang? We need an extremely hot and dense state for our Universe to be in.. hmm.. How in the fuck? Maybe like in Futurama, once the universe is 100% of dark matter which would be the end of time, it will glitch and go boom.

  22. Post #22
    The universe expands and gets eaten by black holes etc.

    New big bang etc.

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    If I remember right, there's an anomaly in which basic matter is spontaneously formed (yes, from nothing). This allows the creation of (over a lot of time) large amounts of matter and anti-matter. When the two collide, there is a massive explosion.

    I'm probably talking shit though; but that's how I think the big bang happened.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly
    One theory is that vacuums (and the rest of spacetime) are actually full of an absurdly large amount of energy, so it's not really 'nothing'.

    Edited:

    What world creation theories are there that are not based on any deity activity? It is very hard to believe there's an old bearded man in the skies that made everything, but it is also hard to explain why the world is as it is - why do atoms act like they do, why are organisms so complex yet so 'smart' to function properly and so on?
    It is extremely hard to explain, which is why there is no real thing such as scientific fact.
    There is 'this is the most likely answer, and will serve as a reasonable approximation until new evidence is discovered'.

    As opposed to "well.... god did it"

    Edited:

    Did you know that is the middle of the first millennium (~500 AD) it was heretical to take Genesis literally?

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    I'm stealing a bit of theory from Stephen Hawking here, but humans have a hard time thinking of things that don't have a beginning or an end. Everything in our lives begins or ends at some point, including our lives themselves. So when you try to tell someone that the world simply came into existence from nothing, it's hard to even imagine it. It goes against everything we've ever known or seen. You grow up seeing everything begin and end, so when you finally hear the theory that there was no "beginning" it's a good headache-inducer.

    Shouldn't really be a headache-inducer. It's more an exploration of imagination.

    You see, I think each of our existences have some significance to the workings of life itself.
    Individuality is key because we are far apart on road, although it may seem like we're not.

  25. Post #25
    Mr. Scorpio's Avatar
    May 2010
    11,109 Posts
    Shouldn't really be a headache-inducer. It's more an exploration of imagination.

    You see, I think each of our existences have some significance to the workings of life itself.
    Individuality is key because we are far apart on road, although it may seem like we're not.
    have you ever posted something that makes sense

    ever

  26. Post #26
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is outside our universe, if we could find that out we could probably find out how our universe came about.

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is outside our universe, if we could find that out we could probably find out how our universe came about.
    The only way we go beyond, is death.

  28. Post #28
    The anthropic principle is kinda eeeehh but a good explanation as to why things are the way they are -- Because if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ponder why they are so different.

    It's dismissive, but whatever.
    It's a better response to the fine tuning claim than to the question of how the universe came into being.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    carcarcargo's Avatar
    October 2007
    15,062 Posts
    The only way we go beyond, is death.
    Dying won't get you outside the universes boundaries, in fact it won't get you anywhere, your biological components will just disperse back into the system, likely along with whatever makes us conscious

  30. Post #30
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    Biologically no. I'm talking metaphorically.

  31. Post #31
    Fight until death, shoot until empty.

    November 2009
    15,476 Posts
    I believe in the thought of out of nothing, comes everything. That of which can explain anything. The facts on the matter are blurred because of time so no one knows for sure how it happened. Scientists can hypothesize about the subject, and have done some cool suff, and hope that we find evidence.

  32. Post #32
    Someone sneezed it into existance

  33. Post #33
    Gold Member
    No_0ne's Avatar
    October 2005
    3,099 Posts
    Nothing even a fraction as old as the universe exists without a cycle of renewal.

    I believe that the universe has always existed, but undergoes a cycle of collapsing on itself and exploding to form a new universe.

  34. Post #34
    Gold Member
    Arachnidus's Avatar
    July 2007
    7,544 Posts
    What world creation theories are there that are not based on any deity activity? It is very hard to believe there's an old bearded man in the skies that made everything, but it is also hard to explain why the world is as it is - why do atoms act like they do, why are organisms so complex yet so 'smart' to function properly and so on?
    There are countless theories regarding the creation and nature of the universe in both a scientific and vernacular context.

    We have a scientific theory behind the big bang, the increasing complexity and origin of life and the nature of atomic and subatomic particles.

    The fun part of science is, we don't know everything, and things change as our knowledge does. So this question of "what do atheists believe?" is whatever they have come to agree is a logical theory behind the specific topic.

  35. Post #35
    Capitalist Dog's Avatar
    September 2011
    119 Posts
    Science can be easily compared to religion.
    It is composed of theories and facts. One could say the Christian bible is also composed of theories and facts, or any other "holy" book.

  36. Post #36
    TheSporeGA's Avatar
    January 2010
    5,139 Posts
    The fact is:

    We don't know how the universe was created, and to be honest I don't care. It's here just get over it.

    It could be a god, the big bang, but I just don't know. It's as simple as that. There is not answer that you can get any proof of.

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    Science can be easily compared to religion.
    It is composed of theories and facts. One could say the Christian bible is also composed of theories and facts, or any other "holy" book.
    Yeah, but there was no proof of Jesus. Just because there's a Shroud of Turin doesn't mean he made water into wine.

    But on the other hand, I think the "holy".... books can be seen metaphorically.

    Edited:

    It's here just get over it.
    I'm trying, but it won't let me. Too big you see.

  38. Post #38
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Science can be easily compared to religion.
    It is composed of theories and facts. One could say the Christian bible is also composed of theories and facts, or any other "holy" book.
    Except Science tests those logical theories, the 'holy books' just preach theories.

  39. Post #39
    Dennab
    October 2009
    2,552 Posts
    At first, there was nothing. And then it exploded.
    I don't belive in God, but isn't this pretty much what the Bible says?

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    AK'z's Avatar
    January 2011
    29,707 Posts
    I don't belive in God, but isn't this pretty much what the Bible says?
    No. The bible is a story. Therefore it can only be interpreted in the metaphorical sense. Unless you want to start a cult and make out it's real.

    Oh wait... I'm 2000 years late with that idea.