Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

What created God?


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#76    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 09 March 2012 - 08:44 PM

View PostSherapy, on 07 March 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

For me,

On one hand the Teleological Argument (TA) touches on  an awe and wonder that seems to  be present in humans  when we see the grander of our world.

I agree that nature  is truly an astounding source of beauty and  inspiration.

Yet according to the TA   the only possible explanation and source for this wonder is  a monotheistic g-d, and  those that  posit this do so  on  faith. How is everything in our finite world  accredited to  a g-d( and how does one know , by what means is this hypothesized.) so far no one can answer this.  How is a g-d able to create finitely but can't be explained in a finite sense. This poses problems for me.

I see where your where your coming from, however the god described purely be teleological means and your description above sounds more like the god of the gaps, ie, can't explain something whether it awe of nature or the cosmos, it's must be god. I don't believe in the god of the gaps and it's what atheists normally try and use against theists although the arguments has progressed, they are still stuck in the past.

What ever caused the universe to exist which is a finite effect, logically has to he the result of something immaterial, because it produced the sum of all matter, separate of time and space because it's finite effect caused time and space, because the universe is a finite effect, ie had a begging, it's logical conclusion is that the cause itself is infinite and ever lasting immaterial and single, which never runs out hence it was able to produce a physical reality which is the sum of all matter and what we as atheists consider the only reality, which is a rather shallow view.

Quote

I think  the Teleological  Argument argues very well for/that a  subjective perspective of a   g-d as creator exists and that  their are people who agree with this and  derive a sense of satisfaction from this.

A subjective perspective of god is not correct, teleological argument contribute towards an ontological look at the argument but it's not the be all and end all! If a god exists it has to make objective logical sense, the model of god has to be coherent with philosophy, science, logic etc an objectively recognisable god.

Quote

Beyond that-

I am left with open questions that cannot be answered.

For me it works  to say I don't know and  may never know and I'm cool with that.

I respect that view. However I think a cogent argument for the existence of god does exist, unfortunately most people equate truth and evidence purely on an empirical level, which is a shallow perspective and actually quite disingenuous towards the whole topic which encompasses all standards of knowledge and when they come together in a coherent manner they provide a logical truth that god does exist.  

Quote

I am still moved to tears with the awesomeness of  nature, it doesn't pale in any way and I do not see a need or prefer to under gird it with a g-d explanation. . My  personal subjective perspective is not more valid then yours, what  puts it on the map is the evidence, for which there  is none so far. Beyond that it's meaningless IMO. Just a bunch of people sharing opinions.

It's meaningless only if you cannot go beyond empiricism. If that's your limit anything beyond is a simple "I dunno". It depends on what constitutes as evidence, if it's only direct empirical proof then you will never find god, however when I observe nature, the cosmos, the order, the precise nature of our existence, I see sign posts to the transcendent. I hold that down to my world view being more expansive than empiricism, which limits truths to our physical reality only.


Quote

This is what  works for me and I respect that  yours is what suits you..:tu:

There  is nothing to argue.  :w00t: All the best. :yes:

Nothing to argue about but we can have a dialogue and discussion can't we?


#77    Orcseeker

Orcseeker

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:40 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 09 March 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

I have always believed in God.  I have not, however, always believed in the God of the Bible.  As I said to Sheri, my view of God was much broader originally, and every religion was just mankind's attempt at understanding it.  No one needed to tell me that God existed.  I have always known (believed) that there was a creator.  


I read the Bible and it all made perfect sense.  I weighed up the claims made and put them up against the likelihood that they were made up.  And if they were invented it doesn't make sense that those who invented them would willingly die for them (as what happened to many of the original followers of Jesus).  I therefore came to the conclusion that they were telling the truth about Jesus.  Hence today I put faith in the honesty of those who wrote the gospels.
So as far as your memory goes you thought God existed without the knowledge of of his proposed existence from anyone else? I do understand what you are saying and if everyone had a view of God like you do I guess the world would be a happier place.

I also like the way you put actual analysis and thought to test your own religion unlike most "believers". Who are these people who gave their life for these claims? There has been no evidence to prove the existence of the 12 apostles. Some people can become so deluded they will die for a cause regardless of its integrity.

You are still basing it on assumption as you said yourself "I weighed up the claims made and put them up against the likelihood that they were made up." This is just saying well I reckon it did happen because it seems likely. This isn't really enough to convince someone like myself.


#78    Robbie333

Robbie333

    "Seek and you shall find"

  • Member
  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Do not stand at my grave and weep
    I am not there; I do not sleep.

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:47 PM

View PostMagicjax, on 29 February 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

I know this point is made in many discussions. But I wanted to start a subject on this concept itself. Not to be used to "Make a point" as the statement is usually used. But to actually ask how one who claims that "Everything needs a creator therefore there must be a god" argument. When someone makes this statement or argument I truly want to know how they answer the question that always fallows this statement which of course is:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

I know some of you are going to jump on me because you'll say, "I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way. In my voyage to realizing I don't believe in god. This was one of the strongest thoughts that convinced me that I don't believe the creationist view. This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.

         "  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." --Jesus

Robbie James

#79    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,710 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:07 AM

View PostLion6969, on 09 March 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I see where your where your coming from, however the god described purely be teleological means and your description above sounds more like the god of the gaps, ie, can't explain something whether it awe of nature or the cosmos, it's must be god. I don't believe in the god of the gaps and it's what atheists normally try and use against theists although the arguments has progressed, they are still stuck in the past.

What ever caused the universe to exist which is a finite effect, logically has to he the result of something immaterial, because it produced the sum of all matter, separate of time and space because it's finite effect caused time and space, because the universe is a finite effect, ie had a begging, it's logical conclusion is that the cause itself is infinite and ever lasting immaterial and single, which never runs out hence it was able to produce a physical reality which is the sum of all matter and what we as atheists consider the only reality, which is a rather shallow view.



A subjective perspective of god is not correct, teleological argument contribute towards an ontological look at the argument but it's not the be all and end all! If a god exists it has to make objective logical sense, the model of god has to be coherent with philosophy, science, logic etc an objectively recognisable god.



I respect that view. However I think a cogent argument for the existence of god does exist, unfortunately most people equate truth and evidence purely on an empirical level, which is a shallow perspective and actually quite disingenuous towards the whole topic which encompasses all standards of knowledge and when they come together in a coherent manner they provide a logical truth that god does exist.  



It's meaningless only if you cannot go beyond empiricism. If that's your limit anything beyond is a simple "I dunno". It depends on what constitutes as evidence, if it's only direct empirical proof then you will never find god, however when I observe nature, the cosmos, the order, the precise nature of our existence, I see sign posts to the transcendent. I hold that down to my world view being more expansive than empiricism, which limits truths to our physical reality only.




Nothing to argue about but we can have a dialogue and discussion can't we?


Absolutely and that is the most important point of all.


And I appreciate the discussion, I also like this:



" A subjective perspective of god is not correct, teleological argument  contribute towards an ontological look at the argument but it's not the  be all and end all! If a god exists it has to make objective logical  sense, the model of god has to be coherent with philosophy, science,  logic etc an objectively recognisable god."


I agree!  I would say a subjective view is not the way. In the sense it doesn't meet the schemata you have outlined,it tells of ones interpretation more then anything else.  Not to say personal experience  isn't valid or has a place, but not quite the place  it seeks to have. .

I like your optimism taking the g-d thing seriously and actually  trying to come up with something. .

It just hasn't happened yet, but I assure you I will keep my eyes open. And am willing to change my mind in the event  something changes.


As an Atheist I have no issue being wrong, I'll simply change my mind to adapt. .


Thank you for the  discussion. Very fun.  :w00t:

Edited by Sherapy, 10 March 2012 - 01:24 AM.




#80    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 10 March 2012 - 01:45 AM

View PostSherapy, on 10 March 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Absolutely and that is the most important point of all.


And I appreciate the discussion, I also like this:

Me too and thank you. Too often I am put off discussions either due to lack of understanding or misunderstandings. You Chloe Leo shadow and a few others I hold in high respect and always take time to read relative posts by you and them and alsorts of topics. You're all intelligent reflecting individuals, we don't see eye to eye but all the power to you guys and your search.

Quote

" A subjective perspective of god is not correct, teleological argument  contribute towards an ontological look at the argument but it's not the  be all and end all! If a god exists it has to make objective logical  sense, the model of god has to be coherent with philosophy, science,  logic etc an objectively recognisable god."


Quote

I agree!  I would say a subjective view is not the way. In the sense it doesn't meet the schemata you have outlined,it tells of ones interpretation more then anything else.  Not to say personal experience  isn't valid or has a place, but not quite the place  it seeks to have. .

Personal and experitential experience can contribute to the whole picture until they contradict the basic logical deductions. At that point they become irrelevant but on their own they hold no value as proof of anything.

Quote

I like your optimism taking the g-d thing seriously and actually  trying to come up with something. .

It just hasn't happened yet, but I assure you I will keep my eyes open. And am willing to change my mind in the event  something changes.


As an Atheist I have no issue being wrong, I'll simply change my mind to adapt. .


Thank you for the  discussion. Very fun.  :w00t:

your honesty and willingness to reflect with implications ie if the implications mean a change in view which your open to. It's very refreshing to hear :)


#81    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,092 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 10 March 2012 - 08:15 AM

View PostRobbie333, on 09 March 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

         "  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." --Jesus
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - Bill Clinton


#82    Robbie333

Robbie333

    "Seek and you shall find"

  • Member
  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Do not stand at my grave and weep
    I am not there; I do not sleep.

Posted 10 March 2012 - 04:12 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 10 March 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - Bill Clinton

       Maybe it is your lie but it is my truth. We each have our own path. I respect your opinion and you respect mine is all I require. You could have been a little nicer in your statement but I will give you "creative" in your answer,LOL.

Robbie James

#83    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,035 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 10 March 2012 - 04:41 PM

View PostLion6969, on 10 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

You Chloe Leo shadow and a few others I hold in high respect and always take time to read relative posts by you and them and alsorts of topics. You're all intelligent reflecting individuals, we don't see eye to eye but all the power to you guys and your search.

Posted Image

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#84    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 10 March 2012 - 10:43 PM

View PostMagicjax, on 29 February 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

A tangential comment, but one could also ask the same question regarding some pre-big bang theories of physics. I think the question itself may be based on false premises--that is, that time as we perceive it, and the cause and effect chain, is real at every level of reality and that everything needs a preceding cause.

An infinite universe or multiverse has no beginning or end and certainly no need for a creator.

Some interesting articles:

http://discovermagaz.../jun/in-no-time

http://www.scientifi...ime-an-illusion

http://science.disco...me-an-illusion/

Edited by Cybele, 10 March 2012 - 10:47 PM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#85    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 10 March 2012 - 11:07 PM

View PostLion6969, on 09 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

it brought in to existence a finite effect (universe), which logically can only be the result of something infinite, uncaused and single cause (occams razor)

:no:

Infinity precludes the possibility of causation or creation, because infinity is all there was, is, or ever will be.

Edited by Cybele, 10 March 2012 - 11:15 PM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#86    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 10 March 2012 - 11:49 PM

View PostCybele, on 10 March 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

:no:

Infinity precludes causation or creation, because infinity is all there was, is, or ever will be.

Only an uncaused cause could bring the finite effect into place which we call the universe. If it's not an uncaused cause ie infinite then it hits infinite regression. Therefore it's logical that an infinite cause brought in to existence a finite reality which is the sum of all matter. Obviously there are other theories or arguments which suggest the cause was not uncaused ie, resources seeped through from another universe including gravity which caused the universe to come existence (hawkings in a nutshell), however cogent such theories are mathematically, that's the only place they make sense in the mathamatical realm, with axioms and conventions. When such theories are exported in to the real world, then these theories collapse and hit infinite regression and make no philosophical sense.

Modern cosmologists, physicists and other experts all agree and it's cannot be escaped it's an established fact, the universe had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a cause, this observationally (empirically true), rationally true, logically true, philosophically true.

Now this fact only leaves us with three logical options, either the universe created itself, it's infinite or it was caused. The first two are clearly illogical on all fronts, therefore it's clear that the universe was created.

:)

Modern cosmologists, physicists etc

Edited by Lion6969, 10 March 2012 - 11:51 PM.


#87    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 11 March 2012 - 12:56 AM

View PostLion6969, on 10 March 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Only an uncaused cause could bring the finite effect into place which we call the universe. If it's not an uncaused cause ie infinite then it hits infinite regression.

I’m no cosmologist or physicist, but I do not think that this must logically be so. To use an extremely simple example, think of a circle of events:

Event A-->Event B-->Event C-->Event A

All events are caused and there is no need for an infinite number of events. It’s a self-perpetuating, closed off cycle. The cycle is potentially infinite, but we have finite effects resulting from a finite number of caused events.

View PostLion6969, on 10 March 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Now this fact only leaves us with three logical options, either the universe created itself, it's infinite or it was caused. The first two are clearly illogical on all fronts, therefore it's clear that the universe was created.


I do not find the first two options illogical. There is a theory called "The Big Crunch", which posits that our universe will eventually collapse into a singularity. Perhaps our Big Bang was cause by the Big Crunch of a past universe.

Edited by Cybele, 11 March 2012 - 01:43 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#88    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM

View PostCybele, on 11 March 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

I’m no cosmologist or physicist, but I do not think that this must logically be so. To use an extremely simple example, think of a circle of events:

Event A-->Event B-->Event C-->Event A

All events are caused and there is no need for an infinite number of events. It’s a self-perpetuating, closed off cycle. The cycle is potentially infinite, but we have finite effects resulting from a finite number of caused events.

You see did exactly what I expected, you turned to faith and things you have faith in but have no factual or empirical foundations. Why? Well, like I said before the above theory included insinuate an infinite universe, this is illogical because we know as established fact (not faith on mathamatical theories based on axioms and conventions), but actual fact accepted by all experts that the universe had a beginning. So just focus on this, we know anything that begins has a cause, through our experience, observation, logic, rational etc (yet when it comes to our own existence we are supposed to abandon causality, this is tantamount to denying your own existence according to Kant, who was a leading atheist philosopher). So let's have a look at your theory, basically a circle. How does something that has a beginning become infinite or be infinite? The universe did not start or exist prior to it's existence did it, so there was no circle of infinity. So point A had tk come into existence, before you complete your circle of life ;). So it then begs the question what caused point A to come into existence (remember it's fact the universe began all other theories pertaining to it's cause in science alone are based on faith alone), what was the cause of point A's beginning. Thus you end up back to the logical conclusion of an uncaused cause even behind your model. So I'm afraid you need to realise the model has no proof but mathamatical axioms and conventions, philosophically it still requires a cause, and if it was a circle, it's still requires q series of events, ie from one physical to another, so you would have an infinite history of events thus the present never actualises.

Lastly, infinite in the mathamatical realm is always potential like your example, it's never actualised nor has an export in the physical reality, because it had a beginning.

Quote

I do not find the first two options illogical. There is a theory called "The Big Crunch", which posits that our universe will eventually collapse into a singularity. Perhaps our Big Bang was cause by the Big Crunch of a past universe.

Again the big crunch is also faith based theory and your missing the point. The fact is it had a beginning.

This leaves us three options:

1 it created itself
2 it's infinite and always been there
3 it was created

Now the theories you proposed are meant to insinuate the universe created itself. Now how can something exist before it came into existence. The theory says well a previous universe collapsed and created ours and this happens for infinity (so infact they say it's infinite and it created itself) I mean of that's not fairy tales then what is, there is no proof for any of it, have we observed anything from the previous universe? No! We can't it goes into metaphysics hence it becomes problematic logically and philosophically. Let's say it was true, what caused the first bang to initiate the big crunch? See back to square 1. There is no escaping it, the fact us our universe began, to say it's infinite is illogical for all the reasons stated previously, circle requires a first cause, the big crunch requires a first cause, these theories have no empirical proof the very standard they judge god by. These alternatives are atheist creation myths. The big crunch or the bounce require a first cause, but hey I said based on facts that the universe began, therefore only three possible outcomes, it created itself, it's infinite, or it was created. Everything provided by atheists or scientism to justify premise 1 or 2 is entirely non empirical therefore philosophical and logical arguments which clearly are self defeating, self annihilate upon proper scrutiny and critical thinking.


#89    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 11 March 2012 - 07:14 AM

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

You see did exactly what I expected, you turned to faith and things you have faith in but have no factual or empirical foundations.

Actually, you’re jumping to conclusions. I do not have faith in the ideas I am presenting. I know I cannot prove them and scientists have not proved them yet, if they even can. They’re actually just thought exercises and abstract examples which run counter to your claim. I’m agnostic with regards to the origin of the universe, though I’m always willing provide counterexamples and play the devil’s advocate in the interest of debate.

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Why? Well, like I said before the above theory included insinuate an infinite universe, this is illogical because we know as established fact (not faith on mathamatical theories based on axioms and conventions), but actual fact accepted by all experts that the universe had a beginning.

Not all physicists see the origin of our universe in the same way.  Is the model below not indicative of an infinite universe (or series of self-perpetuating universes into infinity)?

http://discovermagaz...e-next-big-bang

Yet Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University, two of the heaviest hitters in the field of theoretical cosmology….They propose a “cyclic universe” model, in which our Big Bang is just one act in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. A trillion years from now, by their calculations, space, time, and matter will crunch down into another fireball and reemerge as another Big Bang. For eternity, the universe will swing between Big Bang and Big Crunch, a cosmic pendulum clock that never winds down. Instead of the universe accelerating into oblivion as current cosmological thinking predicts, their model regards expansion as just a passing phase.


View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

So just focus on this, we know anything that begins has a cause, through our experience, observation, logic, rational etc

I have great difficulty believing that our limited observations and experiences, restricted as they are to a very specific scale (of size) and an incredibly small part of the universe, are sufficient to allow us to apply our everyday laws to the nature of the entire universe. Common sense as we know it breaks down at the tiny quantum scale.  So why should we be able to apply common sense, rather than relying solely on mathematics and experimental physics, to understand things trillions of times larger than our entire sphere of existence?  

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

So let's have a look at your theory, basically a circle. How does something that has a beginning become infinite or be infinite?

It doesn’t have a beginning…or an end, which is exactly the point I made in a prior post.  I do not think the concept of infinity or an infinite being logically allows for creation.

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

The universe did not start or exist prior to it's existence did it, so there was no circle of infinity. So point A had tk come into existence, before you complete your circle of life ;). So it then begs the question what caused point A to come into existence (remember it's fact the universe began all other theories pertaining to it's cause in science alone are based on faith alone)

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Again the big crunch is also faith based theory and your missing the point. The fact is it had a beginning.

See the theoretical model I posted above, which I acknowledge is only one of many.

Big crunch-->Big Bang-->Big crunch-->Big Bang…ad infinitum

Event A-->Event B-->Event C-->Event A-->Event B-->Event C…ad infinitum

There is no beginning; no end. Yes, a circle.

It’s also a fact that some theoretical physicists don’t believe in the notion of time, therefore rendering the idea of something “beginning”, to some, irrelevant---an illusion.

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

So I'm afraid you need to realise the model has no proof

Of course it doesn’t, but neither does yours.

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Now the theories you proposed are meant to insinuate the universe created itself. Now how can something exist before it came into existence. The theory says well a previous universe collapsed and created ours and this happens for infinity (so infact they say it's infinite and it created itself) I mean of that's not fairy tales then what is, there is no proof for any of it, have we observed anything from the previous universe? No! We can't it goes into metaphysics hence it becomes problematic logically and philosophically.

It’s a mathematical theory--a physics-based one that is not capable of being verified experimentally at this time. I acknowledge that and so do physicists. I wish you would acknowledge the same about the premises of your arguments.

As it stands, with neither of us having “proof”, I think the reasoning and theories I’ve drug up constitute valid logic-based criticisms of your arguments.

View PostLion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Let's say it was true, what caused the first bang to initiate the big crunch? See back to square 1.

There is no first event in this scenario; it's cyclical (i.e.-circular) and self-perpetuating (see above). I think the bottom line is that we can't necessary apply our everyday notions of common sense and how our little world works to the extremes of physics. Time breaks down and things make "no sense" at the quantum scale, for example. Maybe we can't use common logic to intuit things on a scale much, much larger than we are.  

Yes, physicists do agree that the Big Bang was the “origin” of the universe as we know it. That doesn’t mean they agree on what came before or if there even was a “before”, but you’ll keep on using one interpretation so long as it suits your needs and reinforces your beliefs in a god.

What, they wonder, was the universe like before the Big Bang?... most astronomers regard the question as either irrelevant or unanswerable http://discovermagaz...e-next-big-bang


Edit: Actually, I lied. Physicists are examining background microwave radiation as a way of providing evidence for these theories.  Sir Roger Penrose is a proponent of the cyclic universe theory (which I didn't even know existed before I "came up with it" in this thread). I'll post an article supporting and criticizing the idea.

http://physicsworld....icle/news/44388

http://www.scientifi...time-before-big

Edited by Cybele, 11 March 2012 - 08:13 AM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#90    absolute zer0

absolute zer0

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2012

Posted 11 March 2012 - 07:52 AM

View PostMagicjax, on 29 February 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

I know this point is made in many discussions. But I wanted to start a subject on this concept itself. Not to be used to "Make a point" as the statement is usually used. But to actually ask how one who claims that "Everything needs a creator therefore there must be a god" argument. When someone makes this statement or argument I truly want to know how they answer the question that always fallows this statement which of course is:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

I know some of you are going to jump on me because you'll say, "I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way. In my voyage to realizing I don't believe in god. This was one of the strongest thoughts that convinced me that I don't believe the creationist view. This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.


What created god?  Not exactly of toughie.  Letters:)

Here's a question. Are you who you are?

Edited by absolute zer0, 11 March 2012 - 07:53 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users