[Tynan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

The biggest problem with the "it just happened" hypothesis is that it conflicts with the law of conservation of energy. If you can provide me with any evidence that energy can just appear magically out of 'nowhere" then I'll grant your theory a little more weight.

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Quantum physics actually describes that. I'm no physicist but a couple of them succeeded in creating matter from light.

Fred Alan Wolf also describes this in his book Taking the Quantum Leap, whereby energy/matter can appear from, well, nothing. I have the book but, frankly, can't get through. Hawking apparently describes this process in one or more of his books as well.

I don't understand it either...

Just FYI, creating matter from light does not break conservation laws. Light is energy and can be transmuted into matter according to Einstein's equation e=mc^2. It's the reverse of the principle which drives nuclear weapons and reactors.

As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

First of all I'm never dissed the big bang hypothesis and I disagree with people who reject it out of hand. Anyway, randomness is coincidence. The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe. Saying that "it just happened" takes a leap of faith.

The life forms to follow the laws. Not the other way around.

Also note that there are many modern physics theories that posit multiple universes. Under this model, most universes are empty of life. We think ours is perfect for it because it just happens to be the one that we are in. But it's not that improbable because there is either a very large number or an infinite number of universes.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible). (Some NDEs also have verifiable features, although it they are contested by some and I don't want to go over all the arguments but it is worth noting). Anyhow, your conclusion is irrational ie that mind needs brain. You don't have enough evidence to make such a broad assumption.

These observations are much more easily explained as hallucinations than as verifiable experiences. If we are following Occam's Razor here, there is no reason to believe that consciousness can exist outside a brain.

Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.

Try to understand that the big bang posits a small beginning of spacetime. Not space. Time itself did not exist 'before' the big bang. The concept of 'before' the big bang is meaningless.

I realize that 'the universe just was' doesn't seem that much more satisfying than 'god just was'. I am not a physicist so I can't explain this more clearly. What I do know is that 'the universe just was' is a hell of a lot SIMPLER than the god hypothesis (any of its many variations). Once again, if we're following Occam's Razor, God is as unnecessary as the dragon in the garage.

Also note that the big bang theory is not a philosophical idea. It is an expression of mathematical models which have been developed to match our observations of our universe very precisely. If we take these models (which consist of an expanding spacetime universe governed by relativistic laws) and extrapolate them backwards, we find a point of infinite density and temperature and a universe of zero size about 13 billion years ago. At this point our models break down.

---------

Note a continuous Occam's Razor theme here. I'm saying that many beliefs are UNNECESSARY, not that they are provably wrong. They are not disprovable because they don't make real predictions. This means they contain no information. Better to forget them completely. They're just cluttering your brain.