Why do atheist's fear God?

[stu]

1. Here is the sentence before your sentence and your sentence together... I have bolded and underlined the s to give your sentence proper context.

"As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Oh come on, seriously. The context is cringingly obvious. Just ask yourself, which has to come first, spontaneous creation or a universe?
A universe (or universes/multiverse) must necessarily come AFTER their spontaneous creation. Right?

The context is, this universe (or multiverse) is subject to the laws of gravity and quantum theory which allow it to appear spontaneously from nothing and is why the universe exists, why we exist.

Now given the fact you are making the argument that gravity can create a universe...in a non multiverse environment.... please give us the science and links supporting your conjecture.

I will give you a hint... one guy made the argument decades ago and famous scientists have been knocking it down ever since. Because as Hawking has stated you need 3 things to make a universe... it not nothing...
Hawkings top down cosmology speculates gravity molds the histories of the universe an observer would be in... but it really does not make a universe.

I never said gravity can create a universe. How, or I should say why the hell, do you make shit like that up. What I actually said is written down. It's not what you make up in your head.

There is a universe. It is not scientifically verified that there are universes/multiverse. But the universe is a fact.
The laws of physics allow spontaneous creation of a universe (or universes).
Remember there is a universe!
Now try joining the dots from there instead of adding your own crazy crap.

Spontaneous creation as per the laws of physics.
Universe as a fact.
Gravity all over it, everywhere, wherever there is energy, from singularities to big bang, to now, shaping, forming affecting every environment.

Gravity. Your universal so called 'fine Tuner'.

 

[jem]

I realize you are probably the 3rd to 5th paid troll content provider using the name Stu.
But do a search before you declare your handle never said something.
You said gravity can create a universe many times...

here are some quotes on just the first page of my search... probably written by the previous troll Stu. But, I do not always know when the new Stu takes over because you no longer have distinct styles... The early Stu did. But, whichever Stu you are, you really need to stop lying about science and facts...

here are some of examples showing your lie...

1. The cause of a universe to start, form and evolve, (the creator) indeed not called by the name God or Allah or whatever, but called by its real name, Gravity.

2. Already said, if science has found evidence of a creator, then that creator is gravity.

3. But then of course Gravity is a Creator. Natural too.

4. I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe... (I leave out the part of the sentence where you lie about what I stated at the time.)

5. Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill.

this is just from the first page... and there are more...

I never said gravity can create a universe. How, or I should say why the hell, do you make shit like that up. What I actually said is written down. It's not what you make up in your head.

.

 

[stu]

You'll literally take everything out of context to make a pathetic idiotic conclusion, won't you. It's no wonder you can hardly understand a damn thing.

Those sentences clearly corresponded Gravity (which is real... you know that much don't you?) as a capital c Creator, to your God (which isn't real... of course you don't know that) which you're always trying to insinuate with a capital c Creator.

In that context gravity certainly is the Creator of the universe.

In just about every thread I waste my time responding to you, I've referred to a universe creating itself from nothing, as Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Sean M. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss etc etc describe.

Still I suppose I should be flattered in some way that you do the same out of context mash up with my sentences, as you do with Hawking's.

I realize you are probably the 3rd to 5th paid troll content provider using the name Stu.
But do a search before you declare your handle never said something.
You said gravity can create a universe many times...

here are some quotes on just the first page of my search... probably written by the previous troll Stu. But, I do not always know when the new Stu takes over because you no longer have distinct styles... The early Stu did. But, whichever Stu you are, you really need to stop lying about science and facts...

here are some of examples showing your lie...

1. The cause of a universe to start, form and evolve, (the creator) indeed not called by the name God or Allah or whatever, but called by its real name, Gravity.

2. Already said, if science has found evidence of a creator, then that creator is gravity.

3. But then of course Gravity is a Creator. Natural too.

4. I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe... (I leave out the part of the sentence where you lie about what I stated at the time.)

5. Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill.

this is just from the first page... and there are more...

 

[Zero Sum]

Gravity is the WEAKEST of the "Four Fundamental Interactions".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Gravitation
"Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. The weakness of gravity can easily be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth."


The Four Fundamental Interactions are:
gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear.

Electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear have NEVER been unified with GRAVITATIONAL force.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

"A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics."


This topic also begs the questions:

If gravity is a "fine tuner", then who or what causes gravity to BE a "fine tuner"?

If gravity is a "fine tuner", then what is gravity's purpose in BEING a "fine tuner"?

If gravity is a "fine tuner", then is gravity itself an INTELLIGENT LIVING ENTITY?

If gravity is an INTELLIGENT LIVING "fine tuner", then again what is this living entity's purpose in BEING a "fine tuner"?

Assuming that the "Big Bang" is real (which hasn't been proven), did gravity exist before the "Big Bang"?

Assuming that the "Big Bang" is real (which hasn't been proven), how did gravity exist before the "Big Bang"?

Is gravity a function of matter and energy (meaning that matter and energy PRODUCE gravity), or does gravity EXIST ALL BY ITSELF?

If gravity exists all by itself, then where did gravity itself come from?

Gravity has the POWER and ability to do work (perform actions), how does gravity produce this POWER? Where does gravity's POWER come from?

What is gravity's purpose in EXISTING AT ALL?

Can there be a separate force or INTELLIGENCE directing gravity to do the things that gravity does?

 

[jem]

1. yeah sure... that is rich bullshit. all to avoid admitting you said gravity could create the universe.

2. your logic is off the wall. corresponded x ___ to x - therefore Gravity changes from a force to a Creator. you were not making analogies, you are just covering up for being caught lying or not knowing what the previous stu wrote.



2. Creating itself from nothing is an interesting speculation. but, currently almost everyone says our universe (the only one we have or can test for) came from a big bang...

recently confirmed microwave background radiation pretty much confirmed the big bang for scientists.

the big bang was dense... our universe did not come from nothing.

therefore anything your are speaking of about universes from nothing is therefore speculation.

maybe its good speculation but it is speculation.

You'll literally take everything out of context to make a pathetic idiotic conclusion, won't you. It's no wonder you can hardly understand a damn thing.

Those sentences clearly corresponded Gravity (which is real... you know that much don't you?) as a capital c Creator, to your God (which isn't real... of course you don't know that) which you're always trying to insinuate with a capital c Creator.

In that context gravity certainly is the Creator of the universe.

In just about every thread I waste my time responding to you, I've referred to a universe creating itself from nothing, as Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Sean M. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss etc etc describe.

Still I suppose I should be flattered in some way that you do the same out of context mash up with my sentences, as you do with Hawking's.

 

[stu]

Gravity is the WEAKEST of the "Four Fundamental Interactions".

...yet strong enough to form galaxies

This topic also begs the questions:

If gravity is a "fine tuner", then who or what causes gravity to BE a "fine tuner"?

Which in turn begs the question
(whilst remembering gravity does actually exist) If God even could be a "fine tuner", then who or what causes God to BE a "fine tuner"?
etc
etc

2. your logic is off the wall. corresponded x ___ to x - therefore Gravity changes from a force to a Creator. you were not making analogies, you are just covering up for being caught lying or not knowing what the previous stu wrote.

So you're trying to say a force can't create anything and you really think that's an argument!?

If your imaginary God Tuner thing is a Creator, Gravity is certainly also in a category of Creator. It's plain to see that is the context of what was being said.

2. Creating itself from nothing is an interesting speculation. but, currently almost everyone says our universe (the only one we have or can test for) came from a big bang...

You think posting a pic of MBR makes you look scientific?

Big Bang was the universe. Laws of physics allows a universe - from nothing.

You're flapping around again clutching at any old bullshit. All you're doing is making yourself sound ignorant, ridiculous and unintelligent. True to form.

 

[jem]

yes... it took a while but now your statement is getting more accurate.

I would say theorized "laws of physics" might allow a universe to bubble out of a previous universe... or really speculatively pop out of a vacuum as long as there was energy there already. Where the energy might come from is an interesting question. but lets be clear this is all speculation.

...yet strong enough to form galaxies

Big Bang was the universe. Laws of physics allows a universe - from nothing.

You're flapping around again clutching at any old bullshit. All you're doing is making yourself sound ignorant, ridiculous and unintelligent. True to form.

 

[Zero Sum]

...yet strong enough to form galaxies

You miss the point entirely about gravity being the WEAKEST of the "Four Fundamental Interactions".

Since gravity is the WEAKEST out of the four interactions, then how can gravity OVERPOWER the other three interactions and be a "fine tuner" of EVERYTHING? Gravity cannot overpower the other three interactions.

Gravity has an effect on a macro level, but gravity DOES NOT have an effect at the atomic or subatomic level (because gravity can't overpower the other three interactions), as shown by the FACT that gravity has NEVER been unified with the other three interactions. Unifying ALL FOUR Fundamental Interactions is what the "Theory of Eveything" is supposed to do, but the "Theory of Everything" remains UNSOLVED.

So how can gravity be a "fine tuner" of anything except objects on a macro level?
The answer is gravity CANNOT, as shown by the lack of a unifying "Theory of Everything".

Which in turn begs the question
(whilst remembering gravity does actually exist) If God even could be a "fine tuner", then who or what causes God to BE a "fine tuner"?
etc
etc

Again you miss the point entirely, I'll spell it out for you.

All the questions I asked were meant to be IMPOSSIBLE questions to answer.

The point being that, the NATURE of God is IMPOSSIBLE to answer, in the SAME WAY that the NATURE of the universe is IMPOSSIBLE to answer. That's why you didn't answer any of the questions, you just picked two questions to make rhetorical remarks about.

So you're trying to say a force can't create anything and you really think that's an argument!?

If your imaginary God Tuner thing is a Creator, Gravity is certainly also in a category of Creator. It's plain to see that is the context of what was being said.

So a force can create something out of nothing?

If there is NOTHING (no matter and no energy), how does the force itself exist to be able to create more matter and energy. This is another IMPOSSIBLE to answer question designed to show that the universe can't be FULLY KNOWN in the SAME WAY that God can't be FULLY KNOWN.

Big Bang was the universe.

The "Big Bang" theory has not been proven.

The theory sounds good, but sounding good isn't the same as being proven.

Laws of physics allows a universe - from nothing.

AGAIN...

If there is NOTHING (no matter and no energy), how do the Laws of physics themselves exist to be able to create more matter and energy. This is another IMPOSSIBLE to answer question designed to show that the universe can't be FULLY KNOWN in the SAME WAY that God can't be FULLY KNOWN.

 

[stu]

yes... it took a while but now your statement is getting more accurate.

Coming from you, that just means your next statement is going to be inaccurate.

I would say theorized "laws of physics" might allow a universe to bubble out of a previous universe... or really speculatively pop out of a vacuum as long as there was energy there already. Where the energy might come from is an interesting question. but lets be clear this is all speculation.

A state of nothing allows for borrowed energy.
And sure let's be clear. There's too much science that corresponds with the laws of physics and nature to call it 'all speculation'.

 

[stu]

You miss the point entirely about gravity being the WEAKEST of the "Four Fundamental Interactions".

Since when does one thing have to overpower another to have an effect on it?
Tiny alterations on tiny things by a weak force, sounds exactly like "fine-tuning".

Gravity has an effect on a macro level, but gravity DOES NOT have an effect at the atomic or subatomic level (because gravity can't overpower the other three interactions), as shown by the FACT that gravity has NEVER been unified with the other three interactions. Unifying ALL FOUR Fundamental Interactions is what the "Theory of Eveything" is supposed to do, but the "Theory of Everything" remains UNSOLVED.

It's not true to say gravity does not have an effect at the atomic or subatomic level. For example, the movement of a neutron bouncing away from an atom is observed to not be smooth due to the associated gravitational field.

Again you miss the point entirely, I'll spell it out for you.

All the questions I asked were meant to be IMPOSSIBLE questions to answer.

Rather you missed the point. Those questions you asked are irrelevant, pointless questions.

The point being that, the NATURE of God is IMPOSSIBLE to answer, in the SAME WAY that the NATURE of the universe is IMPOSSIBLE to answer. That's why you didn't answer any of the questions, you just picked two questions to make rhetorical remarks about.

Reality presents the contrary.
Enormous amounts of knowledge about the nature of the universe, from the largest to the smallest, is always being found and questions are constantly being answered. It's called science.

So a force can create something out of nothing?

If there is NOTHING (no matter and no energy), how does the force itself exist to be able to create more matter and energy. This is another IMPOSSIBLE to answer question designed to show that the universe can't be FULLY KNOWN in the SAME WAY that God can't be FULLY KNOWN.

Well, if you put all that negativity to one side and start with the Uncertainty Principle , work your way up, keeping within the laws of nature and physics, you discover it's not an impossible question to answer and something can come from nothing. Basically because, there is gravity!

The "Big Bang" theory has not been proven.

The theory sounds good, but sounding good isn't the same as being proven.

The theory of gravity sounds good too but isn't proven. So you could say gravity isn't the same as being proven.
But unfortunately for your argument, there is just too much scientific evidence to confirm both big bang and gravity are as good as proven.

Thankfully humanity is naturally far more curious than the can't be known God non-answer will ever satisfy.