Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
-
I do believe so! Case closed(for me)!
-
http://nogg.co/
And the merry go round... -
@gilles said:
who is the first, egg or chicken?
You know...in light of evolution I think the egg was first. Since birds evolved from dinosaurs and they laid eggs, it's clear who came first. If we take that further back in time and think in terms of living organism vs egg then it's clear that the "chicken" came first. Ealy primitive single celled and multicelular organisms esentially cloned themselves.
@pmiller said:
Still one of the best videos on the subject:
Bravo and thanks for that one Alan, How about this:
Youtube VideoVery good and interesting talk. Much better to discuss the conundrums of the Universe than that of an imagined god.
-
@mike lucey said:
The bottom line was that there was no time before the Big Bang, thus no cause, thus no God! I'm still not totally convinced but find it hard to argue with it.
Could you flesh that out a bit more for us who didn't see the program Mike?
It seems that based on Hawking's logic (I guess it was him making this argument?), there couldn't be a naturalistic'cause' but I'm not sure how it precludes a theistic cause (from a being who exists outside of time/space). It sounds like his argument proves the opposite of his conclusion. Was that explained at all in the program?
-Brodie
-
The appearance of the whole universe out of 'nothing' is the inevitable result of quantum affects, that mainstream theories and experiment now support with some unanimity.
In fact if you have 'nothing' [and there's plenty of that since most of the universe is still 'nothing', as there's a lot more 'empty' space than there is solid 'stuff']... then 'somethings' are constantly appearing out of the 'nothingness', as energy and subatomic particles pop in and out of existence; usually they will disappear almost as fast as they appeared... but just occasionally they don't... and then you have the rare event when 'something' has appeared out of 'nothing'...
So it's a perfectly natural result or natural processes, even though it doesn't tie in with day to day 'common-sense' experience - but then the quantum level of things/nothing is counter-intuitive in many of its aspects !"
-
@unknownuser said:
@mike lucey said:
The bottom line was that there was no time before the Big Bang, thus no cause, thus no God! I'm still not totally convinced but find it hard to argue with it.
Could you flesh that out a bit more for us who didn't see the program Mike?
It seems that based on Hawking's logic (I guess it was him making this argument?), there couldn't be a naturalistic'cause' but I'm not sure how it precludes a theistic cause (from a being who exists outside of time/space). It sounds like his argument proves the opposite of his conclusion. Was that explained at all in the program?
-Brodie
Brodie,
I'm a very simple guy and this stuff is really way over my head. I just liked the documentary's approach and the way they explained their arguments.
I suggest that you view the link above and see for yourself. In hindsight, its such a complex matter that I think our brains are probably not capable of comprehending the ultimate facts if they were laid in front of us, after all, we are only down from the trees a couple of years
Mike
-
@solo said:
Ely,
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James version)
@unknownuser said:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
For me things have been proved.My short life led me trough enough facts to believe in God . But for most of you these things are probably luck,destiny,karma etc .
For (most of)those who don't believe in a higher authority/Creator etc etc, we,(believers) are weak or need something to hold on because we are not though enough to retain/control our feelings but maybe that is the exact thing needed to come into relation with God .
As far as man want to be selfcentered (and here comes all the synonyms of this word ) there is no way he will realize that there is something bigger,smarter and of more importance than just his self .Please do not take this as an offense if you are not a believer ,this is just my point of view and was not intended to harm anyone in any way.
Thanks!
-
@tig said:
The appearance of the whole universe out of 'nothing' is the inevitable result of quantum affects, that mainstream theories and experiment now support with some unanimity.
In fact if you have 'nothing' [and there's plenty of that since most of the universe is still 'nothing', as there's a lot more 'empty' space than there is solid 'stuff']... then 'somethings' are constantly appearing out of the 'nothingness', as energy and subatomic particles pop in and out of existence; usually they will disappear almost as fast as they appeared... but just occasionally they don't... and then you have the rare event when 'something' has appeared out of 'nothing'...
So it's a perfectly natural result or natural processes, even though it doesn't tie in with day to day 'common-sense' experience - but then the quantum level of things/nothing is counter-intuitive in many of its aspects !"
It's a stretch to extrapolate that because subatomic particles appear out of seeming nothingness into something (space is still something), it's the same as all the matter in the universe appeared out of nothing into nothing via the same mechanism.
-Brodie
-
I always get caught in these conversations and I know we won't agree each other..ever . We are like two parallel lines.
It is a good thing you want to FEEL everything but " feel " is in opposition with " belief " .I doubt education excludes God ,great thinkers/genies/scientists were actually tormented about the existence of God . The more you get to know the more you see that this universe,this great place is too perfect to just exist by itself .
I have questions,I am thinking and I am asking a lot of things and still, I believe in God . I may not be of a great intellect as many of you here are but I try to do my best for everyone who is near me to be a better person and to ask himself why I am how I am .We could go on with this for ever ... but I will try to stop here .
We(myself in first case) usually say a lot and do so few .All the best!
-
"Since we cannot understand what is beyond us it is reasonable not to raise questions about God's existence and his nature. The question of God is not a question of this world, not the question that human intellect can solve. It operates within Aristotelian logic and visualizes world in keeping with the principles of Euclidean space. But it is not necessary to place God somewhere in space in order to accept Him. God does not have three or any finite number of dimensions.
Since we cannot know or understand God we should simply accept or reject him on faith. Ivan (Karamazov) decides to accept God precisely because we cannot determine whether he was created by man or the other way round, what is His nature and whether He exists. It makes sense to make a leap of faith in the absence of knowledge. ("I accept God simply.")."http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/karam.htm
...
@unknownuser said:
I guess life is easier to just believe in a higher power, pretty much go through life without asking, thinking, questioning.
"just believe"? On the contrary, one has to constantly act for it...
@unknownuser said:
I doubt education excludes God ,great thinkers/genies/scientists were actually tormented about the existence of God .
Of course. Even Hawkins
))...http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3137322.Fyodor_Dostoyevsky -
@ely862me said:
I doubt education excludes God ,great thinkers/genies/scientists were actually tormented about the existence of God . The more you get to know the more you see that this universe,this great place is too perfect to just exist by itself .
Maybe education doesn't exclude god but it doesn't include him either. Education just helps you better understand the world you live in and helps you think better.
I doubt many great thinkers were ever tormended by the existence of god, rather by religious society and religious people. Many great scientists from the Renaissance onwards were in fact believers and they didn't have a problem reconciling religion with evidence. Only the church and ignorant fools saw their discoveries as a threat.The perfect universe argument is so flawed but so used it's ridiculous. The short anwser to that argument is this.If the Universe is so perfectly designed for me why can't I only live on this planet and between this temparature range, lets just say aprox -10 C to 45 C. If it would have been purposely designed for me I could live on most planets and also be able to live in space.
@srx said:
Since we cannot understand what is beyond us it is reasonable not to raise questions about God's existence and his nature.
Since we cannot understand what is beyond us why would we forget our innate curiousity and just give up? Better yet why should we assume that the answer is a god? Not being able to understand something means just that. You can't make assumptions one way or the other about unfathomable things.
Christians making these arguments always seem to assume that they proved their god's existence when in all actuality they didn't prove anything and if they had why wouldn't some other deity been proven? -
I've been interested in this for quite a while. So when you guys figure it out can you let the rest of us know? Put it in a sticky or something.
-
Gee, 3 pages already!!!! God know how long this thread is going to end up....
I slay me...
-
@solo said:
Just in, Earth's twin:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/NASA ... 73896.html
Still not comfirmed it's earthlike. I can't wait till they find out more about it.
I haven't heard any news about Gliesse 581 d. I wonder if that's earthlike also. -
@utiler said:
Gee, 3 pages already!!!! God know how long this thread is going to end up....
I slay me...
Ouch
-
mmm..... my profile seems to still be active...
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Please do not take this as an offense if you are not a believer ,this is just my point of view and was not intended to harm anyone in any way.
No offense at all.
I guess life is easier to just believe in a higher power, pretty much go through life without asking, thinking, questioning.
Only if you do it wrong. If you do it right, you spend a lot of time asking, thinking and questioning.
I would agree though, that 80% of the people in the pew on a Sunday morning are the type you describe. They give the other 20% a bad name.
The primary message of the Bible is generally misunderstood by most "Christians" and just about everyone else.
-
@unknownuser said:
I would agree though, that 80% of the people in the pew on a Sunday morning are the type you describe. They give the other 20% a bad name.
The primary message of the Bible is generally misunderstood by most "Christians" and just about everyone else.
Yet only the 1% militant fundementalist give Islam a bad name.True.
One should fallow ideal, not ideology. For Christians ideal man is Christ, one and only...not pope, or any other man
If one critics Christianity, he should talk only about Christ himself, everything else is dogma.
Even if you think people made him out, what's wrong with that? Than I'd say that God made him trough us...like He made Muhammad...He again exists (or we wouldn't talk about him so much) and is ideal to follow. Don't you think he is perfect? Is there someone better? -
The thread seems to be drifting off-topic to a more general contest between atheism vs theism.
The original question was "Did God create the universe?" The answer is that we'll never know...whether you happen to believe in Him or not.That question also begs the further question of whether science can explain how the universe can come into being without the need for a deity to create it? The answer to that question is "Yes, it can." It doesn't need to stretch any points or indulge in extrapolation. It can answer the question directly with mathematical precision (including high-school level trigonometry) and can be backed up by direct observation and other empirical evidence. This is outlined perfectly about 30 minutes into the lecture by Lawrence Krauss that Paul Miller linked to. (if you prefer not to watch the whole thing....which you ought to if your opinion on this thread is to carry any real weight.)
I guess which version you prefer is entirely up to the individual; but Occam's Razor would strongly favour the scientific explanation.
Advertisement