Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, as I understand it, the current theory on the beginning of the universe is that an extremely small particle that was unimaginably dense suddenly exploded and our universe began expanding correct? If so, where did this particle come from? It had to come from somewhere right? I know, if a God created the universe who created God and who created the being that created God I understand this concept. But, in my speculating(hence the speculations part of the forum), since God created the universe, no one had to create God. I know non-monotheists have a difficult time believing this, but think about it. If a deity created time and space and us, then no one had to create the deity because the way our minds perceive things, we believe everything has to have a creator, or cause at least. What I am trying to say is that we were programmed to know that we have a creator, in the beginning. So we assumed that our creator had to have a creator. This would not apply to our creator though because he created the concept of creators and creating. I also know that many people are not a fan of omnipresence, but it seems to me that all of the scientists that believe everything must have a cause reject the one conclusion that is out there. I honestly do not know how people could be so closed minded that they would not accept this conclusion. The day we find proof that our universe was not started by a god is the day that I will stop believing. I know, I know, God is unfalsifiable. Think about that. If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it would have to be true. If it can't be false, it must be true. It is simple. So simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as I understand it, the current theory on the beginning of the universe is that an extremely small particle that was unimaginably dense suddenly exploded and our universe began expanding correct? If so, where did this particle come from? It had to come from somewhere right? I know, if a God created the universe who created God and who created the being that created God I understand this concept. But, in my speculating(hence the speculations part of the forum), since God created the universe, no one had to create God. I know non-monotheists have a difficult time believing this, but think about it. If a deity created time and space and us, then no one had to create the deity because the way our minds perceive things, we believe everything has to have a creator, or cause at least. What I am trying to say is that we were programmed to know that we have a creator, in the beginning. So we assumed that our creator had to have a creator. This would not apply to our creator though because he created the concept of creators and creating. I also know that many people are not a fan of omnipresence, but it seems to me that all of the scientists that believe everything must have a cause reject the one conclusion that is out there. I honestly do not know how people could be so closed minded that they would not accept this conclusion. The day we find proof that our universe was not started by a god is the day that I will stop believing. I know, I know, God is unfalsifiable. Think about that. If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it would have to be true. If it can't be false, it must be true. It is simple. So simple.

How about the universe created itself or that it has always existed? Both are as semantically possible as much as a god theory is.

Edited by SamBridge
Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest answer is: god is universe, and universe is god.

After all current science theories merge matter and energy to one.

 

Look to who ancients were praying:

- to sun.. they knew that its energy means life. Confirmed by science.

- to moon.. it's creating tides. It's important factor to create life. Frequently changing environment is good for variation of organisms. Steady environment means no/less variations. Organisms in caves couple hundred meters below ground didn't change a bit since Paleozoic or Mesozoic..

- to Dzeus.. thunderbolt. it's known factor to create life. Some scientists recreated aminoacids just in a couple days in bottle with artificial thunderbolt with all required elements.

 

Saying that "I am son of god" means "we are all child of god". When god = universe. We're child of universe.

Also "joining with god" should be treated literally, when god = universe.

Edited by Przemyslaw.Gruchala
Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Religion.


I also know that many people are not a fan of omnipresence, but it seems to me that all of the scientists that believe everything must have a cause reject the one conclusion that is out there. I honestly do not know how people could be so closed minded that they would not accept this conclusion. The day we find proof that our universe was not started by a god is the day that I will stop believing. I know, I know, God is unfalsifiable. Think about that. If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it would have to be true. If it can't be false, it must be true. It is simple. So simple.

Omnipotence would mean that God could ignore His own physical laws. If that's possible, then there really is no meaning to anything.

 

Falsifiable means it's capable of being shown to be false, not that something IS false or true. If I say "All swans are white", all you have to do is find a non-white swan to falsify my statement, making it falsifiable. "Gods exist" (and also "Gods don't exist") is unfalsifiable because God can't be directly observed, has never done anything that can't be explained by other means. There is no way to show either way that gods exist and the basis of science is that a theory has to be capable of being wrong so we are forced to keep testing it to see if it's right in all circumstances and conditions.

 

"An invisible purple leprechaun keeps the oceans filled" is unfalsifiable. Does that mean it's true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also know that many people are not a fan of omnipresence, but it seems to me that all of the scientists that believe everything must have a cause reject the one conclusion that is out there. I honestly do not know how people could be so closed minded that they would not accept this conclusion.

Because I can't accept your exceedingly unlikely idea of an individual called 'God' as an infallible truth... I am closed minded?

I accept the possibility of such a being... hell, anything's possible... even an ocean controlling leprechaun. I think I am quite open minded actually. 'Closed minded'-ness to me is someone who 'believes' in one thing (an omnipotent, omnipresent God, for example) to the exclusion of any other possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to know as fact

Because I can't accept your exceedingly unlikely idea of an individual called 'God' as an infallible truth... I am closed minded?

I accept the possibility of such a being... hell, anything's possible... even an ocean controlling leprechaun. I think I am quite open minded actually. 'Closed minded'-ness to me is someone who 'believes' in one thing (an omnipotent, omnipresent God, for example) to the exclusion of any other possibility.

Anyone can make a case for just about anything they choose to endorse. But what really pisses me is when someone says: "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Such a statement, whether coming from a religious or scientific source is ignorance bordering on stupidity. Me, I like to think there is a supreme entity of some kind responsible for the creation of this universe or universes. Will we ever know for a fact? I doubt it..But I would really like to see one of those wee little green leprechauns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as I understand it, the current theory on the beginning of the universe is that an extremely small particle that was unimaginably dense suddenly exploded and our universe began expanding correct? If so, where did this particle come from? It had to come from somewhere right?

 

...since God created the universe, no one had to create God.

 

I don't understand why you are happy to have something called 'god' exist but having never been created, but unhappy with something called an 'extremely small particle' existing without having been created.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If so, where did this particle come from?

Who said the initial stuff (too hot to be particles) of the universe had to "come from" anywhere?

It had to come from somewhere right?

The universe is all of time and space. Everything that is, ever was, and ever will be. There is, by definition, no time at which it did not or will not exist. So, in what sense could it have had a beginning?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The current correct answer to the beginning of the universe is, "We don't yet know." It's not, "goddidit."

"We don't know => aliens did it" is obviously the correct answer. Have you never watched the History Channel?
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Closed minded'-ness to me is someone who 'believes' in one thing (an omnipotent, omnipresent God, for example) to the exclusion of any other possibility.

QFT.

 

At many points in our history, the close-mindedness of religion has been brought to focus as phenomena previously attributed to gods has been shown to have natural origins instead. Earthquakes, rainbows, disease, crop failures/successes, these all used to be gods actively reacting to worship. As the gaps in our knowledge get filled in with reasoned, tested explanations, the gods get squeezed out of those gaps and we look at those who used to believe their prayers controlled the tides with more than a bit of amusement. We're horrified when even today a Christian Scientist family lets their child die from an easily remedied illness because they were so close-minded about modern medicine.

 

At some point, you should ask yourself, "Am I just filling a gaps in my own knowledge with God? When has this ever worked out well for anybody?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

QFT.

 

At many points in our history, the close-mindedness of religion has been brought to focus as phenomena previously attributed to gods has been shown to have natural origins instead. Earthquakes, rainbows, disease, crop failures/successes, these all used to be gods actively reacting to worship. As the gaps in our knowledge get filled in with reasoned, tested explanations, the gods get squeezed out of those gaps and we look at those who used to believe their prayers controlled the tides with more than a bit of amusement. We're horrified when even today a Christian Scientist family lets their child die from an easily remedied illness because they were so close-minded about modern medicine.

 

At some point, you should ask yourself, "Am I just filling a gaps in my own knowledge with God? When has this ever worked out well for anybody?"

 

^GREAT video

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YDOAPS said:

 

Who said the initial stuff (too hot to be particles) of the universe had to "come from" anywhere?

The universe is all of time and space. Everything that is, ever was, and ever will be. There is, by definition, no time at which it did not or will not exist. So, in what sense could it have had a beginning?

If the universe is 'allowed' by science to have been here forever why can't God and hence not need a creator?

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the universe is 'allowed' by science to have been here forever why can't God and hence not need a creator?

Bayes's Theorem

 

[math]P(h_1|e)=\frac{P(e|h_1){\times}P(h_1)}{P(e)}[/math]

 

where h is hypothesis and e is evidence. Now, P(e) is a function of all of the possible hypotheses, so when analyzing competing hypotheses, it's constant. If two hypotheses explain the evidence equally well, then P(e|h1)=P(e|h2), so that's a constant too. This means that P(h|e)=kP(h).

 

We can expand P(h) by looking at all the possible ways it can be right or wrong. So: [math]P(h)=\sum_{i=1}^n{P(h|s_i){\times}P(s_i)}[/math] where each s is a state of affairs. Now, the more complex a hypothesis is, the more ways in which it can be wrong. This means that the simpler hypothesis has a higher P(h) and thus a higher P(h|e).

 

All else being equal, the simpler hypothesis is more likely to be the correct one. Occam's Razor is mathematical fact, and Bayes's Theorem rules the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

 

I am no expert scientist, as will no doubt be revealed in the next few sentences, nonetheless I feel I may have some valuable input.

 

This conversation is a less french, more online, repeat of 1812 (or 1802, depending on your sources) conversation between Napolean, and Pierre-Simon Laplace, Laplace was a mathematician, geometry expert and physicist, and all round genius and man of science. as Quoted in A De Morgan Budget of Paradoxes. when questioned by Napoleon for not including a creator in a model of the universe (it's much more complicated than that, but it was for all intents and purposes a working model of the universe), he famously said that the model works perfectly well, without that assumption.

 

So it's fair to say that for at least the last two hundred years, man has contemplated the hypothesis that the universe has no creator, or that other hypothesis should be considered in the search for truth. As I said, no scientist, so I refer you to both Pierre-Simon Laplace and to ydaoPs' post above for information on how hypothesis work.

 

Now, if we delicately skirt round the subject of man made organized religion, in order to prevent a devastating flame war that rips through the thread like an outback summer. We simply have the hypothesis, you have proposed that there is a creator to the universe, which is deism (see link 1 and the forum definition of God on the stickies) which Science itself cannot fully disprove, because of the nature of the claim you make (see link 2). But by the same merit, you cannot yet, prove a creator, therefore you have to throw your hypothesis in with the other hypotheses and leave it to the chaps in white coats, to decide which is most likely correct, the phrase coined by Richard Dawkins is 'we're working on it'. If you are prepared to make the case for deism then fair enough, the case for the Theism is a different one entirely, as it proposes a God that also intervenes due to various powers that allow departure from the natural order.

 

However, what you cannot do, is decide that your case for deism, is anymore valid that than the other hypotheses that scientists see fit to explore, my basic understanding of it, is that until it's been proved conclusively, or all other hypothesis disproved you cannot simply claim one hypothesis over another on the basis that yours is unfalsifiable, because that leaves out all of the other hypotheses and possible hypotheses that science has yet to test. I am certain you will agree with me, that this is a question worth spending time on.

 

As a final caveat, if (make that a big IF) there is a deistic creator, our exploration of all the possible hypotheses as to the origins and working of the universe will not be pointless, scientific progress in space exploration and learning of our universe is generally good for the species because we find out lots of useful things on the way. Space exploration alone has lead to GPS, better weather predictions, better disaster response, increased detection of resources, improved electronics, understanding asteroids, nuclear fusion developments, and huge leaps in medicine (keeping astronauts alive is really, really difficult). Space exploration wasn't aiming to uncover our origins, part it's part of the process and a fine example of unintended benefits.

 

One last point (I promise) the jump from deism, to theism, is huge, scientifically and morally. If anyone is here to prove a Theistic god, then claiming the yet undecided origin of the universe as evidence of such is a tough place to start.

 

Thanks,

Ben

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism

http://www.venganza.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can make a case for just about anything they choose to endorse. But what really pisses me is when someone says: "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Such a statement, whether coming from a religious or scientific source is ignorance bordering on stupidity. Me, I like to think there is a supreme entity of some kind responsible for the creation of this universe or universes. Will we ever know for a fact? I doubt it..But I would really like to see one of those wee little green leprechauns.

 

 

You love them strawmen don't you rigney? I'd like to see the big guy in the sky without having to die. how is that any less reasonable than wanting to see little green leprechauns? I doubt you'll find many scientists who would say "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters" science by definition would say "it's only what i can find testable evidence for that really matters" religion would be the one that says "only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Empirical Reality... what a concept...

 

If the universe is 'allowed' by science to have been here forever why can't God and hence not need a creator?

 

 

If the universe has been here forever then why is there a need for a creator?

Link to post
Share on other sites

God is unfalsifiable. Think about that. If something is unfalsifiable, by definition, it would have to be true. If it can't be false, it must be true. It is simple. So simple.

 

This is not the case at all. unfalsifiable simply means it cannot be proven to be false, not that it must be true.

 

The flying spaghetti monster is unfalsifiable is it also true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the case at all. unfalsifiable simply means it cannot be proven to be false, not that it must be true.

I notice a lot of folks are thrown by this word. If we break it down:

 

False = Not true

Falsify = Prove that something is false

Falsifiable = Capable of being proven false

Unfalsifiable = Incapable of being proven false

 

Every theory in science is capable of being proven false, but all the tests keep showing that they're true. But the supernatural, things that defy observation and testing, can't be proven to be false or true, so they fail this scientific test of falsifiability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You love them strawmen don't you rigney? I'd like to see the big guy in the sky without having to die. how is that any less reasonable than wanting to see little green leprechauns? I doubt you'll find many scientists who would say "It's only what I believe to be a fact that really matters" science by definition would say "it's only what i can find testable evidence for that really matters" religion would be the one that says "only what I believe to be a fact that really matters". Empirical Reality... what a concept...

 

 

I can't and won't argue science vs religion with you Moon. But let's say that you and I have a $ buck each in our pockets from finding and selling empty soda pop bottles using the empirical method.. Now we run across a buddy who has been searching all day without finding a single bottle. Do we mock him for not looking in the right places where we found ours? What happens if after weeks of keeping his nose to the groung and finding no bottles, he comes across a diamond ring worth mega $$$? Believe me, I still love and believe in those little green leprechauns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I can't and won't argue science vs religion with you Moon. But let's say that you and I have a $ buck each in our pockets from finding and selling empty soda pop bottles using the empirical method.. Now we run across a buddy who has been searching all day without finding a single bottle. Do we mock him for not looking in the right places where we found ours? What happens if after weeks of keeping his nose to the groung and finding no bottles, he comes across a diamond ring worth mega $$$? Believe me, I still love and believe in those little green leprechauns.

Are you seriously saying it was gods or leprechauns instead of his hard work that led him to the ring?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying it was gods or leprechauns instead of his hard work that led him to the ring?!

No! Just saying, it has taken years of analysis, theory and research to amass the knowledge and expertise of the different fields getting us to where we are today. While most religious people utilize those advantages, they also believe in "something" to be far more powerful than medicine and science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No! Just saying, it has taken years of analysis, theory and research to amass the knowledge and expertise of the different fields getting us to where we are today. While most religious people utilize those advantages, they also believe in "something" to be far more powerful than medicine and science.

I still don't understand your pop bottle analogy. It sounds like you're either condemning the guys who didn't find the ring because they should have been looking for something more valuable, or you're saying that belief in God might turn out to be a diamond ring so it's foolish to waste your time looking for scientific pop bottles.

 

I've grown cold lately on analogies, but I still describe science (to the uninterested) as a 3D jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an enormous onion. Each bit of information helps connect other bits on its own layer and on some further down as well, and we still have missing pieces. Religion, on the other hand, seems happy with just two pieces to their puzzle: Goddidit and Don't Ever Question That.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand your pop bottle analogy. It sounds like you're either condemning the guys who didn't find the ring because they should have been looking for something more valuable, or you're saying that belief in God might turn out to be a diamond ring so it's foolish to waste your time looking for scientific pop bottles.

 

Had the guy not found the ring, would he have been any the worse for it?

 

I've grown cold lately on analogies, but I still describe science (to the uninterested) as a 3D jigsaw puzzle cut from the layers of an enormous onion. Each bit of information helps connect other bits on its own layer and on some further down as well, and we still have missing pieces. Religion, on the other hand, seems happy with just two pieces to their puzzle: Goddidit and Don't Ever Question That.

Religious people don't even try looking below the skin into the first layer. In their heart and mind, they know without question, it is an onion..

Link to post
Share on other sites

God is the question and only when science has evidence

to who and what God actually is will confusion and ignorance

surrounding God disappear and then God will be accepted for

for what he actually is and will no longer just exist in the mind of believers.

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.