Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@spence said:
Only a few paragraphs hu. I don't mind one bit hearing your response, I appreciate it, however, read all of it. Not that it will change your opinion, which is more than fine. At least you can say you read all of it then denounce it. It's all good.
Well I did read till this one.
@unknownuser said:
The doubter requires too much of us when he asks us to believe that the miracles of eyes and hands and DNA and order in the universe all happened by chance. The passage of time, even long intervals of time, is not a “cause” and provides no answers without an intelligent designer.
Like I said it's nothing new. I heard most of these a thousand times and they were dismantled a thousand times by more articulate and itelligent people than me, like Richard Dawkins, Cristopher Hitchens and many others.
Reading all of it would be useless if it's more of the same. -
-
@marian said:
@spence said:
Only a few paragraphs hu. I don't mind one bit hearing your response, I appreciate it, however, read all of it. Not that it will change your opinion, which is more than fine. At least you can say you read all of it then denounce it. It's all good.
Well I did read till this one.
@unknownuser said:
The doubter requires too much of us when he asks us to believe that the miracles of eyes and hands and DNA and order in the universe all happened by chance. The passage of time, even long intervals of time, is not a “cause” and provides no answers without an intelligent designer.
Like I said it's nothing new. I heard most of these a thousand times and they were dismantled a thousand times by more articulate and itelligent people than me, like Richard Dawkins, Cristopher Hitchens and many others.
Reading all of it would be useless if it's more of the same.I can respect that
-
interesting subject and conversation.
still can't understand or follow most of them though.
what do you think of these short lines below:Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, (1)
Allah, the Eternal Refuge. (2)
He neither begets nor is born, (3)
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (4)since there is no equivalent,
we may not be able to think about him using all that we have around as comparison.
anything that we could possibly see, hear or feel. with our senses and thought.
or, let alone draw a picture. even to get raw ideas about him.
i guess though. -
Hmm! We're back to "Is there a God?" rather than "Did God create the universe?" I guess they are inseparable in many people's eyes.
I see that Mr. Callister is yet another that chooses to deceitfully misquote Charles Darwin (by omission).
Yes, Darwin did say “That the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense.” ...or words to that effect
However, what Mr Callister neglects to mention is that Darwin went on to say "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
In other words, to paraphrase; "You might think that the human eye is so complex it could only be created by some intelligent designer...but you'd be wrong."....exactly the opposite of what Mr Callister would have you believe Darwin said.
The Origin Of Species: Chapter 6. Difficulties on Theory. Check for yourselves; it's online.
Furthermore, Darwin was 150 years ago. We've taken giant strides since then; we've since discovered all those variations that Darwin hinted at...everything from a basic light-sensitive pit to the eye of the octopus...which is actually more 'perfect' than ours in that it doesn't have any blind spot where the retina is interrupted by the optic nerve. Does that indicate some special place in creation for the octopus? After all...if man is made in the image of God...all cephalopods therefore have better eyes than God himself, as our eyes are built upside down and inside out (in terms of layering of blood vessels, nerves and photo receptors) whereas an octopus' is the right way round.
There's also ample evidence that the octopus eye developed entirely separately from that of vertebrates...yet still managed to end up looking fairly similar, suggesting that not only is the natural development of something as complicated as the human eye entirely possible, it's actually fairly routine, if not inevitable.
As Marian said, we've seen and heard it all before. Like all this kind of stuff, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who isn't prepared to accept it unquestioningly. In essence, he's preaching to those who are already of a like mind.
Take for instance the (misleading) nonsense about the earth's orbit around the sun. If it was any different from that which it is, we wouldn't freeze to death...we just wouldn't be here at all. There's no life on Venus or Mars, our nearest neighbours.
This reverse-engineering of reality is immensely fraudulent. It makes it sound like God just said "Poof!" and got it right first time. It completely ignores the fact that entire generations of stars had to be born, live out their lives, then die in spectacular super-novae in order to produce all the heavier elements like iron and calcium that are found in our solar system and are needed to make us what we are.
Nine billion years when there was no blue dot circling a star at exactly the right distance. Nine billion years to produce just the right combination of stardust that eventually led to us.Like another saying goes; "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." On that basis, I'd be disinclined to take anything in that tract seriously. Sorry.
-
"Is there a God?" rather than "Did God create the universe?"
Well if the answer to the first question is 'No' then the second question can't be asked.
As I said earlier we need to define 'God', 'create' and 'universe', before the second question can be asked at all.So - what is 'God'?
Most religions have God down as being an all-powerful, eternal, supernatural entity.
If so then it's logical to assume that if they are correct in that simple set of assumptions, then they are almost certainly incorrect in their assumed details of it - for they can't all be right.
I know that if priests tell you that your God is the one true one and that everyone else is wrong, it's comforting... but let's get serious here, logically how can your ideas of God be 'better' than someone else's ? I know that for millennia different religious groups have killed each other because of that single thing, but surely by now we should have realized that it's a futile position to take.
Many religions also have God down as interceding/interfering/rewarding/punishing us in day to day life, egged on by devotions/good/bad-deeds/etc, but again if you happen to have picked the correct 'real' God who is this type of deity, then why is 'he' making such a hash of things, and letting us run riot and mess up big time: God is all-powerful after all and simply doesn't have to allow famine, war or disease etc.
OK... I know that God supposedly 'gave' us free-will and it's our misuse of it that then supposedly causes these issues; but then again... being all-powerful and knowing of everything when God decided to dole out free-will, he did it in the certain knowledge of the outcome - he knows everything after all; so God knew we would misuse it, that's built into its very specification - so for God to dare to punish us when we do exactly what he knows we will do with his 'gift', is frankly unacceptable double-think.The idea that the universe [everything we 'see'] was 'created', presupposes a 'creator'.
If you call that creator 'God', job done.
Traditionally God made the universe from 'nothing'.
Now when scientists [in my opinion] successfully demonstrate that the universe could have spontaneous popped into existence out of 'nothing', without a creator being needed, the God-gang say "...but how can you make something out of nothing?", ignoring their own belief that God did just that. It appears that it's a basic property of 'existence' that 'stuff' - ranging from the tiniest subatomic particle to a whole universe, can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear again; however, sometimes this 'stuff' stays around and doesn't disappear, that's how things happen...Perhaps if there is a God the most 'he' did was set up the basic weird laws of quantum physics that allow this spontaneous bubbling up of 'stuff' out of complete 'nothingness'... with that the entire universe becomes self-generating... but 'we' certainly don't need a day-to-day God who's poking around in how things work/work-out now - surely we've left the 'supernatural' behind - there's enough 'awe' in the way the 'real' world behaves, without inventing extra layers of complexity that are no longer needed to explain things adequately.
-
Wow, two great posts from TIG and Alan above.
-
@tig said:
I know that if priests tell you that your God is the one true one and that everyone else is wrong, it's comforting... but let's get serious here, logically how can your ideas of God be 'better' than someone else's ?
The same way your ideas of your father and mother can be 'better' than someone else's. You know them better, they've shared themselves with you and vice versa. In a theological sense it stands to reason that if there's a God and he's revealed himself then those folks to study and believe this revelation would know him better than those who haven't or don't.
@unknownuser said:
OK... I know that God supposedly 'gave' us free-will and it's our misuse of it that then supposedly causes these issues; but then again... being all-powerful and knowing of everything when God decided to dole out free-will, he did it in the certain knowledge of the outcome - he knows everything after all; so God knew we would misuse it, that's built into its very specification - so for God to dare to punish us when we do exactly what he knows we will do with his 'gift', is frankly unacceptable double-think.
That's a heck of a deep question but I think your assumption here is faulty. You're assuming it's unreasonable to punish people for something that you knew they would do, but that foreknowledge is irrelevant. We don't have the same sort of foreknowledge perhaps, but we can see this to a lesser extent in real life. When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.
@unknownuser said:
The idea that the universe [everything we 'see'] was 'created', presupposes a 'creator'.
If you call that creator 'God', job done.
Traditionally God made the universe from 'nothing'.
Now when scientists [in my opinion] successfully demonstrate that the universe could have spontaneous popped into existence out of 'nothing', without a creator being needed, the God-gang say "...but how can you make something out of nothing?", ignoring their own belief that God did just that. It appears that it's a basic property of 'existence' that 'stuff' - ranging from the tiniest subatomic particle to a whole universe, can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear again; however, sometimes this 'stuff' stays around and doesn't disappear, that's how things happen...Theists have been maintaining for a very long time that the universe had a finite beginning before which there was nothing, and after which there was everything. Scientists, maintaining this was impossible, came up with other theories until the big bang was discovered. There is no scientific evidence that everything that ever existed (including space and time) could have came into being out of (literally) nowhere, from nothing, and with no cause.
@unknownuser said:
Perhaps if there is a God the most 'he' did was set up the basic weird laws of quantum physics that allow this spontaneous bubbling up of 'stuff' out of complete 'nothingness'... with that the entire universe becomes self-generating... but 'we' certainly don't need a day-to-day God who's poking around in how things work/work-out now - surely we've left the 'supernatural' behind - there's enough 'awe' in the way the 'real' world behaves, without inventing extra layers of complexity that are no longer needed to explain things adequately.
This view is called deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). It's certainly a widespread idea out there but it's not how I see things playing out.
-Brodie
-
@alan fraser said:
There's also ample evidence that the octopus eye developed entirely separately from that of vertebrates...yet still managed to end up looking fairly similar, suggesting that not only is the natural development of something as complicated as the human eye entirely possible, it's actually fairly routine, if not inevitable.
The same evidence could be interpreted by theists as having a common designer. It's not really evidence against anything as far as I can tell. As far as man being made in God's image, it's not referring to physical characteristics so how are eyes look, or even if we have eyes at all is irrelevant and says nothing about God's "appearance."
As Marian said, we've seen and heard it all before. Like all this kind of stuff, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny by anyone who isn't prepared to accept it unquestioningly. In essence, he's preaching to those who are already of a like mind.
@unknownuser said:
Take for instance the (misleading) nonsense about the earth's orbit around the sun. If it was any different from that which it is, we wouldn't freeze to death...we just wouldn't be here at all. There's no life on Venus or Mars, our nearest neighbours.
This reverse-engineering of reality is immensely fraudulent. It makes it sound like God just said "Poof!" and got it right first time. It completely ignores the fact that entire generations of stars had to be born, live out their lives, then die in spectacular super-novae in order to produce all the heavier elements like iron and calcium that are found in our solar system and are needed to make us what we are.
Nine billion years when there was no blue dot circling a star at exactly the right distance. Nine billion years to produce just the right combination of stardust that eventually led to us.The point is that the fact that there's anything at all is pretty astounding. That the 'something' that exists happens to have the physical laws and constants that make life possible is something more. And that those things have actually created a space where this life exists is yet more. Obviously, if those things didn't all come together, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it. But that doesn't change the astronomical odds of those things having all occurred.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
since there is no equivalent,
we may not be able to think about him using all that we have around as comparison.
anything that we could possibly see, hear or feel. with our senses and thought.
or, let alone draw a picture. even to get raw ideas about him.I agree.
So I don't think this "human logic" of superman, or man - god
kind of thinking can give us answers:@unknownuser said:
so for God to dare to punish us when we do exactly what he knows we will do with his 'gift', is frankly unacceptable double-think.
It simply is not our level of existence.
To prove with our pure mind YES, there is God, or to prove NOT there isn't...we can not do that. We can only believe.Again Dostoevsky made experiments whit his heroes to find the answer. The sense of good and evil deep rooted in all of us made him believe in creator. He searched inside.
-
@unknownuser said:
The point is that the fact that there's anything at all is pretty astounding. That the 'something' that exists happens to have the physical laws and constants that make life possible is something more. And that those things have actually created a space where this life exists is yet more. Obviously, if those things didn't all come together, we wouldn't be around to wonder about it. But that doesn't change the astronomical odds of those things having all occurred.
-Brodie
But that's exactly my point. The chances of intelligent life evolving in orbit around any given star are far higher than the odds of winning the lottery (which are high enough to start with). Nevertheless it happens...in both cases.
For a theist to then reason that because this cosy little planet happens to be in what the scientists call the Goldilocks Zone (not too hot, not too cold) is in some manner proof of divine intervention, is exactly the same as them arguing divine intervention in the case of the single winner of the lottery whilst conveniently ignoring the millions of punters that failed. It's a disingenuous use of mathematics and the laws of probablity.
The estimated number of galaxies in the universe just increased by 300% after the Hubble Deep Space investigations. It's now estimated that there are around 400 billion galaxies each containing on average maybe 200 billion stars. That makes 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars...orders of magnitude more than all the grains of sand on every beach on earth. Even if you make astronomically huge conservative calculations about the number of suitable stars having suitable planets for intelligent life to develop on, that still leaves millions of possible contenders.As for the octopus eye, it in no way could be used as evidence of a common designer...not unless a theist wanted to turn all his usual arguments on their head. The human and octopus eyes may look superficially similar but in origin couldn't be more different. the human eye is an extension of the brain; the octopus eye is a cavitation of its skin. They are examples of convergent evolution and have nothing in common at all other than their present convergent physical form.
They are as much evidence of a common designer as a whale oil lamp and an LED. -
@alan fraser said:
But that's exactly my point. The chances of intelligent life evolving in orbit around any given star are far higher than the odds of winning the lottery (which are high enough to start with). Nevertheless it happens...in both cases.
It's more complicated than that. First of all, I haven't seen the estimates that suggest winning the lottery is less probably than the existence of life. Secondly, SOMEONE is guaranteed to win the lottery whereas there's no guarantee of life so the 2 don't relate statistically speaking. Thirdly, the existence of life comes down to much more than how far away a planet is from a star. It goes all the way back to the physical laws and constants of our universe.
Look into this article a bit. You'll find some good info as well as refutations. I don't see any of the refutations that sounds more than someone grasping at straws personally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe@unknownuser said:
The estimated number of galaxies in the universe just increased by 300% after the Hubble Deep Space investigations. It's now estimated that there are around 400 billion galaxies each containing on average maybe 200 billion stars. That makes 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars...orders of magnitude more than all the grains of sand on every beach on earth. Even if you make astronomically huge conservative calculations about the number of suitable stars having suitable planets for intelligent life to develop on, that still leaves millions of possible contenders.
I've seen statistics that would disagree. Even given the staggering size of the universe, the statistical probability of life is equally staggering. Regardless, the point is that there's life at all, which there is. If there's also life on 3 or 3 million other planets it's irrelevant to the discussion.
@unknownuser said:
As for the octopus eye, it in no way could be used as evidence of a common designer...not unless a theist wanted to turn all his usual arguments on their head. The human and octopus eyes may look superficially similar but in origin couldn't be more different. the human eye is an extension of the brain; the octopus eye is a cavitation of its skin. They are examples of convergent evolution and have nothing in common at all other than their present convergent physical form.
They are as much evidence of a common designer as a whale oil lamp and an LED.You're the one that pointed out the similarities, not me. You seem to be suggesting that the evolution of the eyes is completely different so the fact that they ended up so similar argues against a common designer. I don't see how. A theist who doesn't believe in macro evolution would simply suggest that the human and the octopus currently have similar systems which perform similar functions and how you want to construct a theoretical evolutionary tree to support a preconceived theory is irrelevant. A theist who believes in evolution would still point out that, as you say, they have current similarities which, regardless, of how they evolved, may still point to a common designer. 2 houses designed by the same architect may go through very different evolutions throughout a design process and yet still end up having certain similarities in the end (or at some point in the middle) based on the architects proclivities.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
That's a heck of a deep question but I think your assumption here is faulty. You're assuming it's unreasonable to punish people for something that you knew they would do, but that foreknowledge is irrelevant. We don't have the same sort of foreknowledge perhaps, but we can see this to a lesser extent in real life. When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.
I'm sorry but your reasoning is the one that is faulty. You can't compare god creating man with a man having a child. God creating humans is much more comparable to man building a car/watch. When a man has a child he does not have complete control of the way he will be created or complete knowledge of his son's future so he can't really take the same steps as god.
Here is why god is to blame for our imperfections. If god knew when he made us that we will be faulty then he is to blame for the faults and our mistakes. When a auto company builds a faulty car knowingly or unknowingly you don't blame or punish the car for the defects but its creator. In our world a creator is in most cases responsible for his creations.Also if an auto company could predict how it's future car will perform in every way I suspect they would be smart enough,unlike god, to improve their design so they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.
-
Why not to think that we are the living creatures that share this universe without any other proposal ?
If we reach to the point of thinking that it is sacred well that is, here we are that is all
let us be happy and rich for a while
let us not bother about anything else
let us create and be
the problem is to be God ... then you have to invent
we are all we have
and God is with us inside
for a while
that´s all
let us share the good and avoid the non creative non positive thinking
it is a while
and we can make it a good good while
only thing needed is to share to unite with everything in living, in alive
to answer the question, of course God created the universe, who else ? that american actor of the coffee mints ?
-
@unknownuser said:
they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.
...and what do you think is Gods goal in designing humans? He has nobody to compete with...
I don't think this materialist way of thinking is right in this discussion.@unknownuser said:
When you have a child you know that they're going to lie to you, deceive you, manipulate you, drink before they're of age, etc. You might not know exactly WHEN those things will happen, but you know they'll do these sorts of things. And yet you still decide to have that child and you still punish the child when he/she does these things.
This is more close for me than designing a car. Love is the goal. And for love you need freedom - free will, don't you?
-
@marian said:
I'm sorry but your reasoning is the one that is faulty. You can't compare god creating man with a man having a child. God creating humans is much more comparable to man building a car/watch. When a man has a child he does not have complete control of the way he will be created or complete knowledge of his son's future so he can't really take the same steps as god.
You're combining two separate issues or questions. Why did God make us imperfect? And, why does God punish our imperfections which He instilled in us. From a Christian perspective God didn't make us imperfect. He made us with freewill which is not evil but does allow for the possibility of good or evil (without freewill neither is possible). Adam and Eve were the ones who chose evil and thereby created a fallen nature which has been passed down to us resulting in the 'imperfection' we see today. What you seem to be suggesting is that God should have made humans such that there free choice would always result in the 'right' or 'good' decision but that is not freewill.
As for the second question, God disciplines humans with consequences for the same reason a parent disciplines their child.
@unknownuser said:
Here is why god is to blame for our imperfections. If god knew when he made us that we will be faulty then he is to blame for the faults and our mistakes. When a auto company builds a faulty car knowingly or unknowingly you don't blame or punish the car for the defects but its creator. In our world a creator is in most cases responsible for his creations.
God didn't instill in humans the proclivity toward sin. As I've explained, he made us with the free will. So you question, then becomes, if God knew we'd not be perfect and sinless forever then why create us at all? I'm not sure there's a truly definitive answer to that question but what we do know is that he hasn't just left us to toil forever on our own in a deistic sense. He has provided a means by which we can be restored.
@unknownuser said:
Also if an auto company could predict how it's future car will perform in every way I suspect they would be smart enough,unlike god, to improve their design so they can maximize their profit, increase their prestige and reduce the chance of defects.
Firstly, all car companies do know how their cars will perform. There will be a certain number which malfunction right away. The rest will malfunction at some later point. And yet the car companies (as well as ourselves) have deemed that we're better off with cars than without.
At any rate, there's an important difference between cars and people. Imperfections in cars are just imperfections. No one wants them, they cost money to fix, etc. However, our imperfections do, in fact, serve some purpose - not least of which is that it is in times of struggle that we tend to see God most clearly or seek after him most earnestly. When things are going well all the time it can be easy to fall into pride and to refrain from relying on God.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
Okay, lets for the sake of shits and giggles assume God DID create everything known and unknown..... WHY?
Needed an ant farm? was lonely? cruel bastard that wants to see his creatures suffer?
From a Christian perspective God is perfect and complete within Himself. He didn't create man because of any 'need' but because of who He is. He's loving, giving, caring, compassionate, etc. In short He created us in order to give to us and to love us and for us to enjoy and glorify Him. This is perhaps most evident in Genesis directly after he created Adam and Eve where the picture is of God walking with them in an intimate relationship.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
From a Christian perspective God is perfect and complete within Himself. He didn't create man because of any 'need' but because of who He is. He's loving, giving, caring, compassionate, etc. In short He created us in order to give to us and to love us and for us to enjoy and glorify Him.
If god is perfect then anything he created is perfect, then humans are perfect.
If humans are created in the image of god and since humans are imperfect then god is also imperfect.
I don't particularly feel or see the love of this god. If god is love and he's perfect why did he flood the world and killed everything on it. Where is the compassion there? Why didn't he forgive. Or where is the compassion or love for the tribes that god sanctioned the Jews to exterminate together with their children and animals?
Why does he need us to glorify him? Why?? I certainly don't want to worship him or any other person or deity in life or in death. Where is the pleasure in being a humble servant for eternity?
God/s and the concepts that suround him/them are completely crazy. I have a better chance of understanding quantum physics then the reasons why people belive such things. I can't see why these would ever comfort anyone. -
@solo said:
So he was lonely and wanted (avoided using the word "need") something to love then?
Sounds pretty silly to me, but then again all religions do.
No. He's a creator and a giver, those are simply his characteristics. So what does a creator/giver do? He creates beings to give to. It's a bit more complex than that no doubt but the point is that he wasn't simply 'lonely' and wanted someone to talk to or filling some unmet need. The Christian God is a trinity which in itself has a sort of community which in itself would preclude a sense of loneliness.
-Brodie
-
Brodie
How can you state in one breath that God is perfect and unique and then come along with that old chestnut of the 'Trinity' - that was itself invented by men to bodge over the issue of one God split into - the father, the son and the holy ghost [aka spirit] - where three is one and one is three - doh what ?
It makes no sense at all.. there is supposed to be one God [or there isn't one God] ... so why make God out of just three distinct parts [which was in fact devised to incorporate a divine Jesus into the mix, and to cover various older pagan beliefs too] - if you want to consider God as both a single indivisible entity and 'several aspects'... then why not take ALL of the aspects of creation, with it's undeniable awe and wonder, that would make your God multi-faceted, but still 'one', and not just use these 'three' weaker compromises [nothing against Jesus and co but why fudge the issue like this for over a thousand years !] - this whole Trinity thing only got started to be legitimized after the Council of Nicaea et al [when MEN decided what the official line would be - I suspect that God wasn't actually there at the meeting [probably!]]; which was after many hundred years of Christians 'happily' having only the 'One True God' of the Old Testament [even now the Unitarian Christians want just one God, I believe !... and most mono-theist religions also expect 'oneness' from a deity] I can accept that the core tenets of Christianity do have a positive role to play in the lives of many; BUT I am still aghast at how Christians can believe the cant of their church, when it defies simple common-sense and logic...
Sorry if I offend anyone, I'm just telling it as it is...
Advertisement