Jump to content
Aidanbuk

A question which has always intrigued me

Recommended Posts

Hello, maybe this should have gone in the religious thread but I believe it to be more so religious philosophy. Here goes, as of now, I am inclined to believe a creator. I'd like to note this is through my own opinion, my family is not religious nor are any of my friends to my knowledge. In regards to the big bang theory, it is obviously a form of scientific reaction right? Im not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics. However, my argument is who created the science behind the big bang? As in who made the scientific properties necassery for the reaction? And who created them before? Nothing can exist out of nothing. Therefore, there are two possibilities to me. An infinite regress of causes and effects, which is incomprehensible (if my inference is correct that an actual infinity is impossible), or there is a necessary creator, who has always existed and who always will exit, which is once again, incomprehensible to us. I'm more inclined to the creator idea, due to the religious scripture from before our time before such ideas could be formed regarding infinite regress etc. Any input would be greatly valuable, I've been really wanting to ask this question to someone with an interest or good knowledge of science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Aidanbuk said:

Hello, maybe this should have gone in the religious thread but I believe it to be more so religious philosophy. Here goes, as of now, I am inclined to believe a creator. I'd like to note this is through my own opinion, my family is not religious nor are any of my friends to my knowledge. In regards to the big bang theory, it is obviously a form of scientific reaction right? Im not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics. However, my argument is who created the science behind the big bang? As in who made the scientific properties necassery for the reaction? And who created them before? Nothing can exist out of nothing. Therefore, there are two possibilities to me. An infinite regress of causes and effects, which is incomprehensible (if my inference is correct that an actual infinity is impossible), or there is a necessary creator, who has always existed and who always will exit, which is once again, incomprehensible to us. I'm more inclined to the creator idea, due to the religious scripture from before our time before such ideas could be formed regarding infinite regress etc. Any input would be greatly valuable, I've been really wanting to ask this question to someone with an interest or good knowledge of science. 

Reading a bit about the universe being zero energy should answer your questions. Here is a  short video explaining the general concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_dqtiDEds

 

*and yes, this should have in the Religion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2018 at 11:08 AM, Aidanbuk said:

Hello, maybe this should have gone in the religious thread but I believe it to be more so religious philosophy. Here goes, as of now, I am inclined to believe a creator. I'd like to note this is through my own opinion, my family is not religious nor are any of my friends to my knowledge. In regards to the big bang theory, it is obviously a form of scientific reaction right? Im not great at science so not very well aquatinted with the specifics. However, my argument is who created the science behind the big bang? As in who made the scientific properties necassery for the reaction? And who created them before? Nothing can exist out of nothing. Therefore, there are two possibilities to me. An infinite regress of causes and effects, which is incomprehensible (if my inference is correct that an actual infinity is impossible), or there is a necessary creator, who has always existed and who always will exit, which is once again, incomprehensible to us. I'm more inclined to the creator idea, due to the religious scripture from before our time before such ideas could be formed regarding infinite regress etc. Any input would be greatly valuable, I've been really wanting to ask this question to someone with an interest or good knowledge of science. 

Aidanbuk:

Your speculation, which I bolded, is on point.  According to Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is eternal.  In other words, he has no beginning and no end.  Notice the verse of scripture below:

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Edited by Alter2Ego

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

According to Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is eternal. 

How do you know that it is accurate? It is a very old text that has been copied by hand, translated, edited, copied, translated again, copied, translated, ... There seems a lot of scope for errors there. And, it may just be myth, anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

 Your speculation, which I bolded, is on point.  According to Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is eternal.  In other words, he has no beginning and no end.  Notice the verse of scripture below:

!

Moderator Note

This is not the place for you to preach. It is a violation of our rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Aidanbuk:

Your speculation, which I bolded, is on point.  According to Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is eternal.  In other words, he has no beginning and no end.  Notice the verse of scripture below:

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Why do you think the bible is true? What evidence can you give for these assertions? The bible is not evidence, the bible is composed of claims that require evidence, it cannot be evidence of it's own truth... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Aidanbuk:

Your speculation, which I bolded, is on point.  According to Jehovah's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, God is eternal.  In other words, he has no beginning and no end.  Notice the verse of scripture below:

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Your delusional belief in a deity or magical spaghetti monster is a myth incorporated for your comfort and personal solace.

The bible is nothing more then a collection of these myths, written in an obscure age by obscure men/women, to explain the universe around them. Then science came along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2018 at 8:15 PM, Moontanman said:

Why do you think the bible is true? What evidence can you give for these assertions? The bible is not evidence, the bible is composed of claims that require evidence, it cannot be evidence of it's own truth... 

The bible was compiled of folk lore, and, bed time stories. They may be erred.

The gospels had people watching and taking notes of events. The Romans recorded the life of Christ and witnessed miracles, thus the church is where it is, because there was a following built out of witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

The bible was compiled of folk lore, and, bed time stories. They may be erred.

The gospels had people watching and taking notes of events. The Romans recorded the life of Christ and witnessed miracles, thus the church is where it is, because there was a following built out of witnesses.

 

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence supporting this unconventional view?

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence supporting this unconventional view?

Well, there is a church, because there was a base of followers, because there were miracles, because there were sermons, because there was a message. That message is what the gospels are founded upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brett Nortj said:

Well, there is a church, because there was a base of followers, because there were miracles, because there were sermons, because there was a message. That message is what the gospels are founded upon.

Yes there is a Church.

Then there are fossils.

There is one of the most productive fossil cliffs in the World near me.
I have more confidence in the deduced story of these fossils than your so called evidence.

 

How is the fact that a church exists today evidence of you porposed chain of events?

 

Take witness staements for instance.

The gospels were not actually written until at least acouple of hundred years after the death of christ.
So they must have been remarkably old witnesses!

Then you claimed Roman documentation, without any reference at all?????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, studiot said:

Yes there is a Church.

Then there are fossils.

There is one of the most productive fossil cliffs in the World near me.
I have more confidence in the deduced story of these fossils than your so called evidence.

How is the fact that a church exists today evidence of you porposed chain of events?

Take witness staements for instance.

The gospels were not actually written until at least acouple of hundred years after the death of christ.
So they must have been remarkably old witnesses!

Then you claimed Roman documentation, without any reference at all?????????

Fossils pre date the time of Christ. The church exists because of cultural relays between people of the time period, where they remembered Christ and observed his teachings. This is why they gather even today to hear the words he shew the world.

The gospels were written by the apostles. There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere. These must be the basics of his teachings, these 'documents' are references to his being here, and, his message.

The Romans had logs of events, yes? These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

The gospels were written by the apostles. There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere. These must be the basics of his teachings, these 'documents' are references to his being here, and, his message.

The Romans had logs of events, yes? These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.

So all this is just empty huff and puff then?

Have you made any effort at all to substantiate your hypotheses?

Like which Roman scribe or author in which Roman document at what date?

 

What language was the Bible first written in?

 

Have you read any of it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

Fossils pre date the time of Christ. The church exists because of cultural relays between people of the time period, where they remembered Christ and observed his teachings. This is why they gather even today to hear the words he shew the world.

People gather even today to hear the words of buddha, krishna, zoraster, adriana, the list is long and lacks any substance... 

2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

The gospels were written by the apostles. There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere. These must be the basics of his teachings, these 'documents' are references to his being here, and, his message.

No the gospels were written many years, in some cases centuries after the supposed life of christ by anonymous authors and we have no originals  and no copies from further back than around 1000 years ago. 

2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

The Romans had logs of events, yes?

Yes the romans kept extremely accurate records and interestingly enough none of them recorded anything about jesus or any of the events in his life. 

 

2 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.

No in fact no historians confirm the narrative in the bible... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

Fossils pre date the time of Christ. The church exists because of cultural relays between people of the time period, where they remembered Christ and observed his teachings. This is why they gather even today to hear the words he shew the world.

The gospels were written by the apostles. There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere. These must be the basics of his teachings, these 'documents' are references to his being here, and, his message.

The Romans had logs of events, yes? These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.

No offense, Brett, but you really should read the forum rules before posting anything else on this site. It is required that you back up your claims instead of just making stuff up.

Whenever I see your name pop up, unsupported nonsense follows. Please at least do a Google search to check your "facts" in the future.

You are of course welcome to ask questions to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Aidan ( if that’s ur name ), first of all, I would like to point out that science is not up for creation. You see , it cannot be created it’s just based on our observations and their interpretations and also there are several rules in science, like consistent and rigorous mathematics which predicts results that agrees to our observation. Consistent mathematics may not necessary agree to observation, what that means is everything that’s true in mathematics may not happen in our universe but it may happen in another universe. If you put certain observational and physical constraint on the mathematical approach then you can single out an appropriate theory which agrees to both maths and observation and that’s what called Science ( the way of understanding nature ). Now your question transforms to who created these framework of mathematics around which the nature works, well, they are basically just part of consistent mathematics which is in itself self-arising. So the mathematics is the creator and who created this mathematics is irrelevant and unnecessary and its of no consequence because this who cannot affect us, they cannot be born on earth in human form or reside in the heaven ( why is heaven always above?) they just play no role in our life but mathematics does so I’ll say mathematics is the actual god. This may sound absurd to people because we are anticipating a bearded guy in white who’s watching us from the above ( why always above ?), but this is true there is no creator. And second of all there do exist infinities in the real world, for example: ‘pi’ the ratio of circumference of a circle and its diameter no matter what circle you chose is always 3.14159265... ( thousands of digits have been discovered and more are being discovered ) and it has a infinite number of digits. Infinities are all around us and do exist in real world. And lastly, religions scriptures are all nonsense ( they simply don’t make sense in several aspects which we now know for certain, eg: earth’s shape, etc) they are basically wrong in explaining nature and hence must be all wrong. Good day to you!

Edited by Ashutosh Sharma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aidanbuk  If you believe in a creator then you believe a person/human-like figure created this universe. How is that possible? Persons/humans developed/evolved on this Earth....

 

On ‎1‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 8:08 PM, Aidanbuk said:

who created the science behind the big bang

Why 'who'? Why not 'what'?

Also, the big bang theory doesn't imply a creative force. It's about the evolution of the universe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Itoero said:

If you believe in a creator then you believe a person/human-like figure created this universe.

That is not logical.

One could believe in a creator that was like an invisible pink hyper-dimensional turtle with wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

One could believe in a creator that was like an invisible pink hyper-dimensional turtle with wings.

Yes but most creationists (Christians and Muslims) believe in a personal creator, a creator you can relate to as a person.

On ‎1‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 8:08 PM, Aidanbuk said:

who created the science behind the big bang? As in who made the scientific properties necassery for the reaction? And who created them before

He uses the term 'who'. He clearly believes in a personal creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 10:23 AM, Brett Nortj said:

The gospels had people watching and taking notes of events.

No. No direct witness has written anything.

On 8/4/2018 at 10:23 AM, Brett Nortj said:

The Romans recorded the life of Christ and witnessed miracles

No. The earliest gospels are dated about 60-70 CE, Jesus was crucified around 30-33 CE. And the gospels were written in Greek. Why would Romans write Greek?

On 8/4/2018 at 12:39 PM, Brett Nortj said:

The gospels were written by the apostles.

No. The Gospels were written by unknown Greek speaking authors, years after Jesus' death.(and probably also the death of the apostles). The apostles were Aramaic speaking peasants, so it seems extremely unlikely that they could write. 

On 8/4/2018 at 12:39 PM, Brett Nortj said:

There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere.

Scholars see this Gospel as a Gnostic forgery. It was written in Coptic, a language that was spoken in Egypt, around carbon dated around 280 CE.

On 8/4/2018 at 12:39 PM, Brett Nortj said:

The Romans had logs of events, yes? These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.

This is said again and again, but just isn't true. E.g. we also have nearly no information about Herod and Pilate from outside the bible, even that they were important persons. So why should there be records of a Jewish rebel who was crucified?

On 8/4/2018 at 3:28 PM, Moontanman said:

the gospels were written many years, in some cases centuries after the supposed life of christ by anonymous authors and we have no originals  and no copies from further back than around 1000 years ago. 

The Gospels that made it into the New Testament were written between 60-110 CE. That is not 'centuries'. The oldest copies we have are from around the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus).

On 8/4/2018 at 3:28 PM, Moontanman said:

Yes the romans kept extremely accurate records

See above. I would suggest you show us some links to examples of records written by the Romans in Palestine.

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes but most creationists (Christians and Muslims) believe in a personal creator, a creator you can relate to as a person.

He uses the term 'who'. He clearly believes in a personal creator.

Even if people believe in a "personal creator" that does not necessarily mean they think of them as having human form. So you leap from "creator" to "human-like figure" is irrational.

Despite the many Christian illustrations of God in a human form, that is not the "official", and may not even be the most popular, conceptualisation. And, of course, Islam forbids depictions of Allah for exactly this reason.

Also, you may have heard the line "God moves in mysterious ways". That is specifically because God is not "human-like" in form or behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Yes but most creationists (Christians and Muslims) believe in a personal creator, a creator you can relate to as a person.

But must a person have a human body? Once you crossed the border of believing in God, you can just additional believe in anything.

X-posted with Strange...

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eise said:

The Gospels that made it into the New Testament were written between 60-110 CE. That is not 'centuries'. The oldest copies we have are from around the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus).

I'll accept your date of the 4th century and that is still centuries after the gospels were said to be written. The key word here is "said" to have been written. We have no originals or evidence other than said copies to confirm what they claim about themselves. As you know they cannot be evidence of themselves.. 

11 minutes ago, Eise said:

See above. I would suggest you show us some links to examples of records written by the Romans in Palestine.

While I have seen such claims I haven't read them myself (I do not read latin or greek)and a google search turned up nothing but pages and pages of religious nonsense... 

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

Even if people believe in a "personal creator" that does not necessarily mean they think of them as having human form. So you leap from "creator" to "human-like figure" is irrational.

Despite the many Christian illustrations of God in a human form, that is not the "official", and may not even be the most popular, conceptualisation. And, of course, Islam forbids depictions of Allah for exactly this reason.

Also, you may have heard the line "God moves in mysterious ways". That is specifically because God is not "human-like" in form or behaviour.

How do you explain that man was created in the image of god? While this could be interpreted in many ways the most straightforward interpretation is that man was created to look like god...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.