For you islamophobes

[Peter Quill]

i don't believe in islam (BTW islam means peace)

Then why does your member title say "ENRAGED ISLAMIST"?

[Nadir Aminu]

i don't believe in islam (BTW islam means peace)

 

Why do you call yourself an extreme Islamist?

[Kurdanak]

Fret not! For I, Fox Fire am here to explain to you how the universe was created. 

~13.8 billion years ago, there was a thing called the singularity which had an infinite density that expanded, becoming the the known universe. What happened prior to this singularity is impossible to conclusively resolve because the laws of physics break down.

What we do know is that there is no evidence of God, thus no logical reason to believe that any particular person or people speaks for any supposed deity. The concept of Gods and specific religious practices runs through all of human history, has consistently evolved and is a perfect example of the unique abilities of the human brain to solve problems and find answers. 

 

The link you gave simply takes quotes from Quran and relates them to reality, a book that was designed to explain reality. Unfortunately, there is no logical reason to believe that Muhammad, and not myself, speaks for a God that exists outside our reality and comprehension.

o/ Prophet Fox Fire

[Abu Haddad]

i call my self enraged 

enraged because  i am angry at muslims around the world being oppressed

Edited October 22, 2015 by Abu Haddad

[Peter Quill]

Just beacuse we can't answer these questions, does not mean the answer is God.

Same with the opposite:

Just because we can't answer these questions, does not mean the answer is not God.

(BTW, I still believe in the Big Bang.)

[Nadir Aminu]

Same with the opposite:

Just because we can't answer these questions, does not mean the answer is not God.

(BTW, I still believe in the Big Bang.)

I believe God created science. So I would agree.

[Abu Haddad]

Same with the opposite:

Just because we can't answer these questions, does not mean the answer is not God.

(BTW, I still believe in the Big Bang.)

i agree with you here

god created bug bang

it said in the website

Edited October 22, 2015 by Abu Haddad

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm sorry for calling someone out on their bullshit.

 

How do you know it was bs when you didn't even click the link?

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Fox Fire]

All those who voted: "No, nothing will ever change me." (So far: Shadowstar1922, Dominique Fitzhein, Odin, Jodo)

 

Are close minded, irrational people, and you should make carful note of their names for any future discussions you may have with them.

Is this a joke? You're the one who is closed minded. I know quite a few Muslims in other games who I get along with great. The problem you have is that you shun everyone who isn't a Muslim and mass murdering people for a natural arbitrary instinct is disturbing to most people, so no shit, people don't like you. 

 

The singularity had an infinite density. This video is simply pondering a question using logic in 4 minutes that people have spent entire lifetimes attempting to explain with logic because it is a logical question. But even if philosophy assumes a God created the universe, the next question logic dictates is "who created God?" This is a paradox because logic is a linear concept. It matters not where we place the starting point because we can always ask what came before in an existence that isn't even explainable. 

It is highly debated without progress as conclusions only produce more questions because a logical the conclusion always results with another question.

 

But one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow. But the ultimate potentiation of every passion is always to will its own downfall, and so it is also the ultimate passion of the understanding to will the collision, although in one way or another the collision must become its downfall. This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=kuMoXUAaEr0C&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Wayne]

Same with the opposite:

Just because we can't answer these questions, does not mean the answer is not God.

(BTW, I still believe in the Big Bang.)

 

I agree, but if the answer ever is God, we might as well give up now.  I find it more awe inspiring that we are here due to chance, rather them some Grand Creator placing us here and providing us with everything we need.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Is this a joke? You're the one who is closed minded. I know quite a few Muslims in other games who I get along with great. The problem you have is that you shun everyone who isn't a Muslim and mass murdering people for a natural arbitrary instinct is disturbing to most people, so no shit, people don't like you. 

 

You don't know me at all, and from the looks of it, it will most likely stay that way, so keep your absurd opinions about me to yourself.

 

The singularity had an infinite density. This video is simply pondering a question using logic in 4 minutes that people have spent entire lifetimes attempting to explain with logic because it is a logical question. But even if philosophy assumes a God created the universe, the next question logic dictates is "who created God?" This is a paradox because logic is a linear concept. It matters not where we place the starting point because we can always ask what came before in an existence that isn't even explainable. 

It is highly debated without progress as conclusions only produce more questions because a logical the conclusion always results with another question.

 

The cause of the universe (God) has to be an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes.

 

What is an infinite regress of causes? (I'll give you an ice cream analogy.)

 

1) Say I want to purchase an ice cream and that I am at the head of a queue that stretches behind me for infinity.

 

2) Before I am allowed to purchase the Ice cream I have to ask the person behind me permission to do so.

 

3) Then the person behind me has to ask the person behind him/her for permission. 

 

4) And then that person has to ask the other person who is behind them to give me permission.

 

5) And this goes on for infinity.... will I ever be able to purchase my ice cream? The answer is simply no.

 

Similarly if the cause of the universe (God) was caused by something else, we have to ask what caused that other cause? And, what caused that other cause that caused that other cause, that caused that other cause which then caused our universe to come into existence? etc etc for infinity... and this is what's known as the "absurdity of the infinite regress of causes", if this was the case will our universe have ever been created? The answer again is no. So the cause of our universe must have always existed i.e it must not have had a cause.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I agree, but if the answer ever is God, we might as well give up now.  I find it more awe inspiring that we are here due to chance, rather them some Grand Creator placing us here and providing us with everything we need.

 

Just because you find it "awe inspiring", It does not make it true, and the fact that you want to "give up" (I'm thinking suicide) is rather concerning.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The only constant in the Universe/Existence is Chaos. It is from Chaos that all things came into being.

[Fox Fire]

The cause of the universe (God) has to be an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes.

 

 

No it does not. That is an example of your logic failing you. The example you gave is exactly what I'm talking about. The skeptic can always pose the question; "what caused this"? Because knowledge relies on the endless justifications of causes and there is no way to prove anything about what may or may not exist outside of our known existence, we cannot claim to have knowledge that an uncaused cause is the cause. 

 

EDIT: Let me put it this way: Even if we say that God created the universe and nothing created God, you are still left with the problem you're trying to solve, which is the spontaneousness of existence. You can claim that God is spontanious and created himself, but that is absolutely no different than going with Hawkings idea that the universe created itself. We can place the beginning point wherever we want because we simply have no justification for linear cause.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Apeman]

Time for a holy war

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Let me put it this way: Even if we say that God created the universe and nothing created God, you are still left with the problem you're trying to solve, which is the spontaneousness of existence. You can claim that God is spontanious and created himself, but that is absolutely no different than going with Hawkings idea that the universe created itself. We can place the beginning point wherever we want because we simply have no justification for linear cause.

 

God always existed, and thus never came into existence, so to ask "What caused God?" is absurd.

 

However, we know for a fact that the universe did not always exist and that it did come into existence so it must have had a cause and that cause had to have been an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of the initiate regress of causes.

 

What is an infinite regress of causes? (I'll give you an ice cream analogy.)

 

1) Say I want to purchase an ice cream and that I am at the head of a queue that stretches behind me for infinity.

 

2) Before I am allowed to purchase the Ice cream I have to ask the person behind me permission to do so.

 

3) Then the person behind me has to ask the person behind him/her for permission. 

 

4) And then that person has to ask the other person who is behind them to give me permission.

 

5) And this goes on for infinity.... will I ever be able to purchase my ice cream? The answer is simply no.

 

Similarly if the cause of the universe (God) was caused by something else, we have to ask what caused that other cause? And, what caused that other cause that caused that other cause, that caused that other cause which then caused our universe to come into existence? etc etc for infinity... and this is what's known as the "absurdity of the infinite regress of causes", if this was the case will our universe have ever been created? The answer again is no. So the cause of our universe must have always existed i.e it must not have had a cause.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Fox Fire]

God always existed, and thus never came into existence, so to ask "What caused God?" is absurd.

 

I say the universe always existed and never came into existence. Asking what created God is logical.

 

However, we know for a fact that the universe did not always exist and that it did come into existence so it must have had a cause and that causehad to have been an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of the initiate regress of causes.

 

No we do not. The laws of physics break down in a singularity to the point that there is no way of explaining any precise beginning. I'm inclined to believe Hawkings idea of black holes, singularities and the information paradox. As well as the idea that existence itself is a fractal like physical paradox of infinitely repeating information that is cyclical rather than linear, likely presenting itself in the form of endlessly repeating singularities (black holes). Thus resolving the infinite regress loop by simply accepting that paradox is the nature of existence and our linear nature as conscious beings is the only reason anyone insists on a linear existence. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I say the universe always existed and never came into existence. Asking what created God is logical.

 

No we do not. The laws of physics break down in a singularity to the point that there is no way of explaining any precise beginning. I'm inclined to believe Hawkings idea of black holes, singularities and the information paradox. As well as the idea that existence itself is a fractal like physical paradox of infinitely repeating information that is cyclical rather than linear, likely presenting itself in the form of endlessly repeating singularities (black holes). Thus resolving the infinite regress loop by simply accepting that paradox is the nature of existence and our linear nature as conscious beings is the only reason anyone insists on a linear existence. 

 

The universe did not always exist but came into existence 13.772 billion years ago and there is no scientist who denies this fact.

[Rozalia]

Don't believe the Demiurge, guy. He may have created the world but he a pale imitation of a real god. He has pretty good PR though I'll give him that, but you'd expect that from the originator of evil. 

[Fox Fire]

The universe did not always exist but came into existence 13.772 billion years ago and there is no scientist who denies this fact.

Every scientists will deny that fact on the grounds that science cannot explain the big bang at the point of the Plank Epoch but can only explain the big bang from the point that gravity separated from the universal singularity. There is no way to conclude that nothing existed prior to fragmentation because we cannot prove that the universe ever actually "didn't exist." 

This is a 2 dimensional demonstration of what I believe existence would "look" similar to, assuming we could actually observe and visually comprehend it:

Mandelbrot Fractal

With no beginning or end. 

 

This is an argument that neither of us can win and I've heard logical theist arguments far more educated and convincing than yours that have yet to convince me.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Greatnate]

I say the universe always existed and never came into existence. Asking what created God is logical.

 

No we do not. The laws of physics break down in a singularity to the point that there is no way of explaining any precise beginning. I'm inclined to believe Hawkings idea of black holes, singularities and the information paradox. As well as the idea that existence itself is a fractal like physical paradox of infinitely repeating information that is cyclical rather than linear, likely presenting itself in the form of endlessly repeating singularities (black holes). Thus resolving the infinite regress loop by simply accepting that paradox is the nature of existence and our linear nature as conscious beings is the only reason anyone insists on a linear existence. 

 

!@#$ that. We'll figure it out eventually, no need to wildly speculate.

[Fox Fire]

!@#$ that. We'll figure it out eventually, no need to wildly speculate.

No we wont, because you can't explain "happenings" prior to time itself. We rely on time to explain the "happenings" of things. A basic rule of physics. Time only exists because space is expanding. This is also why time is linear and flows in one direction. If space is not expanding time does not exist, thus theoretically, if space is shrinking, time flows backwards. 

Once you reach the point where all known "things" are unified into one being, time does not exist and you cannot explain how or why anything happened prior to time as it's not even comprehensible to the time reliant, human mind. 

We may be the smartest things we know of, but that doesn't mean we can explain everything. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

“Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators (of themselves)? Or did they create heavens and earth? Rather, they are not certain.†Quran 52:35-36

 

"1. The second law of thermodynamics

 

The concept of entropy was introduced to explain the direction of various processes that occur in the natural world. Entropy is a measure of how evenly energy is distributed in a system. For example, heat always flows from a body of a higher temperature or energy (low entropy) to one of a lower temperature or energy (high entropy). Take the following illustration of a container with gas,

 

 

when the partition is removed, the gas in one end of the container will spread to the whole of the container, going from a state of low entropy (higher temperature or energy) to high entropy (lower temperature or energy).

 

Hence, according to the second law of thermodynamics, processes in a closed system tend towards higher entropy, as their energy is being used.

 

Applying the second law of thermodynamics to the universe we will conclude that it must have began to exist. Since the universe is a closed system, with enough time the universe will suffer a heat death or thermodynamic equilibrium. When systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, they cannot transfer energy. This is because entropy can only increase over time. Therefore, as the universe continues to expand it will eventually become cold and dead. However this raises a question, if the universe never began to exist it would imply that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. If this is true then why isn’t the universe already in a state of heat death? This strongly suggests that the universe must have had a beginning, because if it didn’t it would imply that it has existed for an infinite amount of time, which would mean that it should already have suffered a heat death. Since it hasn’t suffered a heat death, it strongly indicates that the universe is finite, meaning it began to exist.

 

2. The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

 

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

 

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

 

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.â€[2]

 

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

 

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

 

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.â€[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

 

3. Astrophysical evidence

 

The ‘Big Bang’ is the prevailing theory in cosmology. It was first formulated by the aid of some observations made by an American Astronomer called Edwin Hubble. While Hubble was trying to understand the size of the universe, he observed immensely luminous stars called Cepheid Variables and noticed something peculiar. He observed that some of these stars were further away than initially anticipated, and that their colour was slightly changed, shifting towards red, something now known as red-shift. From Hubble’s observations we were able conclude that everything seems to be moving away from each other, in other words the universe is effectively expanding. As time moves on the universe continues to expand, but if time is reversed, the theory is that everything starts to coalesce and come together. Coupled with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the radiation uniformly filling the observable universe, the idea of the ‘Big Bang’ was born. In other words the universe began at a cataclysmic event which created space-time and all matter in the universe. The physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.â€[4]

 

Although our understanding of what happened 10^-43 seconds after the ‘Big Bang’ is highly speculative, astrophysicists now concede little doubt that this universe in which we live is the aftermath of the emergence and expansion of space-time, which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago. John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, summarises the importance of ‘Big Bang’ cosmology,

 

“…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.â€[5]

 

Thus the ‘Big Bang’ model describes our universe as having a beginning a finite time ago. As Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes,

 

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.â€[6]

 

Other models have been proposed to try and explain away the obvious metaphysical questions that arise from a finite universe, for instance P.C.W. Davies questions,

 

“What caused the big bang? . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don’t have too much choice. Either…something outside of the physical world…or…an event without a cause.â€[7]

 

These models include the oscillating and vacuum fluctuation models. These models however still have principles that necessitate a beginning to the universe, in other words they are non-infinitely extendable into the past. Take the oscillating model as an example, this model maintains that if the gravitational pull of the mass of the universe was able to surmount the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be changed into a cosmic contraction or ‘Big Crunch’, and then into a new expansion, with the process continuing ad infinitum. However, there are a few issues with this model,

 

1. Firstly there is nothing available in modern physics that would allow a universe that is collapsing to spring back into a new expanding universe.

 

2. Secondly the mean mass density of the universe, derived from observational evidence, has shown that it is not enough to develop the required gravitational force to stop and reverse the expansion of the universe.

 

3. Thirdly, the second law of thermodynamics (as discussed above) implies the finitude of the universe. According to the oscillation model, the entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle of the various oscillations of expansion, crunch and expansion. This has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations. Therefore the thermodynamic property of this model implies a beginning, as the universe that we exist in has not suffered a heat death, or thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

Since we have presented good evidence that the universe began to exist; we can say that it had to have a cause for it's existence."

 

[source] and References:

 

[2] David Hilbert. On the Infinite, in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, page151.
[3] Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html)
[4] P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,†in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pages 78–79.
[5] John Gribbin, In the Beginning: The Birth of the Living Universe (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1993), page 19.
[6] Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universe. Hill and Wang. 2006, page 176.
[7] Paul Davies, “The Birth of the Cosmos,†in God, Cosmos, Nature and Creativity, ed. Jill Gready (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1995), pages. 8-9.

[Nadir Aminu]

Ibrahim, no red text?

[Ishmael]

There are things we don't know about. One of those things is exactly how or if the universe was created (we know about the big bang, but we don't know what caused the big bang).

 

However, just because we don't know the answer to this question does not mean that we can say God did it. There is no more positive evidence that God created the universe than that a unicorn created the universe. We simply do not know.