Amazing new physics discovery

[Zebedeo]

"Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second."

Yahoo story

What could have caused this amazing phenomenon? It had to be something outside of the universe, because the universe hadn't come into existence yet.

This should also put to rest the notion that the universe has "always been here." It hasn't. There was a point in time that it came into existence, all at once, and expanded from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second. Can you say "creation"?

Praise God.

[rzemanfl]

1. Why would the "God" you are praising have it be the size of

a marble, so he/she/it could carry it in his/her/its pocket?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. hey, what color was the marble? Cat's eye, devil's ball or agate?

Jeez, all these unanswered questions.

[TransitJohn]

215. Steelie

eom

[TomInTib]

7. Maybe He/She did...

when I was a kid, I used to lie awake at night imagining we were all living inside one of those sparkly beach balls that was lying in the corner of some kid's bedroom.

A trillionth of a trillionth of a second? Maybe that explains the 6 day thingie.
They must have been using God's Own Stopwatch to measure THAT.

So this is how the true believers will be able to accept the "Big Bang".

Whatever.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Even TIME started in the Big Bang

Can't get more "creationist" than that.

[tridim]

4. Why doesn't the Bible talk about the big bang?

You'd think God would have covered something so important, in great detail.

[TomInTib]

8. The dog ate the report

[Zebedeo]

27. Why in great detail?

The Bible does not purport to be a comprehensive record of the history of the universe. The creation of the universe is covered in Genesis, Chapter 1. It is not detailed, because the purpose of the Old Testament is primarily to tell the story of one group of people, the Hebrews, rather than to delve into detail about the creation of the universe.

[sutz12]

71. Aaaaahhhhhhhhh....so creationism isn't science then,

and maybe shouldn't be taught in science class?

[FM Arouet666]

86. It is not detailed

because the humans who wrote the bible had very little knowledge of the universe. I could understand a belief in the bible if genesis had mentioned "a big bang with great expansion of the universe, and god saw that it was good." But that is not what you have, you have pre-science humans interpreting the world in the most basic of terms. The bible is consistent with an era of little knowledge of the universe and is not consistent with the divine inspiration of an all knowing god.

Your attempt to dismiss the inconsistency as a mere focus of the authors on the Hebrews is difficult to accept. Of the hundreds of passages in the bible, why don't you have a few remarkable passages that are consistent with science? One line about the Big Bang? Hell, nostradumbass writes more passages which have been deemed remarkable than the bible.

[rockymountaindem]

135. It's not unreasonable to see it in allegorical terms.

For instance, the separation of light and dark during the creation seems like a fine starting point and a possible substitute for the big bang. I believe the big bang occurred, but I also believe in God.

What you say about the people of Biblical times having little knowledge of the universe is true. That is why, it seems to me, the Bible contains simplified allegories for many of the more complex events... because people would not have been able to wrap their minds around the truth at that time. Now, we are more advanced and can unlock the scientific secrets behind the allegories in the Bible.

The Bible focuses mostly on people and their relationships with each other, which is the most important thing for establishing and maintaining a small, tribal society. The rest, it seems, is up to us to discover.

[Ediacara]

5. The Universe did exist, it just wasn't "The Universe"

It was more a change of state (singularity -> modern universe) than creation (nothing -> something). Also, you're making an argument from incredulity here. If you don't know what could have caused the big bang, it doesn't mean that it must have been God. It could well have been, but God is in no way the default position.

[papau]

15. a change of state from "not created" to the state of "created"-interesting

singularity :-)

But you are of course correct as to inability to use science to determine what caused the big bang - if there was a big bang (despite today's announcement re inflation there are many problems - or if you like - many interesting discoveries are ahead - in big bang)

I totally agree that it doesn't mean that it must have been God, but it could well have been, as you say. What word - since science has no input on this, we are talking about choice of words - is a better word for that which caused the state "created"?

And how does a word gain a "default position".

Of course for whatever word we choose to reference to creation, we can build a religion around that word, or choose not to, as the spirit moves us.

[Ediacara]

23. That's not what I said

I said the big bang was a change of state (singularity -> universe as we know it), and was NOT a creation from nothing. I was merely pointing out that the conclusion he jumped to (it must have been God) was 1) not the default conclusion and 2) by far not the only conclusion.

I also didn't say that science was unable to determine what caused the big bang. Just because we don't know now, does not mean we cannot know in the future. Again, this is an argument from incredulity.

[papau]

64. how does your singularity - a state of not created - differ from "nothing"

How will we "know" what happened before time began? Is not the "know" in this case a religious "know" and not a scientific "know"?

Or is the faith that science will find a way, given the impossibility seen by just about all scientists of that happening, not in in itself a religion?

[Ediacara]

99. A singularity is a point that contains the entire universe worth of

matter and energy. It changed from a point to the universe, nothing was created. This is like saying that steam evolving from a boiling pot was created. It wasn't obviously, it changed states. Of course this is theoretical papau, but it is not religious in the sense you're trying to paint it, and has about a million times more data than any supernatural explanation.

[papau]

246. what is a "point"? what caused the point to exist? interesting :-)

:-)

[Orrex]

249. I see where you're coming from:

"A fundamentally simple and infinitessimal singularity couldn't possibly have come into existence all by itself or have always existed, so therefore an infinitely complex, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and omnibenevolent entity must always have existed."

It all makes sense now--a simple particle can't exist unless a vastly complex entity precedes it. Why hasn't anyone posited this before?



Oh wait--they have! It's called the Ontological Argument, and it's been 100% debunked for quite a few decades.

[papau]

250. Coming into existence has never been "debunked" or explained - and -

Ontological Argument simply simply starts with premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation ... granted that no one observed or even claims to understand how the universe came into existence. Indeed I like your "god" that you call a singularity that is able to express into existence a universe via a phase change - sounds like a great religion.

But singularity is a term you learn in your first physics course and if you understand what the term means you know that it has no part in the discussion of the answering of the question "how did the universe come into existence" - because it no more answers the question than saying "God did it" answers the question. Why do you pretend to know that which you do not? I thought the atheist was into provable via scientific method "facts" - and not "facts" by assertion.

Please learn your terms better.

[Orrex]

251. Oh please

The ontological argument, in its classic formulation, posits that a perfect entity that exists is "more" perfect than a perfect entity that doesn't exist. Therefore, according to the argument, God must exist because he's the "most" perfect entity of all.

Your version, in which God "must" precede a fundamentally simple particle, amounts to the same nonsensical argument.

Anyway, a singularity is not my "god." It is, according to theory, the earliest state of the universe about which positive claims can currently be made. Is that your conception of "god?" That's a pretty humble deity!

But singularity is a term you learn in your first physics course and if you understand what the term means you know that it has no part in the discussion of the answering of the question "how did the universe come into existence" - because it no more answers the question than saying "God did it" answers the question. Why do you pretend to know that which you do not? I thought the atheist was into provable via scientific method "facts" - and not "facts" by assertion.

Boy oh boy. Discussing these things with you is like catch birdshit in flight--it comes at you from randomly and from unpredictable angles, and even if you manage to grasp it, you're only grasping shit.

You're apparently arguing against the claim that the singularity is some kind of deific Prime Entity from which all else descends. I'm not arguing that view, so I don't know why you'd think I should defend it. Instead, I am arguing that if you accept the notion of an infinitely complex entity either always existing or spontaneously arising, then you have no basis to reject the idea of a fundamentally simple particle (or a fundamentally simple anything, for that matter) doing the same.

The leap of faith comes when you reach the point beyond which observation and prediction cannot go, and I do not make that leap. You, instead, leap to "God musta dunnit" right off the bat and tailor your argument to fit that conclusion.

What grade are you in, out of curiosity?

[papau]

253. Sorry - but your "you have no basis to reject the idea" of a forever

particle is rather obvious bull.

You are trying forget that there was a beginning to the universe by denying such beginning via your God particle/singularity being a universe in waiting. Talk about bird shit logic! :-)

As to the ontological argument, how many religious thinkers rejected your "classic" formulation over the last 2000 years - or at least rejected the idea that such a formulation proved anything? Atheist keep talking about logic and about straw men - and then they use the same in the discussion. Amusing.

In the ontological argument classic formulation, the fact that I can think of God means God must exist - or is that not a classic formulation? Anselm's argument more formally is:

1. God is a being which none greater can be conceived.
2. Even an atheist claims God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. However, God would be a better being if he existed in reality, not just as an idea.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just as an idea.

There is nothing wrong in lifting a DU posting from a handout from an introductory course in Symbolic Logic - But in that course where we have fun is in finding the premise that is in error (as in denial that God could exist kills the above), or the argument that is wrong - there's a deductive argument failure because the argument does not logically follow somewhere along the way (usually via the atheist saying "What do I mean by the word "God"?", "Why is it not possible for God to not to exist? Or "I assert belief in God is irrational?").

You say that "the claim that the singularity is some kind of deific Prime Entity from which all else descends" is not your view - but it obviously is your view. But I am getting used to the atheist "have it both ways and your stupid if you don't agree" DU posting standard. In my world Singularities come from complex analysis, where they characterize the possible behaviors of analytic functions at the points in the domain of a function where the function fails to be analytic. To put it another way - they are wild ass guesses that revert to being simply descriptive rather than analytic because the function fails to be analytic. I think I see a lot of "faith" in your leap to a "beginning Singularity".

Indeed I'd sure as heck would like to know how you proved to yourself the existence of a forever particle/singularity with out taking a leap of faith to get past the point where you have no observation and no basis for prediction - but that will have to wait.

It's been fun! :toast: :-)

[Orrex]

258. It's clear that you just don't get it, but I guess that's cool

Because I can't prove the existence of this "forever particle," as you call it, I therefore make no certain claims about such a particle. I say, in essence, that prior to time "zero-plus-n" we simply don't know what happened. End of story. I do not claim with certainty that the uber-particle existed forever or that it sprang into existence all by its lonesome.

Instead, I point out that a person who accepts the possibility of an infinitely complex entity either always existing or spontaneously arising therefore has no basis to object to the idea of a fundamentally simple particle doing likewise.

You embraced the ontological argument, so you apparently accepted it as valid. I merely showed you that it can be equally applied to other things beyond this "God" fellow. If you reject the ontological argument, then please offer your explicit denial of it here.

You ask how many times the ontological argument has been rejected over the years, and of course you and I don't know that answer. However, I still hear (or read) it being put forth all the time, so I don't believe that it's a straw man at all. Any time a theist says "the universe must have had a cause/that cause must have been God, because God is greater than than the universe and anything in it," well, that's the ontological argument all over again.

Additionally, your argument reduces to the "God of the Gaps" and the "Prime Mover," both of which have been equally thoroughly debunked.

I'm not sure if you're asking whether I think that God could exist, but in any case I'd say that the answer is yes. Sure, why not? But I have never seen nor read nor heard of any evidence supporting the claim that he exists, and neither have you, and neither has anyone else. Therefore, it's a leap of faith to make the positive claim that God exists, and I'm not prepared to make that leap.

It appears also that you find cosmology inadequate because it doesn't answer the questions of "how and why did the universe begin?" Am I incorrect in this assessment? If I've described your view correctly, then the answer may have to be "too bad." We might never have the answer of "how," and it seems unlikely that we'll ever know "why." But that doesn't mean that God did it.

So to answer your final question, I have never proven to myself the existence of a forever particle. Instead, I observe that the universe appears to exist, and I infer that it either always existed or else came into existence at some point.

In addition, one must note that the universe is not a thing, so it is an error to draw analogies between "things" (which, as distinct objects, we observe to have come into existence at a particular moment) and the universe itself. You might as readily say "because four is evenly divisible by two, the set of all numbers is itself divisible by two." But that's clearly not the case.

[papau]

261. We agree :-)

:-)

[Zebedeo]

259. lol!

Indeed I like your "god" that you call a singularity that is able to express into existence a universe via a phase change - sounds like a great religion.

It could be called "Singularitism." Its adherents would be known as "Singularitists." What an amazingly powerful and great deity this "singularity" is! The Creator of all that is! All hail the singularity!

[papau]

262. :-)

:-)

[Zebedeo]

25. Thanks for the reply

The term "singularity" seems to be an artificial construct motivated by the need to have some term for the origin of the universe. But whatever you call it, there are some facts to confront.

You call my claim an argument from incredulity. I think it is more along the lines of Sherlock Holmes' principle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I say it is impossible for the universe to have created itself, and therefore, what remains (that the universe was created), however improbable, must be the truth.

It is logically impossible for anything to create itself, because until it is created, it is not there to do the creating. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself, and must have been caused to come into existence (created) by some force outside the universe.

This force outside the universe had to be immensely powerful, in order to create the universe, with all of its matter and energy, and to cause it to expand at a mind-boggling rate. Keep in mind that natural laws dictate that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, the creation of all of this matter and energy must necessarily have been supernatural.

So we know that (1) the universe was created; and (2) the creation was supernatural; and (3) the Creator was extremely, awe-inspiringly powerful.

I refer to this supernatural Creator of the Universe as "God."

Do you have any alternative hypotheses that could account for the instantaneous creation of billions of galaxies of matter and unfathomably huge quantities of energy? If so, I would be very interested in hearing your hypotheses.

[Ediacara]

28. I think you're jumping to conclusions somewhat

The term "singularity" seems to be an artificial construct motivated by the need to have some term for the origin of the universe. But whatever you call it, there are some facts to confront.

You call my claim an argument from incredulity. I think it is more along the lines of Sherlock Holmes' principle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I say it is impossible for the universe to have created itself, and therefore, what remains (that the universe was created), however improbable, must be the truth.

I disagree. I do not think that you have addressed any other possibilities besides God, and you have jumped to that conclusion instead. God of course is indeed a possibility, but it is far from the only possibility, and is an entirely untestable possibility.

It is logically impossible for anything to create itself, because until it is created, it is not there to do the creating. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself, and must have been caused to come into existence (created) by some force outside the universe.

This is not true. The universe/singularity continuum may always have existed. There is no reason to think that there must have been a beginning. Although of course, that is a possibility. It is equally possible that the cycle of universe->big crunch->singularity->big bang->universe->big crunch etc has been going on forever without beginning or end.

So we know that (1) the universe was created; and (2) the creation was supernatural; and (3) the Creator was extremely, awe-inspiringly powerful.

1) not demonstrated 2) not remotely demonstrated 3) only follows if one and two are true, and we don't know.

Do you have any alternative hypotheses that could account for the instantaneous creation of billions of galaxies of matter and unfathomably huge quantities of energy? If so, I would be very interested in hearing your hypotheses.

Galaxies were not created instantaneously. It took several billion years actually. Generally the idea is that after the big bang the entire universe was a plasma that cooled down and became matter and energy. Even at that point, atoms and molecules were not present, just very very hot subatomic particles. After more expansion and cooling, atoms and molecules formed, stars formed, galaxies formed over many billions of years. Don't take my word for it though, read up on it...

[Zebedeo]

33. I didn't say the galaxies were created instantaneously

I said "billions of galaxies of matter and unfathomably huge quantities of energy" were created instantaneously. Sure, they took time to coalesce and take form.

But the fact remains that this unfathomable QUANTITY of matter and energy came into existence in the blink of an eye. Such things do not happen without a CAUSE, and in this case, the cause would have to have been independent of the universe.

Do you have an alternate hypothesis that would account for the observed facts?

It is equally possible that the cycle of universe->big crunch->singularity->big bang->universe->big crunch etc has been going on forever without beginning or end.

This hypothesis, it seems to me, gets you nowhere, because you have not accounted for all of the matter and energy coming into existence in the first place, and you have not explained WHY these processes occur or what CAUSES them to occur. Also, is there any EVIDENCE whatsoever to support this theory, or is it purely conjecture?

[Ediacara]

37. You said galaxies were created instantaneously

Again, your post is an argument from incredulity and is essentially the same as those of the intelligent design movement: I can't possibly imagine how this happened naturalistically, so it must have a supernatural origin. 1) Just because you can't think of a naturalistic origin, doesn't mean there isn't one and 2) this is jumping to an unsupported default conclusion.

Also, how do you know that matter and energy are not formed without CAUSE (is that an acronym for something?)? How many universes have you observed beginning naturally? How many universe have you seen being created by God? Unless you can observe this phenomenon a statistically significant number of times, this statement is unfounded.

Lastly, the universe/singularity continuum was proposed when dark matter was a big concern. The gist of their argument is that the rate of universe expansion is slowing, so their must be something that's slowing its momentum, and that must be some matter that telescopes can't see. There's so much of this dark matter in fact that universe expansion will stop and reverse and the entire universe will be a singularity again. That hypothesis was based on observation. I'm afraid yours is based on incredulity.

[soothsayer]

67. i don't get how they coalesce and form when they're all moving

apart

[Bill McBlueState]

68. gravity

On small enough physical scales, gravity is strong enough to counteract the effects of the expansion.

[Emillereid]

197. Similarly the state between non-life and living, replicable systems

was not all or nothing. There was a contiuum. Put some organic molecules together, some electricity and water -- and voila, you get all sorts of nice amino acids and carbon chains and the like. Given enough time, they begin to self organize. Don't need to introduce the God variable.

[Zebedeo]

239. That's why it's so easy to create life from inanimate matter in

the lab! Oh, no wait. It can't be done.

That's also why we see the universe teeming with life! Oh, no wait. There is no evidence of life anywhere in the univere except on Earth.

Also, who do you suppose designed and built those "organic molecules" with all their amazing complexity?

[beam me up scottie]

50. .

[Spider Jerusalem]

160. ...

The term "singularity" seems to be an artificial construct motivated by the need to have some term for the origin of the universe. But whatever you call it, there are some facts to confront.

Totally incorrect; a singularity is the point where a mathematical function becomes infinite, and thus unmeasurable. There is a singularity at the big bang, and at the centre of a black hole, because all observable features (mass, density, temperature, space-time curvature, etc) approach infinity and are thus unmeasurable by the laws of physics as we understand them.

It is logically impossible for anything to create itself, because until it is created, it is not there to do the creating. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself, and must have been caused to come into existence (created) by some force outside the universe.

The universe did not "create" itself; the state at the big bang was a point of infinite density comprising all matter, space and time. The argument that this singularity must perforce have some external and supernatural cause is totally unsupported and the result of a flawed process of logic.

This force outside the universe had to be immensely powerful, in order to create the universe, with all of its matter and energy, and to cause it to expand at a mind-boggling rate. Keep in mind that natural laws dictate that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, the creation of all of this matter and energy must necessarily have been supernatural.

There's no need of any external force, nor were matter and energy "created". They already existed (in the original singularity). And general relativity shows that the rate of expansion of the universe depends upon energy density (and since density is infinite at the singularity, then the rate of expansion is also infinite, but ONLY within that trillionth of a second after the big bang, after which it slows down).

So we know that (1) the universe was created; and (2) the creation was supernatural; and (3) the Creator was extremely, awe-inspiringly powerful.

We know no such thing; as you see above, this explanation of the initial state of the universe does nothing to contradict the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

[bullimiami]

6. there is plenty we dont know and can only guess. in these areas such as

creation, do we have a soul, is there life after death, what is outside the universe? etc... there is plenty of room for those who want to believe a divine being is master of it. trouble is, they want to force us to believe ridiculous unscientific things because rather than fitting their divine words to reality they want us all to fit our reality to their dogma and toss out all science.

[unblock]

9. this does NOT imply anything about what was there BEFORE the big bang

physics has absolutely NOTHING to say one way or another about what was there prior to the big bang because there can be no evidence or data to disprove any such theory.

there might have been a whole series of similar universe prior to the big bang, each expanding and eventually collapsing into a "big crunch", only to turn into a big bang again. we might be the first such universe, or the 2,564th.

who knows. this experiment shed light on the big bang and what cam after, but says nothing about what came before.

all physics can say about what was there before is that we'll never know.

[papau]

16. Very true :-)

:-)

[Zebedeo]

19. Postulating successive universes

changes nothing.

You could propose that there were a quadrillion universes before this one, but you would still have to account for the cause of that first universe coming into existence. The cause had to be extra-universal because nothing can create itself. It is a logical impossibility for anything to create itself, since before it is created, it is not there to do the creating.

Thus, the only explanation is that the Cause for the creation of the universe (this one or, if you want to assume there were previous ones, then the first one) was a force outside of the universe than has no beginning and no end, and possesses the unfathomable power to create trillions of galaxies and make them expand from the size of a marble to a volume greater than the observable universe in a trillion trillionth of a second. What do you call that force, that First Cause? I call Him "Heavenly Father."

[Ediacara]

24. First Cause is a cop-out

Unable to answer the question, "What caused the first cause?" Simply naming something "first cause" doesn't make "first cause" make any sense, friend.

[Zebedeo]

29. It makes perfect sense to me

My belief is that there was an uncreated Creator, and that He created the universe. To ask who created the uncreated Creator is a nonsequitur, because it is a logical impossibility for the Creator to be both uncreated and created.

To postulate a created Creator also merely leads to the question of who created the Creator. If there was a created Creator, whoever created that Creator is the First Cause that we call "God."

Any way you slice it, you have to address the original Creator, who, as a matter of logical fact, could not have been created.

[Ediacara]

30. How is it a non sequitor?

I'm really having trouble understanding why you think "What created God?" is an unreasonable thing to ask.

[Zebedeo]

34. It's a nonsequitur because

the original Creator had to be uncreated -- otherwise He would not be the original Creator.

So asking who created the original, uncreated creator, makes no sense. Because He is uncreated, nobody created Him.

That's why He refers to Himself as "I am."

"God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you." Exodus 3:14

That's also why He refers to Himself as "the Alpha and the Omega."

He is the preexisting One, who has no beginning and no end.

When you think about it, there HAD to be an uncreated Creator, because if the Creator was created, then whoever created Him is the Creator, and if that Creator was created, then whoever created Him was created, and so on, and so on. When you get down to it, there had to be a First Creator, who was not Himself created.

Interestingly, that is exactly what the Bible tells us about God.

[Ediacara]

38. That makes no sense

It's a non-solution to a huge problem. A better solution is to admit you don't know. I can do it, see: I don't know what forces caused the universe we live in to exist.

[Zebedeo]

43. I guess we will not convice each other

Nevertheless, I am very excited about this discovery announced today. For me, it affirms my faith, by showing that the wondrous and unfathomably vast universe was created in the blink of an eye, something that, to me, could only have been done by God.

I am not sure why you are so resistant to the idea that God created the universe, but I do give you credit for acknowledging that it is a possibility, and admitting that you don't know.

It seems that what we have come up with is that there was either a Creator, or there was this continuum you proposed of an infinite number of universes, expanding and contracting without beginning or end.

To me, postulating an infinite number of universes is much more far-fetched than just believing in the God of the Bible. But to each his own, I guess.

[Ediacara]

44. I am not resistant to the idea of God

I just don't see how this discovery is remotely proof of God, nor why God is a default position of many. Of course God is a possibility, but it's far from the only possibility, and far from the only reasonable possibility.

Lastly, the two positions you listed are also, far from the only possible accounts for how the universe came into being. They're just two of thousands of equally likely possibilities.

[Silent3]

53. Even if I bought into this silly word-game nonsense...

...how does the supposed necessity for an "uncreated creator" mean that "creator" has anything to do with your notion of God? Your argument runs almost like this:

1) There are people in America.
2) There must have been a first person in America before all others.
3) I choose to call that first person "Superman".
4) Therefore, there must be a guy who can fly like a bird and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Chosing to call this "uncreated creator" of yours "God" in no way, shape, or form allows you to logically attach all of the other baggage associated with the notion of God to your semantics-derived uncreated creator.

Your "UC" could be nothing more that a special kind of quantum fluctuation, a cosmic egg which disappears completely once it has hatched, an unavoidable consequence simple, uncaring, unintelligent and uncreated metarules underlying the reality we know, a pantheon of multiple uncreated gods. Even the first moment of the universe itself (if that even has any meaning) could be defined, by special dispensation from the ordinary rules of things, to be its own uncreated creator.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Good luck, dude

good luck. Presenting logic in this circumstance is like the proverbial square peg round hole.

[funflower]

57. I agree it's possible there was a Creator. How does this get us to Jesus

in the manger and believing the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the Second Coming and all of that?

It seems to me that your "somebody must have caused the Big Bang" argument is based on a reasonable hypothesis.

Bible-based Christianity, however, has nothing to do with this.

[Zebedeo]

73. You are right. It doesn't prove Jesus' divinity

There is other evidence for that. I never claimed that the discovery announced on March 16, 2006 proved that the Bible was the inspired Word of God or that Jesus was born of a virgin or any of those details.

But I think that discoveries like this should cause some of the more militant absolutist atheists to re-examine their preconceptions and consider the fact that there is no natural or logical explanation for the origin of the universe that does not include a divine Creator who exists independent of the universe.

Thank you for your comment about my argument being based on a reasonable hypothesis. Most of the coomments I have received thus far have been in a different vein.

[beam me up scottie]

81. The FACT "that there is no natural or logical explanation

for the origin of the universe that does not include a divine Creator who exists independent of the universe."

The "fact"?

You need to go back to school, your grasp of the English language sucks.

[Crunchy Frog]

91. Why is an uncreated creator

anymore plausible than an uncreated universe? I simply cannot fathom how it is impossible to imagine a universe coming into existence through natural spontaneous causes, but it is possible to imagine something infinitely more complex coming into existence spontaneously.

You say: "It is logically impossible for anything to create itself, because until it is created, it is not there to do the creating. Therefore, the universe could not have created itself, and must have been caused to come into existence (created) by some force outside the universe."

I can't understand how that logic cannot apply to the creator himself without postulating an even more powerful creator and on ad infinitum.

You appear to be contradicting your own logic here.

[Zebedeo]

93. God is everpresent, with no beginning and no end

That is the God that Christians worship. An uncreated Creator. There is no need to postulate an even more powerful creator who created God, because God is uncreated.

Not so with the universe. We know that the universe has NOT always existed. It came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago (give or take 200 million years).

If the Creator were Himself created, we would have the problem that you describe, ad infinitum. That's why it is clear that there was an original Creator who was not Himself created, but has always existed.

That's why He refers to Himself as "I AM." That's a perfect name for God. He is the one who is. He has always existed and will always continue to exist.

The same cannot be said for this universe. Scripture says that the universe came into existence once upon a time. Science confirms this. Scripture says that the earth will be consumed by fire. Science confirms this. Scripture says that heaven and earth will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Science confirms this, too.

[unblock]

45. but belief in a "creator" in this manner doesn't imply god

even if you believe in an "uncreated" entity (which still sounds like an oxymoron to me, kinda like a god who knows of a riddle he cannot solve or an omni-powerful being who cannot break an impenatrable barrier) who launched the big bang, how do you get from an "uncreated" entity to a god that has meaning in today's world?

who's to say that that uncreated entity might not have ceased to exist at the moment of the big bang? or who's to say that that entity must have any characteristics commonly attributed to god, such as omniscience, or that that god can or would ever influence events in today's universe. maybe he only exists OUTSIDE of this universe?

[Zebedeo]

47. You are correct

The physics discovery announced today does not provide evidence that the Creator is omniscient, or that He intervenes in today's world.

However, it is always exciting for me when scientists make discoveries that reveal the astonishing awesomeness of the Creator, and especially when those discoveries reveal the beginning of the universe to look more and more like it is described in the Bible.

[tocqueville]

10. Jesus, you never give up, do you ?

why should that prove "creation" ? it proves only that the universe passed from one state to another. Have you ever heard of a dust explosion in a silo. The dust passes from floating in the air to a violent explosion without outside intervention but due to internal physical and chemical fluctuations.

That need of "creation" starts to get pathetic.

[Silent3]

13. Don't you get it?

Zebedeo knows, he just knows that this sudden expansion of the early universe is the clear and utterly unmistakable Fingerprint of the Lord. He also knows the usual atheist crowd won't be the least bit swayed, even faced with this obvious evidence of Divine Creation, so he gets to go away smugly convinced that we're deliberately in denial of his God just to deny God and to have an excuse for our evil, unbelieving ways.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

96. ....

:spray:

[Zebedeo]

26. Yes, silos have dust explosions

But they do not occur without a CAUSE.

Nor does a universe come into existence all on its own, without a CAUSE.

[Ediacara]

32. Do you propose a supernatural cause for silo explosions?

They explode for purely naturalistic reasons, the big bang could have occured because of purely naturalistic reasons. There is no justification for making one cause supernatural while the other is natural....

[Zebedeo]

40. Of course not

Silo explosions occur because they are caused to occur by forces such as the heat of the sun, the pressure of expanding air, possibly a small spark, etc. Silo explosions are no mystery. They can be fully accounted for by the laws of nature.

However, matter/energy is not created without a cause. In fact, matter/energy is not created without a supernatural cause. We know this, because natural laws (specifically, the law of conservation of matter/energy) says that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed. So if it is created, the creation must be supernatural.

So, while silo explosions can be fully accounted for by natural laws and the discoverable causes, neither is true of the creation of the universe.

[Ediacara]

42. matter and energy weren't created

They were there "before" the big bang. What happened after the big bang was inflation, cooling, and differentiation of matter and energy from that plasma that was already there.....

[tocqueville]

36. the cause for silo explosions

are INTERNAL NATURAL CAUSES in the silo

no need of a creator

[Zebedeo]

82. Awesome!

You may have just discovered the engine of a perpetual motion machine! Why, all we would have to do is use spontaneously occurring silo explosions that create their own energy to power the machine. Our energy problems are solved!

[Zebedeo]

49. I'm not Jesus

I'm Zebedeo.

[sam sarrha]

11. i took a Sh*t & it floated.!! THAT is incontrovertible proof of gOD..!

Genesis is 'part' of the old Sumerian Creation mith... from about 10,500 BC. nothing new, not dictated by god.. you can paint any thing god.. but it isn't really Proof

[Zebedeo]

52. I've always thought this was a laughable refutation of Biblical

stories - that they were also believed by other peoples before the Hebrews. Like the Great Flood, or the Creation. You seem to be arguing that if other peoples believed these things before the Hebrews, that means that they can't be true.

I think it means the opposite. Of course other peoples would have been aware of the Creation and the Great Flood. Why wouldn't they?

[sam sarrha]

70. i am saying the stories were not of the jews and christians, they injected

their own meaning into them... the stories have been explained relative to archaeological information as real events.. but to natural events interpreted by religious zealots as proof their god could kick my gods ass.. and send me to hell to burn for ever
.. yadayadayadayada

[varkam]

12. But the universe *did* exist prior to the Big Bang.

It was just the size of a marble.

[Silent3]

17. Not quite...

The event discussed in the article is called inflation, a period of rapid expansion after the start of the Big Bang. (I suppose you could think of it as a second stage of the Big Bang.) The cronology is something like this...

Big Bang starts... universe is much, much smaller than a marble (a Planck length at a Planck time).
Universe reaches the size of a marble very quickly.
Inflation begins.
Universe gets really, really enormously BIG really, really fast.

[Bill McBlueState]

69. planck length

Just to provide today's cheesy science analogy...

You could fit 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pre-inflation universes along the diameter of your basic marble.

[papau]

18. nope - they're saying the big bang produced a universe the size of a marbl

and then the universe inflated!

[varkam]

20. Ohhhh

Well gee, I guess that conviced me there is a God. I'm off to church!

[papau]

63. :-)

:-)

[Flabbergasted]

14. Well lets see "God is Love" James II. Love is the the connecting

component of the universe. I think you're right on. Thanks Zebedeo!

[Zebedeo]

21. No, thank YOU.

Yes, isn't it wonderful that God has given us the ability to love Him and to love one another. The feeling of love is truly a gift from God. We get to experience His essence - what He is all about.

[Flabbergasted]

22. Absolutely

:loveya: :yourock: :applause: :hug:

[manic expression]

31. Why?

This only shows that the universe expanded from another, smaller form. The universe was not created from nothing, it was already there and simply grew (see law of conservation of energy/mass). The cause for this is not necessarily removed from the universe, as it most likely came from within the universe. Furthermore, this was merely the continuation of a cycle (creation, preservation, destruction and so on and so forth....), a continuation of something that already existed. Surely, great power was behind its creation (not a creation from nothing, however), but the fact that all things grow, live, die and are reborn is why this occurred. THAT is the cause.

Also, to me, that creation is the manifestation of a certain deity (of many). However, that's a bit irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Again, the universe already existed, it was just smaller. Never was there a time when we did not exist, nor will there be a time where we do not. The universe expanded from its previous form, signaling the beginning of a new phase of the cycle, which has led to the present.

[Zebedeo]

35. First there was no matter, then matter appeared

These scientists are only talking about the period of time after the universe had grown to the size of a marble. But before that, all of the matter and energy in the universe came into existence.

[Ediacara]

39. I don't think you understand

All the matter and energy existed at the "time" of the singularity. It just had not differentiated as matter and enrgy.

[tocqueville]

41. so it existed in a different STATE

water is liquid, at 0°C it freezes, becomes solid and inflates 9 times in volume

something changed in the previous universe state that made it explode and change state. Very difficult to know what it was before we can recreate it as an experiment (don't try that at home). But that DOESN'T IMPLY A CREATOR.

you can BELIEVE it does, but it's faith, not science.

[Imperialism Inc.]

46. The elephant in the Christian living room.

I always find these discussions of the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries interesting. I don't have any problem with those that jump to an inference of God from some of the science (or those that jump to inferences of Buddhism or New Age spirituality for that matter). In fact I would say discussions on DU are the number one reason I have developed more respect (and tolerance) for such ideas over time. I may not agree but I can see where they are coming from. Especially since most on DU are usually quick to acknowledge that we can't get there strictly from the science.

Still, there is always something that bothers me. Especially from the Christians but from others too. And that is what these discoveries , other older more mundane science, and the ideas they lead to surely imply about the Bible. If one accepts the anthropic principle as evidence that there was a creator who made rules of the universe that were destined to lead to life and to human beings... if you accept all of the physics and astronomy and cosmology that leads one to the big bang model being discussed... don't you have to basically throw out large portions of the Bible? Don't you have to water down most of the fantastical happenings in the Bible and accept that they are at best grossly mythologized recountings of real events?

I mean if you accept the universality (through time and space)of the rules that God created and God created precise rules to cause Earth and man to eventually come in to existence, don't you have to throw out things like people walking on water? The Sun standing still in the sky? Massive global floods? Water turning in to wine? Miraculous healing by driving out demons? People rising from the grave after being dead for several days? And on and on and on.

It isn't that the two are mutually exclusive necessarily. I mean I suppose it is possible that God would go to all the trouble of creating rules and then turn around and break them regularly, but why? I mean, isn't the whole idea of believers latching on to the science that they can have some claim to rationality? A rationality that they recognize is missing otherwise. And, that they also recognize that a world view with at least some rational basis is better than one without it. So what has the believer gained? They have a more rational basis for a belief in God but at the cost of destroying their particular faith. Reducing their "Holy Book" to nothing more than wildly mythologized, impossible stories. Either that or, having gained some small bit of rationality, they must promptly throw it out the window and return to right where they started from.

I suppose that is why one seldom hears the word Christianity in these discussions. But as most of us know from experience, the people most likely to trumpet these leaps of faith from scientific discoveries to God are indeed Christian. It just seems like a pretty big elephant to me and I am curious as to why we never here them voluntarily bring it up on their own. Do they not see the elephant or do they just wish to ignore it?

[Zebedeo]

48. They're called "miracles"

because they are miraculous. God is the lawgiver. He established the natural laws, and can suspend them when necessary or desirable to serve His purposes. It's as simple as that.

It's ok to be skeptical, but to characterize the belief in miracles as "irrational" is unwarranted, in my opinion.

Wouldn't it be enough to say that you are not convinced, or that you do not believe? Why must it be necessary for you to label believers as "irrational"?

I could argue that it is irrational to believe that the immense universe popped into existence one day without a cause. But it would be insulting to call people who have that belief "irrational." Instead, I say that I don't agree with them.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Yes, calling belief in miracles irrational is mean.

He is watching...

[funflower]

58. While this might be possible, there is zero affirmative evidence for God

actually suspending the laws of nature and performing miracles.

[Imperialism Inc.]

60. One definition of rational is

of sound mind. Sane. I do NOT mean the opposite of that definition when I say irrational.

I mean Consistent with or based on reason; logical. Belief in miracles is not logical or based on reason or a process of reasoning. It is based on faith.

So, I stand by what I said. The question is , why would a believer give a crap if the big bang model is rationally (not requiring as much faith) consistent with mono theism, if they are going to go right back to non-rational (better word?) faith to exlain miracles?

[trotsky]

65. Many believers are insecure in their beliefs.

They hate science, for instance, because it has such a long track record of debunking religious claims.

But they secretly love science, because of its ability to bestow a touch of legitimacy. So while they hate the results of most science (evolution, etc.), if a discovery isn't completely incompatible with one aspect of their god, they embrace it as "proof" of the god... and it's SCIENCE!

[sutz12]

72. What your god does is a miracle..

what someone else's god does is magic, right? Fundamentally, the two terms are interchangeable. Both imply, like you say, a suspension of the laws of nature.

Question, why is it possible that god can be infinite and forever, and the universe cannot be?

Sorry, I know your answer, as always, will be...............because he's god. :shrug:

[Zebedeo]

75. We KNOW that the universe ISN'T forever

We can determine the age of the universe. It wasn't always here. It came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. Look it up.

[mzteris]

167. name one quantifiable irrefutable "miracle"

And no, nothing in the Bible counts or any other "church" source. Or antecdotal stories told by your mother's cousin's neighbors sisters inlaws maids brothers kid........

[Zebedeo]

260. What a bogus question

In your question, you eliminated a whole boat-load of miracles. So I guess you must be conceding all of those.

Despite your preposterous limiting conditions, here's one that should fit your bill:

linky

[mzteris]

214. still waiting for the "quantifiable miracle". n/t

[Zebedeo]

74. It seems to me that scientific discoveries like this one

which show the awesome power of God, provide further evidence for God's power and His ability to do what seems to us mortals to be impossible.

If God is able to create the unfathomably massive and complex universe in an instant, then expand it from the size of a marble to a size larger than the observable universe in a trillion-trillionth of a second, do you seriously doubt that that same God can turn water into wine? or walk on water, or heal the sick or raise the dead?

[Imperialism Inc.]

84. I knew that would be the response.

And you have succinctly described exactly why your leap from science to God is not rational and especially not scientific.

Because the God you speak of is omnipotent. He can do anything. So therefore anything and everything is evidence for his existence. It doesn't matter what the universe looks like or how it works you can still claim that an Omnipotent being could "do that". Well no shit he could, that is the definition of omnipotent. He could be anything. He could be multiple Gods like in Hinduism. Nothing is ruled out. But, there is a big difference between could and did. And how do you distinguish between what He actually did, and what He actually is, and what a hundred other religions have claimed he did or is? Hmmm? You can't. Not rationally any way.

And how about angels? What part of the big bang explains them? Or Demons or the Devil. (BTW, how did all these supernatural sub-gods get in to something that is supposed to be mono-theism anyway?).

You are still right where you started, but at least along the way you proved quite nicely why your original jump to your Christian God from the science was unwarranted.


An Omnipotent God might exist therefore, since he could cause it to happen if he wanted, purple munchkins live in my butt.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. I believe that God can change H20

(and carbon, with energy from sunlight) into carbohydrates, which can then be broken down into alcohol by certain bacteria. I believe that God can walk on water, if he is built essentially the same way a waterskeeter is.

I too am very impressed by God's powers.:)

[mzteris]

229. doesn't show the

"awesome power of GOD" except to someone who WANTS it to show that.

It shows the awesome power of science, IMHO.

PS - still waiting for that quantifiable miracle.............

da da dum de de da da dum . . .

[JerseygirlCT]

226. Well, you're correct

if one is taking a literalist view of the bible, it certainly doesn't work with science. Which is why so many literalists throw out the science -- pretty silly.

I think you'd find most Christians of a more liberal bent are familiar with things like allegory and symbolism. I'd say the bible is a human work, divinely inspired at least in parts, which attempts to understand our relationship to God from a human perspective. It's necessarily flawed as history or scientific explanation; it may have great value as philosophy. There are other paths to understanding besides science, and I think it's useful to explore those as well.

And I have to be honest -- the physics all fascinate me, but I wasn't blessed with the type of mind that can contain all that. I just start to short out. But I keep sticking my finger in at it because it's so huge and so damned interesting!

[NMMNG]

54. Uh huh

According to the Bible, the Earth (which was created along with the Heavens) is only 6500 years old, give or take.


Yet according to the scientific research presented in the linked article the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old.


That's a mighty big difference.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

100. Indeed.....

Gotta love that factual Bible.

:thumbsup:

:P

[Evoman]

55. Yep, god created it all.

Fine, you've convinced me. Forget all that atheist bullshit. I now believe that god created everything.

God created the universe.

God created the natural laws.

God created love and the capacity to love.

God created human beings.

God created hate and the capacity to hate.

God created misery.

God created supernovas

God created evil.

God created rape.

God created avian flue.

God created superstrings.

God created smemgma

God created murder and injustice

God created justice.

God created pedaphilia.

Praise god indeed.

[Zebedeo]

77. We have free will and the ability to hate, to rape, to be unjust

God tells us not to. If we do it anyway, that can hardly be blamed on God.

[Evoman]

87. God is all

God know everything. God knows as soon as a person is born that he will either rape someone or wont. If that person rapes, god made him knowing that he would be a rapist. Therefore god is also reponsible for rape. There is no free will if God knows the outcome

Or, if that doesn't convince you....

A murder creates a murdering situation. But God created the murder. God is the First Cause of Murder. Or Rape.

If your going to say god created everything, then you gotta give him credit for everything. I mean, potentially, god could have given men less testosterone or hormones, and we could have the same universe with no rapes ever having to occur. Or he could have had us all procreate by having shoot sperm into our hand and giving it to the women, who absorbed it willingly through her skin. But he did not do that. He could have made sex completely unnecessary or not particularly pleasurable...also another way to stop rapes. He could have given us free will without giving us the ability or need to murder each other or wage war. He could have made us as peaceful as other animals on earth...i.e still give us free will but we have no want to kill each other. Free-will could have meant the choice between hugging your girlfriend and kissing her. Free-will could have meant the choice between giving your neighbour a melon for helping you fix your house, or giving him a bowl of nuts.

But no, thats not what he did. He gave us our faults.

God does not exist. And if god does exist, if it was really responsible for the big bang, this great creator...well then, hes gotta take the blame for both the good and the bad. If there is a creator, hes both the nicest guy in the world and the biggest evil in the universe. He does not deserve any praise.

[Zebedeo]

94. Um, I'm sorry to break it to you, but

animals DO want to kill each other. And they do. Lots of times. Every day.

He could have made us as peaceful as other animals on earth...i.e still give us free will but we have no want to kill each other.

:rofl:

The concept of "free will" is not simply the choice to hug your girlfriend or kiss her. Free will is the choice to obey or disobey God. This is the choice that Adam and Eve had, and that each of us has.

In fact, this is the big difference between mankind and animals. Animals do not have the ability to either obey or disobey God. Humans do.

If God had made mankind unable to disobey Him, men and women would be spiritually no different from animals. God made us his special creatures by giving us the ability to obey or disobey Him.

As you point out, God could have made men unable to rape. He could have made men and women unable to disobey Him in any way. But then God would have created nothing but automatons, machines that had no choice. How much greater is God's creation - mankind - that is able to make the choice to love Him or reject Him.

Since each of us has a choice to love God or not, it means something when we choose to love Him.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

97. I personally would like to thank Adam and Eve for disobeying, then.

:patriot:

I mean, if it weren't for them, "God" would have kept us locked up in his Edenic penthouse for all eternity.

Yeah.

[Evoman]

107. Misunderstood me

Uh...you misunderstand me. I didn't mean to say all animals are peaceful, but a lot of them are. Why couldnt we have been like those? Or why couldn't we just have had less testosterone/murderous rages. Because god programmed us...we can play with the algorithm a bit, but he still made us capable of murder and rape. There are a lot of animals that don't rape each other. He could have made us physically incapable of murder or rape. But he didn't because he is an asshole.

And why do we want to be spiritually different from animals? At least animals don't have to worry about spending the rest of eternity in a burning lake of fire. There are also some animals out there...for example, orangatangs (google Koko) who seem to have conciousness. I would rather be like them....being able to live without being made to suffer eternity in hell for not believing in a illogical 2000 year old book.

And just because he could have made us not able to rape, it doesnt mean we are automotons. Thats the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. I can't kill you with a thought (i.e god didn't give me that capability) but that doesnt mean I'm an automoton. I can't fly and shit napalm (god didnt give me that ability to hurt other...god bless him) but that doesnt mean I'm an automoton. Again, I don't believe in god...this is just a mental excercise for me. But if he does exist, the last thing he deserves is my love. My dog has disobeyed me, but I would never, ever throw him into a lake of fire for eternity for it. My dog could go insane, try to kill me or someone I love, and, although I may put him down, I would never torture him. Especially not forever.

God does not exist. And if he does, I will not praise him.

[Zebedeo]

109. That's the beauty part

We are not automatons. We each have a choice to love God or not. You seem to have made your choice, and I've made mine.

Neither Koko nor any orangutan is able to make moral choices. An animal is incapable of behaving morally or immorally, because an animal is incapable of obeying or disobeying God. We humans are different. We, contrary to your contention, are not "programmed" to sin. We have free will. It just so happens that each of us is spiritually weak and therefore we choose to sin against God. It's a good thing for us that God in His infinite mercy sent us a Redeemer.

You are the first person I have encountered who has expressed the desire to be like an animal - unable to distinguish right from wrong, and just acting on instinct and primitive intelligence. I cannot imagine having such a desire.

I would never throw my dog into a lake of fire either. Because a dog does not have the ability to be evil. A dog is just a dog.

[Evoman]

110. Kill the buddha

You wouldn't toss your dog in their but would you toss a person? No matter how evil a person is, no matter how many people they may have killed, I would never do that. I would never condemn a person for eternity. No crime is worth that. I understand that. You understand that. God does not..because god is not moral.

I don't want to be an animal. I am an animal. So are you.

You completely skipped over everything I said. God could have designed us differently WITHOUT making us automotons. He could have given us the ability to love him or not but still made us incapable of killing, raping, and bombing each other. Hell, maybe a larger percentage of us would love him/believe in him if he didn't do such dispshit poor job of running the universe. The way he runs it, its almost like there is no god. Imagine that.

Take viruses. Why do they suck so bad. Why didn't he make all viruses painless. And since you probably dont believe in evolution, then why does he constantly create new bacteria that are immune to our vaccines. As soon as we find a way for his creations to stop killing and torturing us, he changes them so they will. It almost seems like he wants to make our lives miserable. Maybe God is completely evil and love and happiness are abhorrent to him. There are more people starving than not. There are more people suffering than not. God is killing us, threatening us with torture, sending plaques, tornadoes and hurricanes.

If you find the buddha on the road, kill the buddha. Kill the god inside you and you will realize that the world we see makes sense.

Evoman

[Zebedeo]

112. So you are a "glass half-empty" person, I see

To me, your statement that "God is not moral" is a logical impossibility, since I define morality in reference to God's will.

God has his way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. He gives us a lifetime to choose. This is covered in detail in the Bible.

You said: "He could have given us the ability to love him or not but still made us incapable of killing, raping, and bombing each other." Making us INCAPABLE of disobeying any one of His commandments would make that commandment meaningless. It is as if you told your dog "no driving my truck!" and then you took the ignition key with you. Since your dog is INCAPABLE of driving your truck, it is impossible for the dog to disobey you. Your instruction is therefore meaningless and superfluous.

Why do viruses suck so bad? Because it's a fallen world. No one is saying the world is paradise. We got kicked out of Eden, remember? Now, life is harder. To use a current expression, "It's hard out there for a pimp." A Biblical version of this expression is:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Genesis 3:16-19

We cursed ourselves and the entire planet by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden. That's why there are viruses and other sucky things in this world.

[Evoman]

113. Lol...but god loves you

Lol...but god loves you.

Hey everybody, another excerpt from my play

Evoman: *to his 12 year old cousin* Hi Chantel. I'm glad your housesitting for me while I'm away at a conference

Chantel: Sure thing, Evoman.

Evoman: Now, you can go everywhere in the house except that third closet in the hallway. YOU MUST NOT GO IN THERE.

Chantel: Um..okay.

Evoman: Here, I'll give you the keys to that closet. BUT YOU MUST NEVER GO IN THERE.

Chantel: Uh...sure.

Evoman. The key goes in upside down. And that closet is full of knowledge. YOU MUST NEVER GO IN THERE.

Chantel: sure sure

Evoman: Okay *leaves*

*knock on the door*

Snakeman: Hey, whats up chantel baby.

Chantel: Oh nothing snakeman. Just watching my cousins house.

Snakeman:Whats that key for.

Chantel: A closet. My uncle doesn't want us to go there.

Snakeman: Sure he does. Why would he give you the key if he didn't want you to go in there. It was probably a joke

Chantel: You think? Okay. Lets go open the closet

Chantel:*opens closet* OH MY GOD. THIS CLOSET IS FULL OF PORN. EWWWW.

EvomanL *comes in* Oh chantel...I forgot to tel....WHAT THE HELL!!!!

Chantel: GROSS

Evoman: YOU DISOBEYED ME. For doing that, I'm going to inject you with Aids. Then I'm going to throw you out in the streets so you'll get raped and beaten. Then I'm going to make sure all of your kids, if they survive the aids, will be suffer for this. They build a house, I'll knock it down. SUFFER

Chantel: Really *sniff*....why..

Evoman: No, I'm just kidding. What, you think I'm god! HAHAHA

Chantel: HAHAHA

Snakeman: HAHAHAH *look at audience and winks*

END OF SCENE

[WhollyHeretic]

115. Bravo! Wonderful scene.

:rofl: :applause:

Have you read any James Morrow?

[Evoman]

116. No I haven't

What does he write....I'lll google it.

[WhollyHeretic]

119. Satire

Mostly religious satire. Your scene got me thinking of Bible Stories for Adults

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156002442/sr=8-1/qid=1142738675/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1556377-5476722?%5Fencoding=UTF8

That's a great one. He's got some funny ass books with a lot of interesting points.
Only Begotten Daughter is my other favorite, a middle-aged, male, Jewish virgin gives birth to a daughter.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

121. That play deserves its own thread !!!

(throws roses into the arena)

[Zebedeo]

122. You forgot one part to your scene

OK, I have to admit, you made me chuckle with that scene.

But in order to make your play correspond better with the Bible, you have to add a part where Evoman freely forgives Chantel and takes the punishment on himself for her transgression, and also grants her eternal life in Heaven, where there are no tears.

[Evoman]

123. AHHHH

But what you don't know is that Chantel does not ask for forgiveness because she feels that her cousin Evoman is a disgusting pervert. Evoman desperately tries to tell her its in her best interest to apologize, because if she does he will give her a lolly. He even offers to beat up his innocent little toddler Jakey and put a skewer through him so that she can get off the hook. She is horrified by that and refuses to apologize. So evoman is forced to throw a pot of boiling oil on her. He can't help it...he tried to help her but she refused his mercy.

Just kidding. I would never condone an action like that in my play. My play also doesn't have any incest between Evoman and his cousin. That would be unseemly.

[beam me up scottie]

124. SNORT!

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

149. I am really enjoying your presence here

Keep up the good work. :thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

114. "We cursed ourselves ...

We cursed ourselves and the entire planet by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden. That's why there are viruses and other sucky things in this world.

How quaint.

And by quaint, I mean ignorant.

[Evoman]

117. I do not submit

It just amazes me how many people have a slave mentality. You make one little slip up and you get whipped and smashed and ground into pieces by your "massa". Then you ask HIM for forgiveness.

HAHA...okay, even us lowly humans know that a punishment has to fit the crime. I don't believe in god, but if he does exist, I am not his slave. He can beat me, and whip me, and kill me for what my ancestor does, but I will never acknowledge him as my master. I will never love the being who tortures me or my family.

I do not submit to bloodthirsty tyrants. hehe

Evoman

[beam me up scottie]

120. Were we separated at birth?

:)This is from the post I just made to Zebby:

Actually, one of the biggest reasons why things are so "sucky" is because too many people believe an arrogant, bigoted and homicidal god is giving them instructions.

[Imperialism Inc.]

137. "That's why there are viruses and other sucky things in this world"

LOL.
I thought this was supposed to be a thread about science discovering God. But yet here you are making a ridiculous statement like that. Viruses are here because they are part of the process of evolution of life on this Earth. Women have pain during childbearing because ALL MAMMALS DO!
You know what evolution is right? (For one, it is the proof that there never was such a thing as a real Garden of Eden).
Boy oh boy you sure chucked the 'ole rationality a bit further out the window than I had even thought.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. It's doublethink at its best

One moment Zebedeo is using scientific findings to say they support the idea of a Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago; the next they say that viruses were created because Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, ignoring the entire sciences of biology and geology.

It's not the normal religious position, I know - normally the existence of life for more than 6000 years is one of the first things the fundamentalists admit the Bible was wrong about. But there must be a strange little church somewhere that thinks God has left the universe running according to physical principles for all those billion of years, and then threw all that out of the window to create life on earth, which he then punished all of, with viruses, when 2 members of one species (persuaded by 1 member of another species) had a bit of curiosity. It fits in with the vengeful nature of the flood, I suppose (though fish got away without punishment then - God loves fish more than mammals, I guess).

[BlackHeart]

165. Hmmm...

"He gives us a lifetime to choose. "

Really? He sure shortens that lifetime when he allows young children and babies to die horrific deaths before they would have a chance to choose anything.

"We cursed ourselves and the entire planet by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden. That's why there are viruses and other sucky things in this world."

'We' cursed ourselves? When did I rebell against your god in the Garden? I'm being punished because of what Adam & Eve did thousands of years ago? Not fair. It sounds alot like how the Germans justified their extermination of the Jews because the Jews killed Christ.
Blame (and punish) the children for the crimes of their parents.

[Zebedeo]

176. Young children and babies are saved

Jesus said so:

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16

When did I rebell against your god in the Garden? I'm being punished because of what Adam & Eve did thousands of years ago?

You and I are just as guilty as Adam and Eve.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

I have sinned, just like Adam did. So I can't claim any unfairness that I have to live in a fallen world because of Adam's sin. I would have surely done the same thing as Adam did, wretched sinner that I am. Can you honestly say that you have never sinned? If so, you are the first person I have met who could say that. If you have sinned, you can hardly blame Adam for the fact that we don't live in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus Christ walked the Earth as a Jew, so it would be asinine to exterminate Jews on account of them killing Christ. Most of Jesus' disciples were also Jews. Mary was a Jew. So were Peter and Paul.

The Nazis scapegoated Jews using a lot of different methods, but as I understand it, most were based on supposed crimes purportedly committed by Jews in the contemporary European society, not based on the accusation that Jews killed Christ.

[mzteris]

168. "He gives us a lifetime to choose. "

"HE?" :snort:

And all those children who are victims of child molestation? Those who are beaten and tortured? That 7 month old I heard about who was raped? What CHOICE did THEY have? Who the HELL WOULD ALLOW THAT?

sick sick sick sick sick

[Zebedeo]

177. The "argument from evil" is fallacious

Yes, alot of evil exists in the world. This is unavoidable in a world in which humans have the ability to reject God. If God made it so that humans were incapable of doing evil (rejecting His will), then we would all be nothing more than automotons. If we are made incapable of rejecting God, we are likewise unable to choose God.

[Evoman]

178. God hates us all

What evidence do you have that god is not evil and invented the bible to trick us into thinking he was good?

Maybe god hates you and me. Maybe existence is his horrible idea of a joke. Maybe he goy bored, so he invented us and viruses so that he could torture us. And then, after we die, he tortures us some more.

I've rescinded my atheism. I now believe in god. But I think god wants us to think hes good, because its more fun to torture people when they aren't expecting it. If god told us he was evil, we wouldn't play along anymore. So he has us believe he is good, sends Jesus along to trick us, then tortures and kill jesus. Then he has the bible written.

What proof do you have this isn't the case? The words of the bible can't be trusted because its a trick. What other proof is there?

God hates us. Thats why we all have to band together. We have to co-operate with each other and make a good society so that he doesn't enjoy us so much. We have to find some way of toppling his dictatorship. He's gotta go.

Evoman

[Zebedeo]

179. No "evidence" is needed because

It is logically impossible for God to be evil, because evil is defined as rebellion against God's will.

I am glad to see that you have kept your mind open to different possibilities, and that has enabled you to rescind your atheism. You might consider continuing to keep your mind open on such issues. One day you might realize that God is good, not evil.

It is admittedly difficult on an emotional level to comprehend why God allows evil to continue to exist. However, logical reflection reveals the answer. It is necessary for evil to exist, so that God can sort out those who choose Him from those who reject Him. Life on Earth is sort of a morality play. God lets us play it out, but He knows how it will end.

[Evoman]

180. Love is evil then. Cuz

So if it did turn out god hated us and loved murder and torture, would that mean torture and murder are not evil. Again, the bible is just a trick. So god is good, but by following the love stuff in the bible, you are being evil. Cuz god hates love. Love is evil. Hate is good.

Here are my prepositions...

God is good.

Everything god does is good.

If god creates volcanoes, tornadoes, AIDS and Flu's, then he is torturing us.

If God tortures us, then torture is good.

If torture is good, then not torturing is evil.

Because I refuse to torture people, I am evil.

So be it. I'm evil and god is good. But if god is good, then I WANT to be evil. I don't want to torture people, make them sick, kill them or anything like that.

[Zebedeo]

181. So many fallacies - Where do I start?

"If god creates volcanoes, tornadoes, AIDS and Flu's, then he is torturing us."

No. How did you get that proposition? Seems like you just made that one up. There are plenty of explanations for bad things that exist in the world. I have given a theological explanation based on the Fall of Man and the necessity of evil in a world that includes free will. Materialists would give very different reasons for the existence of these same bad things. Any way you slice it, this is Earth (not Heaven), and bad shit happens. That does not mean that God is torturing us.

"If God tortures us, then torture is good."

No. Even if you were to establish somehow that God tortures us, that does not mean that YOU torturing someone else is "good." Another wild leap of logic you made.

[Evoman]

182. Hehe

Lol...fallacies..

Dipping someone into a lake of fire, no matter how you cut it, is torture. Unless it involves that person dying, which in gods case, it isnt. If god does something, it HAS to be good right? God is absolute goodness. God can do no evil. If god can send someone to a lake of fire, and he is good for doing that, than If i were to dip someones feet in fire, then I would be good too. Wouldnt I?

[Evoman]

183. SUPERVIRUSSSSSS

Oh...and If I were to go to the lab and make a supervirus that kills a bunch of people, that would be good too. Cuz god does it. That means its good if I do it. I'm saving god some work. I'm doing gods work. That means Im good. YaY

[beam me up scottie]

188. Sayyyyyyyyyyyy, that explains bush's reasoning about all the dead Iraqis.

Why didn't I see this before, it's so simple...

[Zebedeo]

190. Nonsense

See post #180

[Zebedeo]

189. Nope

See post #180

[beam me up scottie]

187. How about here?

As you well know, many reknowned(sic) physicists and other scientists have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God.

I've asked you twice for proof of your claim.


If you made it up, just say so.

[Evoman]

192. Its time to get socratic

Tell you what. Lets make this next posting interactive. I'll ask some question, you answer them with YES/NO.

1) Is god GOOD?

2) Is good capable of evil?

3) If god does something, does if follow that that is a GOOD ACTION?

4) If god does a GOOD ACTION, does god approve of a GOOD ACTION?

5) Can god approve of an ACTION that is ever an EVIL ACTION?

6) If god approves of a GOOD ACTION, is that GOOD ACTION ever EVIL?

If god can not approve of an EVIL ACTION, and all the ACTIONS God approves are GOOD AND ONLY GOOD AND ALWAYS GOOD, then humans who do those ACTIONS, that can only be GOOD actions, are therefore performing GOOD ACTIONS.

God makes killer viruses. Making Killer viruses is not evil because god does it. God would never perform an action that may under any circumstance be evil. Under no circumstance can making an supervirus be evil. Even when a human makes a super virus, that action can never be evil. So when I make a supervirus in the lab, that action cannot be evil.

Cool. IM GONNA MAKE A VIRUS CUZ GOD THINKS ITS PEACHY!

[Zebedeo]

193. This is so tiresome

You persist in the fallacy that if God does something to someone, you can do a similar thing to someone else. That's BS because you are not God.

If your Dad can go to bed with your Mom, and that's GOOD, does that mean that you can go to bed with your Mom, and that would be GOOD, too? Nope. You are not your Dad.

If Joe Blow kills Hitler right before Hitler can pull a lever that will result in the gassing of some Jews, and Joe's Blow's killing of Hitler is GOOD, does that mean that you can go into the local post office blasting away at everyone, and that is also GOOD? Nope. You are not Joe Blow, and the people you are shooting are not Hitler, and they are not about to gas some Jews.

So no, you can't make a killer virus and have that be GOOD, just because God allowed viruses in this fallen world. You're not God.

[Evoman]

194. Hmm...

I get it.

When god makes a killer virus that kills a huge portion of the worlds populations, its good. When god makes a killer virus that dolphins die, its good. When good makes avian flu, its good. When god makes prions that drive cattle crazy, its good. When he makes those prions dangerous and it causes the mental detioration and eventual death of people, including children, IT IS DAMMMMN GOOD.

Well, what if God was using me to make a killer virus. Would that be good?

[Zebedeo]

195. That would be you playing God again, and that's

not good.

[Evoman]

198. Ah, okay....and

how do you know what god wants? You KNOW god exists (beats me how) but how do you, Zebedeo, fallible human that you are, KNOW what god wants? How do you know that I'm not right and that god thinks love is evil?

The bible? The Qu'ran? The Torah? The Illiad? The book of the Dead? How can you be so sure? God was responsible for all those books.

How can you be so sure that God wants you to be a christian and not a muslim. How do you know that hes not getting the good ol' lake warmed up for Zebedeos arrival. Maybe god likes atheist and agnostics the best because we don't keep telling her what he wants. Maybe god wishes you would stop reading the stupid bible and started paying attention to the world around you. Maybe god doesn't give a shit either way. Maybe god is to busy with his favourite Alien race on the Planet ZIGnNO in the Andromeda galaxy to give two shits what you think. After all, your pretty POSITIVE that this study proves a creator. It sure doesn't say anything else about god, including that he loves you.

Evoman

[Zhade]

201. He DOESN'T know.

He's lying to himself if he thinks he does.

[Zebedeo]

202. That's all I said about it

that it proves that the universe was created. I didn't say it proves that God cares about our lives or interacts with us.

However, while this study doesn't prove those facts, they are nevertheless true.

I freely admit that I do not have perfect knowledge of God's will. However, there are many ways to communicate with God and seek to understand His will better. These include reading His Word, earnest prayer, meditation, communion with Christ, indwelling by the Holy Spirit, etc.

To give these methods a fair shot, you have to try them in earnest, with an open mind and a softened heart. That's how I became a Christian.

[Evoman]

205. I have the ultimate open mind

My dad was an atheist, my mom a catholic. You could say I had the ultimate open mind. My dad thought it was crap, and my mom took me to church. I prayed, communed with christ (and luckily, I didn't commune with the priest) and I've READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE. I also read science books (something not enough christians do, obviously).

God never touched me. Jesus didn't talk to me. Praying, I realized, was a waste of time. I found beauty in nature, in astronomy (as a Kid I had every moon of every planet memorized). And I found out I was completely okay with that. I didn't need god. In fact, most of my teachers and most of the people who know me would tell you that I am more psychologically healthy than 95 percent of the population. And part of the reason is that I don't lie to myself. I had other ways to learn, other ways to grow.

I no doubt have a way more open mind than you. While I've "communed" with god, you have probably never tried to drop all that shit that was no doubt beat into you when you were a kid. Having an open mind does not mean you have to be gullible.

Evoman

[Zebedeo]

210. I was raised atheist

you have probably never tried to drop all that shit that was no doubt beat into you when you were a kid.

I became a Christian only a few years ago. Both my parents were atheist. I was not raised in a Christian home.

I am more psychologically healthy than 95 percent of the population.

That, it seems to me, is a self-annihilating statement. ;)

I'm sorry you did not feel God's presence. All I can say is that sometimes it takes a long time. I had a friend in high school who was (and is) a Christian, and he tried to get me to receive Christ for years. I politely but firmly rebuffed every attempt. 25 years later, I realized that my friend loved me and was willing to subject himself to continual rejection in order to try to save my soul. The seeds he planted landed on hard, parched ground, and they did not take root -- until decades later, when the rains came and the ground softened. Then my friend's 25-year old seeds sprouted, took root and flourished. Now they are growing as a small sapling. I pray that one day they will have grown into a forest of mighty trees.

[mzteris]

221. ooooooooooooohhhhhh

a newbie.

That explains a lot.

:rofl:

[Zebedeo]

222. Mock if you will

It doesn't bother me. Jesus Himself was mocked and ridiculed mercilessly. Why should it be any surprise that His followers are also mocked?

[beam me up scottie]

223. Comparing yourself to Jesus?

Isn't that a no no?

Better check the rule book.

[Zebedeo]

224. Not equating

by any means. Jesus said that His followers would be hated and persecuted. Luke 21:17; John 15:18-21. He also said "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven." Luke 6:22-23

[beam me up scottie]

225. Ah, the persecution fantasy.

Very useful.

[trotsky]

230. Yeah, but men have hated Hitler, Stalin, and David Koresh, too.

Are they getting nice rewards in heaven?

[mzteris]

228. I wasn't mocking. . .

merely understanding where you are in your quest.

Kinda like that reformed smoker/alcoholic thing.

Me, I'm on the OTHER end of that spectrum.

Cradle roll at three weeks. 19 years without missing one single Sunday School class. And usually Sunday night, Wednesday night, choirs, other children's programs. Vacation Bible schools . . . you name it.

I'm pushing 50 hard and after countless years of struggle of trying reconcile all those "beliefs" with plain darn common sense - well, I reject out of hand the whole "definition" of GOD as explained by mere humans. Can't be done. And the attempt is not only ludicrous in the extreme, but harmful to mankind. It started out as an okay idea, but fanatasicm in any way shape or form can screw anything up. All things in moderation, boyo, all things in moderation. Including "religion."


Again - do you think it's better to do the "right thing" (the GOOD thing) because you WANT to, or because you're afraid of being punished or because you want some "reward"?

[Zebedeo]

231. The "right thing"

do you think it's better to do the "right thing" (the GOOD thing) because you WANT to, or because you're afraid of being punished or because you want some "reward"?

Because I want to.

[mzteris]

233. so you agree

that atheists or agnostics can be - and are - just as "moral" as a person professing a "religion"?

Do you also agree that there are MANY people in this world who *only* do the "right thing" because they FEAR reprisals from their God or because they want the reward promised by same?

Which type of person would you rather be around?


Early shamans/govts NEEDED religion to keep the masses in line. Just like we use Santa Claus to keep the little kiddies in line (same principle) He's always watching. He knows if you've been bad or good. If you're good, you get toys, If you're bad, you get coal (well we don't really do THAT anymore, but we still say it.)

Then you grow up and realize you can do good things without the carrot or the stick. Intelligent people don't NEED the goad anymore.

Let me put it in terms you might understand,

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I Cor Chapter 13, verse 11

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. I Cor Chapter 14, verse 20

[Zebedeo]

234. It is possible

so you agree that atheists or agnostics can be - and are - just as "moral" as a person professing a "religion"?

Yes, they can be, and sometimes are.

Moral behavior, as I understand it, is doing God's will. Certain atheists adhere to God's will better than certain theists. Take, for example, Carl Sagan. I don't know for sure, but it would be my guess that Sagan does God's will more than Osama bin Laden does. There is one example where an atheist behaves more morally than a theist.

No one does God's will perfectly, all the time. We all have the seed of rebelliousness in us. Though I consider myself to behave more morally than bin Laden, the truth is that we both have sinned and therefore we both fall short of the Glory of God.

My view is that, whether atheist or theist, whenever you love your neighbor, you are doing God's will. Whenever you honor your mother and father, you are doing God's will. Whenever you help the helpless, you are doing God's will. Whenever you act to prevent injustice, you are doing God's will. Whenever you feed the hungry, you are doing God's will. Whenever you shelter the homeless, you are doing God's will. Whenever you stand up for those who are treated unfairly by society, you are doing God's will. Whenever you stay faithful to your husband or your wife, you are doing God's will. Whenever you resist the temptation to steal, to lie, to covet, you are doing God's will. I could go on and on.

Basically, my view is that many atheists DO behave morally. However, their atheism has nothing to do with it. What defines moral behavior is doing God's will, and many atheists no doubt do God's will every day -- even though they don't believe He exists.

[mzteris]

240. Well, I'm glad

you're happy.

Whatever it takes to live a righteous and moral life for you. Just take care to remember that not ever believes as you do - and that doesn't make them wrong nor you right. Just a different POV and a different life path.

[Zebedeo]

243. I thought some more about your question in the shower this

morning.

do you think it's better to do the "right thing" (the GOOD thing) because you WANT to, or because you're afraid of being punished or because you want some "reward"?

Your question seems to indicate that you think Christians try to do the "right thing" out of fear of eternal punishment or out of desire to reap an eternal reward.

Your implication is that atheists are more moral that Christians, because they "do the right thing" because they WANT to, while Christians do so only because of desire for reward or fear of punishment.

However, as you should know, that is not at all what Christians believe. Christians believe that salvation comes through faith in Christ, and is not dependent on doing "the right thing." Even heinous sinners can receive salvation through Christ's cleansing blood. So your implication is factually incorrect.

Christians "do the right thing" because they WANT to, not because of a belief that their eternal fate depends on it.

[mzteris]

247. No - my implication is not

"factually incorrect" - for all people. While it *may* be true that *some* "Christians" do the right thing because they truly believe it's the right thing,

having been born and raised in a Southern Baptist Church, then went to a Methodist Church - and having been a church member for nearly 50 years of my life, I'm here to tell you that - YES. There are MANY MANY MANY "Christians" who are "doing the right thing" BECAUSE - they "don't want to go to hell" and they "Want to go to heaven".

And if you're really good, you might get a golden crown. If you're not quite so good just a silver one. (This is what I was taught as a 4 yo Sunbeam. . .)


And in counter-point - all of the secular humanists I know do the right thing for one reason only - not for reward, not for fear of punishment - but because they truly believe it is the right thing to do.

[Zhade]

245. There's no such thing as being "raised atheist".

I think you're lying.

[Zebedeo]

255. Uh, OK

Whatever gets you through the day.

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zebedeo]

257. How can anyone know if s/he is sane?

It seems an impossible task for anyone.

Also, what evidence do you have that God is not speaking to your grandma?

[mzteris]

185. eeeeeeeenkkkkk! Not allowed - self referential argument.

"because evil is defined as rebellion against God's will."

[Zebedeo]

191. That's my definition of evil. Do you have a different one?

If so, please state it.

[mzteris]

200. So

no matter what "God" does - it's okay by you.

So 'causing - or even allowing - the death by horrible torture/pain of a 2 yo child - God allows it to happen - it's ok. Man allows it to happen - it's evil.

Is that what you're saying?

[Zebedeo]

203. No fair

You didn't answer my question, and now you are asking me one. Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

[mzteris]

206. Evil

is that which is done that will deliberately cause - or allow to happen - significant harm.

[Zebedeo]

208. OK, thanks, but

that definition, it seems to me, is highly problematic.


1. It is vague - harm to whom? What constitutes "harm"?
2. If it means harm to anyone, it would mean that all wars are evil, even wars of self-defense against an aggressor.
3. If it means harm to anyone, it would mean that all killing is evil, even in self-defense or defense of others.
4. It means that allowing people to ride motorcycles without helmets is evil.
5. It means that allowing people to drive cars is evil.
6. If the definition includes harm to animals, then meat is murder, and so is that leather belt you are wearing.
7. If the definition doesn't include harm to animals, but only to humans, then torturing a baby bunny is not evil.

The "allow to happen" clause is a doozy. Hey, we are all right now "allowing to happen" all the man-made harm that is currently happening in the world. We could stop all that harm by exterminating the entire human race.

But ants also cause harm - they bite other animals - so it would be evil to allow that harm to continue to occur. We are duty-bound to eradicate all ants from the planet.

The same goes for all predators.

In fact, every animal on Earth must be killed, because they all cause harm to SOMEONE, some way or another.

And we haven't even considered all the harm that plants do to each other - outcompeting each other for resources, resulting in "significant" harm and even death to other plants. All those plants, like the Strangler Fig, must be eradicated, because to allow them to continue causing harm would be evil, under your definition.

The only solution is to eliminate all life on Earth -- and if there is life anywhere else in the universe, we must eliminate it there, too -- then kill ourselves. That would be the only way to not allow harm to happen, and allowing harm to happen is evil.

If you mean causing overall "net" harm (some people are harmed, others benefited, but the benefit is greater than the harm), you still have problems.

It would mean that if a woman is unconscious or in a coma and will never know that the attack took place, it is "good" for a gang of rapists to rape her, because the rapists benefit more than the woman is harmed.

It would also mean that it's ok to steal if you are going to spend the money in a way that makes more people happy than the rightful owner would have. It would mean that I should be able to come over to your house and take what I want from you, as long as I have a use for it that will result in less overall harm.

All individual rights would have to be abolished, so that the greater good could be maximized. The right to smoke or drink alcohol would be the first rights to be abolished. Also speech rights would have to be eliminated, because a government board would have to be appointed to determine whether any particular speech would result in a net increase of harm or not.

So, while I give you props for stating a definition, I think that your definition needs some refinement.

[mzteris]

211. parsing is the last sign of desperation

1. Irreparable damage. Intentional damage. An action that negatively affects one physically, mentally, emotionally, relationally, personally, interpersonally, psyche-ly (not sure that's a word, but you know what I mean.)


2. I happen to believe all war IS evil. (see 3)

3. I happen to believe that while one may be "justified" in harming another in the course of self defense, it's still within the realm of "evil". But the one responsible is the one of caused the evil to occur. (Follow?)

4. I think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid and - yes, you could consider it evil. Think of those left behind or to care for the shell you become. Think of the person who hit you with their car and the mental anguish they would have to endure the rest of their lives.

5. Allowing people to drive cars? You've lost me there.

6. I happen to BE a vegetarian - and no - I don't wear a leather belt.

7. It does include harm to animals. And anyone who tortures a baby bunny, grown bunny or anybunny - is committing an act of evil. And they're probably psychotic. (Little boys who torture and kill things often grow up to be serial killers. GWB tortured animals, didn't he?)

*** "allow to happen" clause is a doozy. Hey, we are all right now "allowing to happen" all the man-made harm that is currently happening in the world. We could stop all that harm by exterminating the entire human race.***

I'm not "allowing it to happen". I'm doing whatever I can in MY power to not allow it to happen. How about you? Exterminating the entire human race would be genocide - and that would be evil.

Ants also do good - as do other animals. Animals/insects don't commit evil. There is no volition. (Now the "God" who created them and their behaviours? Well, you may have a point there.)

Boy you sure do like exterminating things, don't you? Hey! Isn't that what "God" tried to do when he "flooded" the earth?


**It would mean that if a woman is unconscious or in a coma and will never know that the attack took place, it is "good" for a gang of rapists to rape her, because the rapists benefit more than the woman is harmed.***

I'm really beginning to worry about you. For someone so "godly" you sure have ungodly thoughts. That's pretty vile to even consider. How would the rapists benefit, exactly? Never mind, PLEASE don't answer as I couldn't possibly ever want to know what good you would think is associated with that.

You're arguments are just getting totally asinine.

One person's rights STOP where the other person's begin. And yeah, outlawing smoking would be a tremendously good thing. Alcohol? Well they tried that once.

Hey, maybe "GOD" could eliminate alcoholism, mental illness, poverty, and sickness. . .

[Zebedeo]

217. You're doing everything in your power to not allow helmetless

motorcycle riding? Really? What have you done?

You said helmetless motorcycle riding was evil.
You said you were doing everything in your power to not allow evil to happen.

So what, specifically, have you done to prevent people from riding motorcycles without a helmet?


You said I lost you on prohibiting driving cars. Let me explain:

You said allowing anything that causes harm is evil.
People driving cars causes harm, because hundreds of thousands of people die in automobile collisions each year.
So by your definition of evil, allowing people to drive cars is evil.

You said "I happen to BE a vegetarian - and no - I don't wear a leather belt." Yeah, but under your definition of evil, ALLOWING any harm to be done to animals is evil. So not only do YOU have to refrain from ever wearing leather or eating meat, but you also have to STOP everyone ELSE from doing it too -- including other animals!! That's why I said that you will have to exterminate all predators, because THEY EAT MEAT, and that causes harm to animals, and we cannot ALLOW harm to be caused, because under your definition, allowing harm to be caused is EVIL.

You said "Boy you sure do like exterminating things, don't you?" No, I don't. As you know full well, I was pointing out that under YOUR definition of evil, allowing any life to exist is evil, because all life results in some "harm." Whereas under MY definition of evil, it is NOT necessary to eradicate all life.

You said "Animals/insects don't commit evil. There is no volition." I agree 100%. But YOU said that evil is causing harm or allowing harm to be caused. Animals clearly cause harm - lots of it. So allowing that harm to be caused, by YOUR definition, is evil. Which leads to the conclusion that in order to not be evil, we must prevent that harm from occuring. The only way to do that is to eradicate all animals (and plants) from the universe.

As an aside: The fact that animals/insects don't commit evil is no coincidence, from my point of view. It results directly from the fact that animals/insects have no ability to obey or disobey God's will. Since "good" for me is defined as God's will, this accounts for why animals are incapable of committing evil (or good).

As you know, you are intentionally twisting my hypothetical about the rapists. I am the one who says that it would be EVIL to rape. I am not saying that ANY good would result from rape. YOUR definition of evil (if you meant maximizing overall utility) is the one that would result in injustices like the one in the hypothetical being considered "good." My point is that you can't just say that you have to balance the "harm" that occurs from an action with the "benefit" that occurs from the action, and say that anything that results in more benefit than harm is "good." That would lead to injustices in many cases. It would also eliminate virtually all individual rights and freedoms.

You said "And yeah, outlawing smoking would be a tremendously good thing." Well, why stop there? As long as we are willing to eliminate personal freedom in order to achieve a greater collective good, why not also outlaw overeating? We could have "obesity police" going from door to door with calipers and scales.

So which is your definition - that allowing ANY harm is evil, or that allowing actions that result in a NET increase of harm is evil?

[mzteris]

220. Hey chico

*I'm* not "God". If I were, you bet your sweet bippy I'd have done all those things.

I said "IN MY POWER" - as in within the realm of possibility. I don't have a magic wand to go around poofing laws and people's behaviour. I'm doing what I can. As in educating my children and the people *I* know. As in leading a life that attempts in as much as humanly possible to not foment evil. To not do harm. I never claimed to be perfect. I never claimed to have the ability to control the Universe. That's something you're claiming for your "God."

Specious arguments are just that - specious.

Which is better - to "do good/avoid evil" because it's the right thing to do? Or because you fear reprisal for "doing evil" and/or expect some sort of "reward" for "doing good"?

[mzteris]

207. speaking of "no fair"

Why didn't you comment on my other posts?

I particularly liked my Einstein quotes. Didn't you?

[Zebedeo]

209. Now I'll answer your question

since you kindly answered mine.

God allows sin. Allowing sin is good because it is God's will that humans have the ability to sin or not sin against Him. He gives us a choice. If He didn't give us a choice to disobey Him, there would be no way to obey Him.

Some sins cause terrible suffering and injustice (such as the death by horrible torture/pain of a 2 yo child that you mentioned), and by allowing mankind to commit sins, God enables that suffering and injustice to occur. However, allowing mankind to commit sins is essential. Without allowing mankind the free will to sin, God would have created mere automatons with no ability to choose to love or reject Him.

The good news is that this world, in which evil exists, has a finite lifespan. Even nonreligious people admit that. The Earth is slated to be destroyed by fire - whether you ask a Bible-thumping preacher from Mississippi or an atheist astrophysicist. Read all about it. Or just ask ascientist. Or a Christian.

[mzteris]

212. what free will

did that 2 yo have?

What "sin" did they commit?

I think it a sick and despicable act to "allow" such things to happen. In fact, it's EVIL!

[Zebedeo]

216. The free will to which I am referring

is the free will of the murderer/rapist/torturer. The 2 yo was probably too young to understand God or exercise free will to accept or reject God. Fortunately, children are saved, and that 2 yo is now in God's House. "Jesus said: Let the little children come to me; for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these."

[mzteris]

219. that's a real consolation

***The 2 yo was probably too young to understand God or exercise free will to accept or reject God. Fortunately, children are saved, and that 2 yo is now in God's House. "Jesus said: Let the little children come to me; for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these."***

So the 2 yo gets tortured and murdered 'cause they're "too young to understand God or exercise free will to accept or reject God." and now s/he's "saved".

Too bad "GOD" didn't save the kid from being tortured/abused/murdered. And you don't think that's EVIL?

Now that old translation where "Jesus said, "suffer the little children to come unto me." makes perfect sense, eh?

[Zebedeo]

244. Let me ask you this

Would you like God to eliminate all evil in the universe? He could do it, but it would require eliminating free will. One way to do it would be to end all life. Without life, there would be no evil, by anyone's definition.

If you had the choice, would you eliminate all life in the universe, so that it would prevent any future instances of a 2 yo being tortured/abused/murdered? Let's say God asked you your opinion on this. What would you tell Him? Push the delete key or not?

And don't come back with a post arguing with the question or posing an altered hypothetical. It's a simple question - delete or don't delete? What would you say?

[mzteris]

248. What makes you think GOD

is a "he", btw?

Do you think GOD is like a human like entity with super powers, or what, exactly?

That's like "have you stopped beating your wife" answer yes or no.... not an honest question.

If I were GOD I could eliminate evil without eliminating freewill. I'd be GOD, and I could do ANYTHING being Omnipotent and all, now couldn't I?

[Zebedeo]

254. Just as I suspected

You refused to answer the simple yes-or-no question, and you came back with a post arguing with the question and posing a different hypothetical.

And NO, I don't see how God could eliminate evil without eliminating free will. Elimination of evil is equivalent to elimination of the ability to disobey God. If there is no ability to disobey God, there is no free will.

Would you please answer my question - delete or don't delete?

[mzteris]

263. so have you stopped beating your wife, Zeb?

Yes or no only.

Doesn't even matter if you don't HAVE a wife. YES OR NO ONLY?

See how silly that exercise is?

That's how silly - and dishonest - I see your "question".

If God is completely omnipotent, then GOD can do anything and GOD can eliminate evil without eliminating free will.

[Zebedeo]

264. No

I haven't stopped beating her. That's because I never started beating her.

Now would you please answer my question? Be intellectually honest.

[mzteris]

265. No clarifications allowed

You said "NO." so that means you're still beating your wife.

Not very Christian of you. LOL...... (sorry for my bad sense of humour.)

One cannot answer the question as I completely disagree with your premise.

And SHAME ON YOU for thinking GOD can't do ANYTHING. After all God is OMNIPOTENT and GOD should be able to eliminate evil without eliminating mankind.

There is no yes or no answer.

[Zebedeo]

266. The truth that you are afraid to admit

is that you would NOT delete all life in the universe if you had that power.

Why is this? Because you realize that even with all the evil, even with 2 yos being molested and murdered, it is better for life (including both good and evil) to exist than not to exist.

You have finally come around to God's position. Congratulations.

[mzteris]

269. The TRUTH IS

you're ashamed to admit YOUR "GOD" *ISN'T* Omnipotent, zeb.

You're still in denial about reality. Congratulations.

[NMMNG]

218. Theism is so convenient

You need no "evidence" to explain anything you don't want to explain (faith, you know), yet use the Bible as "evidence" to dictate the lives of others at whim.


Such a convenient cop-out.

[mzteris]

186. rofl

I'm sorry - but you're just not making any sense.

You use a manmade document to bolster manmade arguments supporting manmade concepts.

If "GOD" does it, it's not evil. But if men do the same thing, it is. Uh-uh.

[mzteris]

184. self delete

[beam me up scottie]

118. If anyone needs any more reasons why we need to educate children

about the dangers of fundamentalism as well as the importance of critical thinking, here's a great example:

So you are a "glass half-empty" person, I see

To me, your statement that "God is not moral" is a logical impossibility, since I define morality in reference to God's will.

God has his way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. He gives us a lifetime to choose. This is covered in detail in the Bible.

You said: "He could have given us the ability to love him or not but still made us incapable of killing, raping, and bombing each other." Making us INCAPABLE of disobeying any one of His commandments would make that commandment meaningless. It is as if you told your dog "no driving my truck!" and then you took the ignition key with you. Since your dog is INCAPABLE of driving your truck, it is impossible for the dog to disobey you. Your instruction is therefore meaningless and superfluous.

Why do viruses suck so bad? Because it's a fallen world. No one is saying the world is paradise. We got kicked out of Eden, remember? Now, life is harder. To use a current expression, "It's hard out there for a pimp." A Biblical version of this expression is:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Genesis 3:16-19

We cursed ourselves and the entire planet by rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden. That's why there are viruses and other sucky things in this world.

Actually, one of the biggest reasons why things are so "sucky" is because too many people believe an arrogant, bigoted and homicidal god is giving them instructions.

[beam me up scottie]

111. But you would throw non-christian humans into the fire.

Wow.

Quite the humanitarian, aren't you?


And people think atheists' morals are questionable.


Btw, we ARE animals whether rationality challenged believers understand it or not.

[Evoman]

89. Yeah, but what about the smegma

God still created smegma. And god created avian flu. And god created polio...I'm pretty sure human beings had nothing to do with it.

How come god gets to take credit for all the good i.e. one person saves another from a lake, and God gets the credit for putting the hero there. But he takes none of the responsibility for the bad...i.e. its not gods fault that put that innocent bystander in the path of the bullet.

Either god doesnt care about us or god does not exist. Those are the choices.

Evoman

[beam me up scottie]

90. Evidence of the Creator's Handiwork

Evidence of the Creator’s Handiwork
by RockyABQ

Thank you, Lord, for cancer, flu,
For athlete’s foot and typhus too.
Your wondrous world with birth defects,
And ticks and strokes is so complex.

I marvel at your pedophiles,
And mumps sure does elicit smiles.
Your greatest feat -- the tornadoes
Are right up there with lava flows.

I simply love my varicose veins,
And thank you for the hurricanes.
The miracle of gum disease
Goes hand-in-hand with cavities.

My urinary incontinence
Compliments my flatulence.
Chickenpox is a grand thing,
As is, I f-feel, my st-stuttering.

You designed miscarriages,
And cute, malformed appendages.
We thank you for psoriasis
And myriad darling viruses.

read the rest at http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/rockyfever.htm

[charlie]

56. Okay. God may turn out to be a couple of geeks

futzing around in a lab:

"When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter," Linde told me in his Russian-accented English when I reached him by phone at Stanford. "That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what's to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!"

Linde, it should be said, is famous for his mock-gloomy manner, and these words were laced with irony. But he insisted that this genesis-in-a-lab scenario was feasible, at least in principle. "What my theoretical argument shows—and Alan Guth and others who have looked at this matter have come to the same conclusion—is that we can't rule out the possibility that our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2100715

Linde, BTW, is the originator of the inflationary theory (a refinement of Guth's earlier theory) that was just affirmed. I imagine he's as excited as you are.

Praise Geeks.

[funflower]

59. This seems more plausible than the God of the Bible to me.

Interesting, really.

[trotsky]

62. Very true.

Unlike gods, that explanation actually makes sense.

[trotsky]

61. Wow, so you have a PhD in cosmology, Zeb?

I'm sure that's why you feel qualified to tell all the scientists of the world what this means.

[Zebedeo]

76. argumentum ad verecundiam again, trotsky?

Only when it suits you, huh?

[trotsky]

78. I'm not telling experts what their results mean.

You are.

[Zebedeo]

102. You are the one

saying that I am not "qualified" to remark upon the discovery, because I don't have a "PhD in cosmology." Your assertion is fallacious inasmuch as it implies that those without PhDs in cosmology are unqualified to comment on discoveries such as this one.

As you know, I am too busy herding these goats to go to grad school and get a PhD in cosmology. That has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of my comments, however.

I seem to recall that when I posted quotes from several renowned physicists and other scientists on an earlier thread, you pooh-poohed them anyway.

And BTW, in what disciplines are your PhDs? Will you be excluding yourself from any future discussions on topics in which you do not have an advanced degree?

[unschooler]

127. ROFLOL!

As you know, I am too busy herding these goats to go to grad school and get a PhD in cosmology.

:rofl:

[trotsky]

128. There is nothing keeping you from commenting on a discovery.

But you didn't stop with commenting. You declared what this discovery meant, contrary to what the experts in the field have said. Since you made up your own "goat herding" insult, I'm just going to let you stew in your own bitterness.

[funflower]

79. What's "verecundiam"?

[silverweb]

80. Here ya go:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php

:)

[funflower]

83. Thanks!

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

95. It's a word whos purpose is

to show us DU heathens how stupid and ignorant we are. It's arguement from use of big, intimidating words.:)

[salvorhardin]

103. Appeal to authority (argument from authority)

See here: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

[funflower]

105. Ah. Rather like "George W. Bush ran a baseball team, so we should

respect his opinions on foreign policy." I get it.

[mzteris]

169. OMG!

He's going to SELL US??????????? (After he runs us in the ground, of course.)

[FM Arouet666]

85. How pathetic

God did it? Can you say open your mind to science and put to rest the superstition of the past.

Sorry, I don't see how gawd directed the big bang, missed that one in the christian instruction manual. But, then again, if you want to selfishly hold on to your own idea of self importance in the universe and the gift of eternal life, I guess you can rationalize anything. Christian apologetics; spin spin spin. What next, science finds one more bit of information supporting evolution, yep, Praise be!, gawd directed evolution.

Praise Science

[Evoman]

88. Lets make a deal

I'll make you a deal. If you start believing completely in evolution, I'll start believing in your god is creator. Deal?

[SidDithers]

98. This is "God of the gaps" thinking...

and science just made the gap smaller. Doesn't this discovery make it less likely there is a god?

Sid

[Zebedeo]

101. No, not less likely.

It's proof of a supernatural event - the creation of the universe. There is no natural explanation for this event. Matter does not create itself. Nor does energy. The laws of physics do not permit a universe consisting of billions of galaxies worth of matter and energy, to self-generate from nothing.

Doesn't it seem remarkable to you that our universe expanded from the size of a marble to a size greater than the observable universe in a trillion-trillionth of a second? Stop and think about that. Does that sound like something that could happen all on its own without a cause?

God created the entire universe, in all its majestic complexity, in an instant, with one thought. But for dogmatic atheists, such discoveries are dismissed as no big deal. I'm disappointed in that reaction, but it doesn't diminish my awe for God's amazing power, intelligence and wisdom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. I don't think you've understood the article at all

It's not about the 'creation' of the universe; it's about the very early history. It's strong evidence for a rapid expansion, very early on - which means the irregularities in the universe, in the form of galaxies, are explainable in terms of quantum fluctuations before the inflation happened - which the inflation has then magnified.

What this does is make some scientific hypotheses more likely than others.

[Zebedeo]

106. The trillion-trillionth of a second

is the time it took the universe to expand from the size of a marble to a volume larger than the observable universe. So you are correct that this particular time interval does not cover the time (if any) it took for the universe to go from nothing at all to the size of a marble.

How long do you figure it took for the universe to get to the size of a marble?

[FM Arouet666]

125. You are in error

'Matter and energy self-generate from nothing' The universe was not created from nothing, a singularity existed which generated the big bang. As to your supposition that a super natural event occurred, how so, where is your evidence?

Science delves deeper into the origins of the universe and at no point has anyone, other than a believer like yourself, suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed. Grasp at the straw if you need comfort, science has uncovered the mysteries of our origins, the big bang, evolution. Your bible looks a bit dated by comparison.

Refresh me if you will. The book of genesis failed to mention the big bang, failed to mention millions of years of evolution, in fact the bible is sorely lacking in most of the scientific information humankind has discovered in the last two hundred years.

Lets look at what religion has said about the universe, the Earth is at the center of the universe, Error. The Sun revolves about the Earth, Error. Humankind is at the center of the universe, Error. God created the universe in six days, Error. And now you want to claim a scientific discovery as proof of your deity. Pathetic. Galileo is laughing from the grave.

The universe has been explained in natural terms, and I have no doubt that the origin of the universe will be similarly explained.
Spin the apologetic if you like.

[Zebedeo]

131. That's rich

"at no point has anyone, other than a believer like yourself, suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed."

So you are saying that only believers believe? Astounding!

I wonder if the corollary is also true: "Only nonbelievers fail to believe."

As you well know, many reknowned physicists and other scientists have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God. Yet you dismiss all of those scientists by classifying them as "believers." This is an amazingly fallacious argument on your part. Even if every scientist on Earth came to the conclusion that a supernatural cause is the only possible explanation, you would still be able to dismiss every one of them, because then they would be "believers." You would still be able to make your statement that "at no point has anyone, other than a believer like yourself, suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed."

You accuse me of "grasping at straws" because I "need comfort." Yet you are the one who is forced to postulate the existence of a "singularity" consisting of nothing more than a point, that somehow magically was transformed into our universe without any cause. Perhaps it is you who is grasping at straws by inventing such fanciful concepts as a "singularity" which is proposed for one reason and one reason only - because it is needed in order to patch a gaping hole in your theory. Even still, you offer no explanation as to how the singularity came into existence, where all the matter came from, where all the energy came from, what caused the singularity to spontaneously transform itself into a universe, etc., etc., etc. Your "singularity" is in reality nothing more than a rhetorical device. It offers no actual explanation for the origin of the universe, but just shifts the question.

The last part of your post literally caused me to laugh out loud: "I have no doubt that the origin of the universe will be similarly explained." What do you call that, "faith-based materialism"?

[beam me up scottie]

132. Name them.

I want names and quotes from the "many reknowned(sic) physicists and other scientists have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God".

I'll wait.

[Zebedeo]

139. I've done that before

as you know.

Here is an interesting article from 2003 about scientists in general and what proportion of scientists in America today believe in God.

"In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years."

Here's another survey done in 2005 which found that 62% of natural scientists believe in God, including 59 percent of biologists. The article references another 2005 study at the University of Chicago that found that 76% of doctors believe in God. According to this article, it was the "soft scientists" like political science profs that for the most part said they did not believe in God.

Historically, nearly all scientists of note were believers, including Gregor Mendel, who was a monk, and Isaac Newton, who said "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being," and "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history."

There's Johannes Kepler, who said: "I give myself over to my rapture. I tremble; my blood leaps. God has waited 6000 years for a looker-on to His work."

Robert Boyle (of Boyle's Law reknown), the father of modern chemistry, was a devout Christian who wrote extensively on theological issues.

Then there is a guy named Al Einstein, who said: "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

[beam me up scottie]

141. As usual, you didn't answer my question.

How many of them believe"that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God"?

Why do I always have to resort to mucking around with html to get you to read my posts?

[FM Arouet666]

153. Is he evading the question?

Really, how simple do you have to make this. List the notable scientist which believe this! Failure to do so should prompt a retraction of the statement. Don't you agree. I will not hold my breath.

[beam me up scottie]

155. I agree.

And since he hasn't retracted the statement he made last night that no bill has been introduced in the house to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriage, I doubt he'll do it this time.

[charlie]

144. A correction

It's the "hard scientists" who are more likely to disbelieve, not the social scientists.

[Zebedeo]

145. You're right.

I misread it at first. You are correct.

[charlie]

148. I don't know if you want to claim Einstein

He was a sort of pantheist, revelling in a profound appreciation of the order and mysterious beauty that his reason revealed to him. He didn't accept the notions of a soul, free will, afterlife, prayer, or a prime mover who imposed his will on the universe. A fuller quote of your cite makes it a little clearer:

"But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

Here's one more:

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being."

[FM Arouet666]

152. A scientist of note believes in god therefor god exists.

Classic argumentum ad verecundiam. Your argument is nonsense. As an example, I could list a number of quotes from Einstein which support the position that he was an atheist. But again, it is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

You have been challenged to support your contention that a number of noted contemporary scientists state that that the only rational explanation regarding the origin of the universe is that god did it. Please list a number of scientists working in the field of astro physics which believe this.

[mzteris]

173. I love the way you alter the report to make it "sound better"

"Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists surveyed said they did not believe in God, but only 31 percent of the social scientists gave that response.

Among each of the two general groups, one discipline stood out: Forty-one percent of the biologists and 27 percent of the political scientists said they don't believe in God.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life." "

My question - to whom did she send the survey? One can skew results simply by limiting the field of inquiry.

[mzteris]

174. Einstein

also said these things:


It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press


It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930


Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being. -- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann


I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)


However we select from nature a complex using the criterion of simplicity, in no case will its theoretical treatment turn out to be forever appropriate (sufficient).... I do not doubt that the day will come when , too, will have to yield to another one, for reasons which at present we do not yet surmise. I believe that this process of deepening theory has no limits. -- Albert Einstein, acknowledging that all claims to knowledge are de facto subject to revision upon presentation of newer, better evidence, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Physics and Psychics


I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press


A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930


The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Immortality? There are two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and is thus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conserve the memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only one true immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of the cosmos itself. There is no other. -- Albert Einstein, quoted in Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists (1982) vol. ii., p. 29


I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It




The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
If it is one of the goals of religions to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover (the) rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusion. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain, is moved by the profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualisation of our understanding of life.
-- Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

[mzteris]

213. You still haven't commented on my

Einstein quotes . . .

Schrödinger's cat got your tongue?

[Zebedeo]

238. Einstein did not believe in a personal, interventionist God

the way I do. I don't think I ever said that he did. Einstein did, however, believe that there was a Creator who designed the universe. He delighted in discovering as much as he could about that universe and its amazing design.

[mzteris]

242. did you even read

the quotes?

I didn't see where he said he "believed in a Creator". At best, he was an agnostic. If only because he would never totally discount what he couldn't actually "prove".

[charlie]

136. Gack

"Even still, you offer no explanation as to how the singularity came into existence, where all the matter came from, where all the energy came from, what caused the singularity to spontaneously transform itself into a universe, etc., etc., etc."

Where all the matter and energy came from, and what caused the singularity to transform into a universe, are all part of the theory. The explanation the theory offers just got a boost. Didn't you read the article you linked to? You were exultant about it yesterday, what happened?

Your "singularity" is in reality nothing more than a rhetorical device.

No, nothing rhetorical about it, it's a concrete description. Go back far enough, and the scientific model predicts you'll be part of the singularity. A real, honest to God singularity, not a figure of speech.

"It offers no actual explanation for the origin of the universe, but just shifts the question."

It doesn't shift the question, it doesn't posit a First Cause at all. Science has chased the history of the universe as far back as it can go... for now. Perhaps it'll one day find compelling evidence that support current theories of what came "prior", perhaps not.

[Ediacara]

138. Are you not resorting to the very tactic you accuse others of?

Namely, arguments from authority?

[Zebedeo]

143. I'm just responding to this patently circular assertion:

"at no point has anyone, other than a believer like yourself, suggested that a supernatural explanation is needed."

[Ediacara]

147. I am just pointing out that you accused BMUS of resorting to an

argument from authority, and then yourself insisted that your position was correct because of authority figures. Personally, I'd prefer to have the data speak for themselves.

Additionally, many believers do not postulate supernatural authors for natural phenomena, and I know quite a few.

[FM Arouet666]

154. Circulus in demonstrando?

I don't think so, the statement is redundant. To pose a supernatural explanation one would necessarily be a believer in the supernatural. However, the statement makes no conclusion based on redundancy.

To restate, science proposes that the origin of the universe has a natural explanation. Those which find this statement to be in error generally do not except the tenants of scientism, namely;

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science

Shermer

There is no debate in the scientific community which suggests otherwise.

I do hope this has clarified my original statement, perhaps I was a bit sloppy in my prose.

[FM Arouet666]

150. Again you are in error. A trend perhaps

Many renowned physicists and other scientists have concluded that the only rational explanation is that god did it? Sounds very much like the argument used against evolution. A list of several hundred scientists who claim that evolution is a flawed theory. Sorry, I doubt you will find many physicists who offer the god explanation. Recall the Steves' list project by the NCSE.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

You are clearly lacking in an understanding of science. Allow me to explain.

Science functions from the position that there is no supernatural. A scientist faced with a dilemma does not invoke a deity to explain away a difficult problem. As for your singularity discussion, you are correct in stating that science, at this point in time, has not fully explained the origin of the universe. However, failing to do so does not imply the existence of a god.

As for laughing out loud, consider your position. For thousands of years religion has offered the predominantly accepted explanation about the origin of humankind and the universe. Within a few hundred years science has shown the biblical version to be in error, driving your god back to the few fractions of a second before the big bang occurred. Faith based materialism? No sir, my world view requires evidence, testability, what I believe is verifiable.

Enjoy your fantasy if you like. I often wonder why believes seek to justify their belief in the context of science? Believe what you want, so what if science contradicts your belief. You don't see scientists reading the bible stating "Ah Ha, you see here, this passage supports the first law of thermodynamics!"

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

151. Recommended!

Oops, I guess we can't do that with posts, can we?

Too bad, it was worthy just for this one sentence alone:

Within a few hundred years science has shown the biblical version to be in error, driving your god back to the few fractions of a second before the big bang occurred.

[BlackHeart]

166. Oh, you didn't say that did you?

"Galileo is laughing from the grave."
LOL

[mzteris]

172. You forgot

the Four CORNERS of the Earth and the sky being a tent stretched overhead.

[mzteris]

170. "It's proof of a supernatural event -

the creation of the universe. There is no natural explanation for this event. "

Maybe no "natural explanation" that you can comprehend as yet. Doesn't mean there ISN"T one!

Kinda lika those early men who tried to explain thunder by saying it was Thor's Hammer.

Ignorance of the facts encourages people to look for "supernatural explanations", but it's still just ignorance.

[Zebedeo]

237. You seem to be expressing "faith"

that science will one day come up with a "natural explanation." I think that faith is unfounded by any evidence, and I also think that a "natural explanation" is not only impossible under the laws of nature, but is also logically impossible.

Consider the following syllogism:

1. Nothing begins to exist without being caused to do so.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe was caused to begin to exist.

You could argue that the universe did not begin to exist (challenging the second premise). However, we can observe that it did -- about 13.7 billion years ago. Also, even if you hypothesized that the universe somehow came from a previous universe, you have gotten nowhere in terms of accounting for existence, because then you have to explain where the previous universe came from. Then you have the following syllogism:

1. Nothing begins to exist without being caused to do so.
2. The previous universe began to exist.
3. The previous universe was caused to begin to exist.

The simple fact is that it is logically impossible for anything to come into being without a cause, and that cause must be independent of what comes into being. This is necessarily true because until it is created, it is not there to do any creating.

The only possible resolution to this problem is that there was something that is eternal and therefore never came into being. That something had to be powerful enough to cause the unfathomably vast quantity of matter and energy of which our universe is composed to come into being. That something, that First Cause, that was not itself created, and that has always existed, is what I call "God."

[Chulanowa]

199. I get what you're saying

Basicly physics - for every effect there is a cause. And yeah, that tiny iota of dense matter had to come from somewhere.

What has me curious, is how you figure it's the exclusive province of Yahweh. Certainally Wakinya Tanka could have done it. Or Shiva. Maybe the earliest speck of matter was a piece of Ymir's dander. Perhaps creation is the child of the Holy Mother Mut.

What gives your choice of deity any more weight than someone else's deity? :)

[struggle4progress]

108. Can you say "singularity"?

Singularities are points at which coordinate representations fail. In the physical sciences, singularities may reflect real physical phenomena, they may reflect inadequacies of existing physical theories, or they may reflect a poor choice of coordinate systems ...

[unschooler]

126. Thank you. I was wondering what a singularity is.

[Zhade]

129. You should post this in the Science forum.

They'll eagerly rip your unfounded assumptions to shreds.

Surely your faith isn't so weak that it couldn't take that challenge, right?

[beam me up scottie]

130. Let's hear what PZ Myers has to say about it

From Daily Kos: Science Friday: Interview with a Mad Scientist

I don't personally believe it, but if you want to think some all-powerful deity triggered the Big Bang, go ahead: but you're still missing the point. What evolution is saying is that we are not a predestined form, there was almost 4 billion years of complex earthly history before a gang of militant goat-herders got together and decided to write up the legend of their Grampaw and present it as a complete and total history of the world, and your lineage is no more distinguished than that of an arrowworm, an amoeba, or an anemone. A vast and incomprehensible god whose power started the cosmos does not rebut the point: you are an insignificant dollop of fragile goo that will last for only the briefest moment in the grand scheme of things.

It's funny how people rush to their distant space-time diddling god when they have to face the fact that they, personally, are as significant as a bug. I just don't see how it solves your problem.

by pzmyers on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 09:15:44 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/6/95138/89017

And this about people who can't accept godless science:

Unfortunately, people are petty about some things, and when they see someone else throw away their blankie and stride out to face reality, they take it as a personal rebuke, and every suggestion to others that they come out into the light is regarded as an insult to their hidey-hole, their much beloved little binkie. That's too bad, but I don't think the right answer is to reassure everyone that it's OK to huddle away, or that their threadbare blanket is a splendid and precious thing. We shouldn't snatch it away, but sorry, everyone, let's be honest: it's a crutch, a waste of time, a shroud that prevents you from seeing a real and terrible beauty. The real heroes of science are the ones who shed old superstitions and confront a harsh and callous universe without comforting, misleading fables.

Time to stand up.

PZ Myers

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/in_praise_of_godless_science/

[Zebedeo]

133. That's amazingly patronizing drivel

How does P.Z. Myers, associate professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, figure among the great scientists of history - nearly all of whom were believers?

[beam me up scottie]

134. How does Zebedero figure among the great scientists?

What are your credentials, Zeb?

How about some science based evidence to back up your theory.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your list of

"many reknowned(sic) physicists and other scientists (who) have concluded that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God".

[Zebedeo]

140. Check it

here

[beam me up scottie]

142. Again,

How many of them believe"that the only rational explanation for the observed facts regarding the universe is that it was created by God"?

[FM Arouet666]

157. You silly goose. n/t

[FM Arouet666]

156. Again, irrelevant

Arguing to the authority, you are a classic, I will give you that.

Sorry, science is not a poker game, I have three of a kind, three scientists who believe in god. That beats your two pair of atheists and believers. Utter nonsense.

If we are to have a cogent debate I would appreciate it if you would concern yourself with the facts of the argument. And do not take offense, I am as guilty as the next person with regard to logical fallacy. An easy trap to fall into.

[lvx35]

146. Right on.

As I recall, Einstien called the bing bang a singularity...Meaning that a cause could never be determined for it. It does seem to be the primal point of the creation of the universe though.

[Strong Atheist]

159. The fundamental problem with existence is

about the existence of ANYTHING. This question, in turn can be broken down into two distinct questions: WHY things exist and HOW things exist. The first question is not discussed much (nor I suspect thought about, with good reason IMO); the second is the most commonly brought up. Let us look at each of these aspects of the existence question.

WHY THINGS EXIST: I was a Philosophy major as an undergrad, and spent some time thinking about things like this as part of my courses. It seems to me that not only would it be more logical for NOTHING to exist (no objects, no energy, no time, no space), but it seems that that should be the case (the way things should be, or not be in this case). It would certainly be less messy than having all this random STUFF floating around in this weird THING (because space seems to be a thing) called SPACE, going through an even stranger and more incomprehensible thing called TIME. Obviously, it is wrong to think that non-existence is more logical, because non-existence is clearly not the case. Why is that?
After much thought, I can not think of WHY things exist rather than nothing existing, nor have I ever heard a coherent explanation from anyone else. In fact, this aspect of the existence question (WHY do things exist INSTEAD of NOTHING) is rarely addressed, which brings us to the next part of the question.

HOW THINGS EXIST: This part of the question is the one that everyone wants to cover ("How did the Universe come into being?"). Given the caveat that we are really talking about some general THING or THINGS existing rather than the specifics of the universe (which is a subset of the greater set THINGS), we can proceed. Again, after much thought in my classes, I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities for HOW things came to exist, and I can not conceive of nor have I ever heard of any other possibilities. The possibilities seem to boil down to:

A. some thing(s) HAVE ALWAYS existed, and other things may have flowed from them latter.

B. some thing(s) SUDDENLY "popped into existence", after which all other things came.

I dislike both of these possibilities, for different reasons. Possibility "A" with its infinite chain of causality violates my sense of cause and effect. Possibility "B" offends me because it violates conservation laws. Neither satisfactorily explains HOW things came to be, yet those seem to be the only two possibilities (another reason for arguing that nothing SHOULD exist; it is less messy to explain non-existence than to explain existence).
Theist arguments that I have heard addressing the HOW issue tend to beg the basic question, or or be unnecessarily complicated (which I reject by Occam's Razor), or both.

Your argument that "God" created things is the classic "begging the argument" that theist do; to wit "god" is a thing; where did "God" come from?

[Zebedeo]

163. Thanks for that thoughtful post

You raise some very weighty questions, and make valid points.

I cannot believe possibility "B" because is it contrary to the observed laws of nature (conservation laws) and is also contrary to logic. Nothing can create itself, because until it is created, it is not there to do any creating.

So we are left with possibility "A." Some people propose that perhaps the universe has always existed. I reject that proposition based on the observed fact that we can pretty much pinpoint when the matter in the universe came into existence, using rates of radioactive decay, astronomical observations and the like. We know that the universe did NOT always exist.

But since possibility "B" has already been rejected as both physically and logically impossible, possibility "A" must still obtain. So if the universe was not "always there," there must be something else that was "always there" AND that something else had to have the power to cause the universe to come into existence. This eternally existing entity would have to have unimaginably awesome power to create all the matter and energy in the universe.

To me, the solution to the problem is that a Creator has always existed, and that Creator created the universe. He is the "I AM" - the one who "is."

Now you ask "where did God come from"? To me, that question is not a valid one, because from the above discussion, we have already determined that whatever or whoever caused the universe to come into existence had to be everpresent and therefore uncreated. To ask how this uncreated Creator was created makes no sense, because the Creator is uncreated, and therefore cannot also have been created.

You could argue that the universe could have been created by a created Creator, rather than an uncreated one, but that argument actually leads to no progress in the analysis, because the question would then become "who created the one who created the Creator who created the universe?" and so on. At some point, there HAD to have been an UNCREATED Creator.

I think it is no coincidence that this is exactly what we find in the God of the Bible - an eternally existing, supremely powerful, uncreated Creator who caused the universe to come into existence.

[Strong Atheist]

175. We will have to disagree. While your post was very thoughtful, and

extremely polite as well, in my mind your argument begs the question. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that God always existed, and was never created.

For me, you may as well say that the universe always existed, and was never created. It saves a step, conforming to Occam's razor. In addition, theists never explain how god creates something out of nothing. So, I prefer my two ugly"A" and "B" possibilities without the unnecessary "God" complication, which after all is said and done, answers nothing...

[Zebedeo]

204. Except that we can observe that the universe did not always

exist. It came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago.

"theists never explain how god creates something out of nothing" That depends on what you mean by "how." I would say He creates with His mighty hand, but that's just me. :)

But seriously . . .

God's creation of the universe was SUPERNATURAL, and we KNOW that because under NATURAL laws something CANNOT be made out of nothing.

[Strong Atheist]

252. So it came from nothing. Makes more sense than postulating

an ADDITIONAL thing (god) that needs explaining, that then brought it from nothing. A thing for which atheists see no evidence, I might add....

[Zebedeo]

267. All on its own without a cause?

That's not possible. You are now proposing that the universe self-generated - a violation of the laws of physics and logic. Also, you propose that it happened without being caused to happen. This is also contrary to everything that we know. Even through simple observation, we can see that everything that happens has a cause. A raindrop falls from the sky. It was caused to do so by the moisture in the atmosphere coalescing around a tiny speck of dust. That speck was caused to be there because the wind blew it up into the atmosphere. The wind was caused to blow by the heating of a pocket of air by the sun. The heating of that pocket was caused by rays emitted from the surface of the sun. The emitting of rays by the surface of the sun was caused by the light and heat present on the surface. The light and heat on the surface of the sun are caused by the nuclear reactions taking place within the interior of the sun. The nuclear reactions are caused by the mass of the sun and its gravitational effect on the matter of which it is composed. Etc., etc., etc.

Syllogistically, we have:

Major Premise: Everything that happens has a cause.
Minor Premise: The universe coming into existence is something that happened.
Conclusion: The universe coming into existence had a cause.

Since we know that the universe was caused to come into existence, your proposal that maybe it came into existence by itself without a cause is refuted.

If you want to argue with the premises, we can go there:
If you disagree with the Major Premise, please name a few examples of things that have occurred without a cause.
If you disagree with the Minor Premise, please identify the source of all the matter and energy in the universe, and explain where it was located prior to the Big Bang.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

227. "whoever caused the universe to come into existence had to be everpresent"

"and therefore uncreated"

Why? Why can't the Universe have been created by something that was in turn created by other something?

[Zebedeo]

235. In my post #163, to which you replied, I answered this question

You could argue that the universe could have been created by a created Creator, rather than an uncreated one, but that argument actually leads to no progress in the analysis, because the question would then become "who created the one who created the Creator who created the universe?" and so on. At some point, there HAD to have been an UNCREATED Creator.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

270. Let's try another question.

Who created the irrationality of (or bestowed irrationality upon) the square root of 2?

[WoodrowFan]

161. damn

I miss all thew good flame wars..

:popcorn:

[beam me up scottie]

162. HEY!

It's a believer!

Everyone ATTACK!!!

Just kidding, WF is one of the good guys, even if he thinks he's going to buy me a beer in Heaven.



He's so silly.


Everyone KNOWS that if there's a heaven, beer will be free.

:P

[WoodrowFan]

164. ok, you got me

the beer will be free, but the pizza isn't, sorry. 8-).

and to be serious, yes, I believe God created the Universe but I look to science to tell me how and when. I look to Theology to tell me why. Looking to the Bible to tell me HOW God created the Universe is like me pulling out the user's manual to my microwave to learn how to change the oil in my car. That ain't what's it's there for!

[beam me up scottie]

171. I knew it!

You're just like every other liberal believer I know.



Intelligent, reasonable and tolerant.:hug:

[Emillereid]

196. Where did God come from? Who created God? How did he create it?

Just because something 'begins' -- doesn't mean that it has to have a beginner.

I reckon that our universe came through a black hole from another. There's a lot of physics we don't understand. But nothing we know so far mandates the 'outside creator' explanation.

[sutz12]

232. Don't you mean 'She?' ......nt

[Zebedeo]

236. Please read upthread as to "where did God come from?"

As I explained above, an uncreated God is the only explanation, because if you propose that God was Himself created, that just leads to the question of who created the one who created God.

You could argue that the universe could have been created by a created Creator, rather than an uncreated one, but that argument actually leads to no progress in the analysis, because the question would then become "who created the one who created the Creator who created the universe?" and so on. At some point, there HAD to have been an UNCREATED Creator.

Your supposition that our universe came through a black hole from another universe also gets us nowhere, because it just leads to the question of where that "other universe" came from.

[Imperialism Inc.]

271. Ah but if God doesn't need a creator then

you are saying it is possible to have something that doesn't need a cause.

So, now that we've estabished that there are things that need no cause, your original reason for needing God to explain the universe (big bang) is gone. The universe may just as well be the thing with no cause.

[beam me up scottie]

272. !

:thumbsup:

:evilgrin:

[mzteris]

241. WE did

Mankind created god in it's own image.

Think "palace" in the sky. Think "angry father". Think "dutiful son". Think "shepherds/sheep".

We anthropomorphize things in order to try and comprehend them. GOD - if there is a GOD - is absolutely NOTHING like what anyone can possibly imagine. We can only imagine what we know and use terminology we know as descriptors.

Try describing a color that doesn't exist here.
Try describing an "alien".
Try writing/speaking the "language" the "alien" uses.



Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott

[Random_Australian]

268. You've (all) missed something:

Was watching for ages, and finally put my finger on it:

"Matter does not create itself. Nor does energy. The laws of physics do not permit a universe consisting of billions of galaxies worth of matter and energy, to self-generate from nothing."

The conservation of mass and energy only holds in Newtonian Physics, I'm afraid.

Most of the laws, and even our conventional understanding of reality, doesn't work with Quantum Physics. That's why the people that created it, hated it. (The forerunners, at least, after a while people got used to it).

So be careful! Saying 'This can't have happened' is at least a little foolish until we have a functioning GUT/UFT/String Theory.
O.K.?

Also,
"What could have caused this amazing phenomenon? It had to be something outside of the universe, because the universe hadn't come into existence yet."
Not neccessarily for the same reason I mentioned in this post earlier. Remember, at those scales, Quantum Theory dominates, and it doesn't even abide by our macroscopic interpretation of reality.