Does the universe has a starting point?

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

On 15 Jan 2007 06:28:18 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
"Lieken" wrote in
.com:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

Where did Lovell say this? In what context?

Yes, if the universe were different the universe would be different. Did
you have a point here?

Lieken wrote:
All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL

nightbat wrote

Rich Corinthian Leather wrote:

Lieken wrote:

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."


Just because things happened to work out for our current universe to
exist as it does, doesn't imply a designer or creator. To say so is like
claiming that because the human eye absorbs light in a fashion conducive
to sight, that some "intelligence" developed it!

RCL


nightbat

It's true for it all boils down to cause and effect, for your
Mother and Daddy physically made you. So the eyes you got were cause
parents made and you are the effect. The physical observable Universe
however is the effect without natural known or explainable cause.

ponder on,
the nightbat

One fine day in alt.atheism, "Lieken" bloodied us
up with this:

This implies more than just a source of vast energy.

Don't look now, here comes the God of the Gaps...

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page.
Don’t be afraid. The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos. It is a
call for responsibility. -Lauren Becker

"Lieken" wrote in news:1168871297.853315.314410
@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy.

Actually the universe expands because there is not enough energy. Energy
gravitates. You are making the same type of error as the Aristotlean
philosophers before Galileo, who believed that things move only if a force
acts on them and stop moving if the force ceases.

Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

Your question is really why is the visible universe flat at large scales.
There are two current ideas. The more popular one is derived from quantum
field theory and is commonly known as the inflation hypothesis. Seems
somewhat ad hoc but does agree with current observations. More bizzare is
the so called Ekpyrotic scenario derived from M theory. This does explain
the flatness issue but as the whole string/brane theories are tenuous at
best it is very speculative. I suspect little progress will be made until a
good handle is obtained on dark matter and exactly what it is.

When phenomena X is unexplained, it is only attacked by making hypotheses
that are rigorously tested against the empirical observations. If you are
attempting to posit a supernatural entity as the cause of any unexplained
phenomena then I must point out that you are making the same error as the
primitive savage who proposed angry gods as the cause of thunderstorms. I
suggest you look up the term "argumentum ignorantium" and your error will
be apparent.

Klazmon.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:28:19 GMT, Free Lunch wrote:

So? Inventing a god as an explanation is no explanation at all.

No, God invented the universe, not vice versa.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

all the so called gods are nothing more than things made up by man.


--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"duke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:28:19 GMT, Free Lunch wrote:

So? Inventing a god as an explanation is no explanation at all.

No, God invented the universe, not vice versa.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

"duke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:28:19 GMT, Free Lunch wrote:

So? Inventing a god as an explanation is no explanation at all.

No, God invented the universe, not vice versa.

What evidence do you have a god invented the universe?


duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On 15 Jan 2007 06:28:18 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Lieken"
in
.com wrote:

All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the
1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though,
that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise.
Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean
50 billion stars-but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions
of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge
galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that
they are all in motion.

Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was
passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched,
indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a
galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an
expanding universe!

Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can
see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about
our past-and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have
started the process-a force powerful enough to overcome the immense
gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What
could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense
beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at
some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular
state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask
what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We
have to face the problem of a Beginning."-Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth
part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe
would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million
millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the
Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of
its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

Wow, so if the Universe were different then, well, it would be
different. My, it sure takes "foresight and intelligence" to work this
all out. Now please connect that observation with some powerful entity
that cares about human actions. For extra points show that how this
entity would care about my sex life.



--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"