Forums → WEPR → Gods existance

If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.

Yes but a)The universe doesn't have to have a beginning since a universe is just space which must always have been here.
b)Newtonian causality doesn't HAVE to be true
and c)An intelligent creator must have been created by a more intelligent creator which must have been created by a more intelligent creator which is just an infinite string of creators which can't have begun and is a lot less likely than a universe which wasn't made by a sentient creator.

How do you think the entire cosmos (Not just our solar system, or beyond) would have lasted a billion years if a powerful entity wasn't there to maintain it?

It lasted because it is huge, because it was not designed to work, because there are a lot of processes that run on their own. It won't last forever, however; due to enthalpy, if we would leave something around long enough, it will end up in dust. Same goes for the universe, it only takes a bunch of time.

It's like a car. When it's in action, fuel is used up, parts are worn out, and fluids deteriorate. When we leave it inactive for a long time, it gradually rusts and deteriorates until it breaks down and becomes dead and useless.

A car is man-made. You really want to compare that with the universe? Anyway, everything deteriorates if left for a very long time, and when I say everything I mean everything. But the car has, compared to other things, the disadvantage of not working in any other way than in the original state.

And besides. The universe's existence was planned.

This is purely assumptions. You don't know this, you just feel it has to be like that because you can't imagine it otherwise.

Yes but a)The universe doesn't have to have a beginning since a universe is just space which must always have been here.

Given the evidence the universe did have a beginning, that being explained with the Big Bang.

This a very sensitive topic. Everyone be nice so no one gets offended!

I don't think it's possible to not offend somebody when stating the particular god they subscribe to isn't real.

Since a "cause" as you think it is is not necessary

This means we don't have spacetime, thus no before or cause and effect relationship

[imj]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNyh1L4LtrScbc0DG4RVeCaVajwtcgTUYQ39k_wGplCAlMJGfs[/imj]

By the way, why did you add Newtonian to the title of it?

Because thats the name of it?

And, if your god could just always be there, why couldn't the big bang?

Because last time I checked, scientist said that the Big Bang was an event. And Newtonian Causality says that all actions have a cuase, and therefore, a beginning. And if it has a beginning, it has an end.

So lets say your god one day made himself non existent.

Scripture tells us that God 'was, and is, and is to come', so he won't end, nor would he end himself.

Since space and time are one we must also treat space as equaling zero.

If Space is zero, than where did the matter arrive to create the big bang? And wouldn'd all this matter, although it is compressed in a small space, still occupy space, and thus have time?

How do you think the entire cosmos (Not just our solar system, or beyond) would have lasted a billion years if a powerful entity wasn't there to maintain it?

This is contrary to a Christian Worldview, though I agree with the part of a Creator creating the cosmos. If the Big Bang occured, than billions of years of death, sickness, and other malignant things would have occured before Adam. If sin already occured before Adam's Sin, than there was no first sin. If there was no first sin, and no fall, than theres no need for Jesus, and Christianity is worthless.

And that is your logical flaw!

Because it makes so much more sense than nothing reacting with nothing, and then that nothing reacting with something to create a bunch of atoms, that then combined to replicate into monkeys, and eventually people.

a)The universe doesn't have to have a beginning since a universe is just space which must always have been here.

So my pantry/cupboard contains space, so it must have always been there, even before they built my townhouse.

b)Newtonian causality doesn't HAVE to be true

Than almost all of science is a sham.

c)An intelligent creator must have been created by a more intelligent creator which must have been created by a more intelligent creator which is just an infinite string of creators which can't have begun and is a lot less likely than a universe which wasn't made by a sentient creator.

First, God is an omnipotent being. Second, Scripture tells us that God was, and is, and is to come. So he always has existed, and always will exist.

God is real and living among us today, you may not see Him with your eyes but He is always right there with us.

Any proof? Doesn't the following sound better:
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is real and living among us today, you may not see Him with your eyes but He is always right there with us.

God is real and living among us today, you may not see Him with your eyes but He is always right there with us.

So, have you any proof of this assertion? You're free to believe it all you want but don't parade it around as being a fact unless you can prove it.

[imj]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNyh1L4LtrScbc0DG4RVeCaVajwtcgTUYQ39k_wGplCAlMJGfs[/imj]

Well that failed on many levels and is not what I or any atheist is saying.

If Space is zero, than where did the matter arrive to create the big bang? And wouldn'd all this matter, although it is compressed in a small space, still occupy space, and thus have time?

A singularity is infinitely dense so no there wouldn't be space.

Given the evidence the universe did have a beginning, that being explained with the Big Bang.

But the universe is only is made up nothing and nothing must always have been here.

Because it makes so much more sense than nothing reacting with nothing, and then that nothing reacting with something to create a bunch of atoms, that then combined to replicate into monkeys, and eventually people.

So my pantry/cupboard contains space, so it must have always been there, even before they built my townhouse.

Than almost all of science is a sham.

First, God is an omnipotent being. Second, Scripture tells us that God was, and is, and is to come. So he always has existed, and always will exist.

Yes, of course, a cosmic Jewish zombie who is actually his own father who you have to telepathically tell that you love so he can remove an evil force in your soul that is there because a crazy rib woman at a magic apple because a talking snake told her to. This is SO much more likely than any theories scientists have such as the universe could always have been here and keeps imploding and exploding in a cycle.

No, your pantry is not full of space. I had no idea that some people didn't even know the difference between a pantry full of AIR and outer space which is a VACUUM. If you don't even know this then why are you trying to argue scientifically.

How is science a sham? Science is all proven in experiments.

If God has always existed he has existed for an infinity and then made the world so he must've made the world at the end of infinity and since infinity has no end he can't have ever made the world. And why does what a book, that is thousands of years old and written by stupid goatherds that thought pi=3, says matters.

Because last time I checked, scientist said that the Big Bang was an event. And Newtonian Causality says that all actions have a cuase, and therefore, a beginning. And if it has a beginning, it has an end.

The 'big bang' was an event. It was (most likely)a quantum interaction which led to a reaction and caused a rapid expansion of matter and release of energy. However you cannot apply causality to situations which exist apart from spacetime. Prior to the 'big bang' there was no time, so we cannot apply time dependent things like causality to them.

You are attempting to oversimplify a known event by applying inapplicable hypothesis to it. All you are demonstration is your lack of understanding, which we have tried time and again to rectify.

I can understand your reservations about accepting reality because it would mean that your firmly held beliefs are wrong, but that is precisely the case. The 'big bang' DID happen, we know it, have proven it, and have proven the resulting data as well such as the age of our planet, the age of the universe, etc.

Scripture tells us that God 'was, and is, and is to come', so he won't end, nor would he end himself.

Yes, and scripture also tells us that there was a global flood, that rabbits chew cud, that bats are birds, and that there used to be unicorns. None of the information the Bible gives us on things which can be tested has turned out to be true so it would be far more reasonable to assume that the rest of it likely isn't true either.

Certainly some of the ideas are nice and comforting, and they make one feel special and important, but they aren't facts. They are not grounded in reality. Accepting this can be quite difficult, having gone through the process myself I know. Unfortunately we must all one day determine if we wish to hold beliefs which we enjoy, which comfort us, or if we wish to embrace the truth and align our understanding with facts, as they are often mutually exclusive.

If the Big Bang occured, than billions of years of death, sickness, and other malignant things would have occured before Adam. If sin already occured before Adam's Sin, than there was no first sin. If there was no first sin, and no fall, than theres no need for Jesus, and Christianity is worthless.

Again, it did occur. It's a very well demonstrated reality. As is the age of the universe, of our planet, and the history of life on our planet. If the entire evidence of hundreds of years of research, observation, testing, and demonstration show one thing, and a 2,000 year old book say another, how can you seriously dismiss the mountains of evidence and claim observation and demonstration wrong in favor of dogma?

It never ceases to baffle me how otherwise intelligent and well read individuals can completely disregard proven facts simply because they don't like them.

Because it makes so much more sense than nothing reacting with nothing, and then that nothing reacting with something to create a bunch of atoms, that then combined to replicate into monkeys, and eventually people.

If you really think that 'nothing reacted with nothing' and that 'combined to make monkeys' then yeah, I can see how that doesn't make sense. The problem with understanding many of these scientific principles is that the more you attempt to simplify the ideas the more difficult they are to grasp.

Firstly, there is no such thing as 'nothing'. Even in space, out in the empty void between observable matter, and right down to the 'empty' space between subatomic particles there are still what are called 'virtual particles' which are constantly coming in and out of existence. These are unimaginably small and short lived, but they exist. They have mass and energy and they mean that everywhere in the universe there is matter. 'Nothing' doesn't exist.

Also, because of this, we can begin to understand how the 'big bang' was initiated. All it takes is one of these little particles popping into existence in the wrong spot, bumping into an electron in a dense mass of matter and voila, the singularity begins to expand.

As for the evolution of life, you first have to understand chemistry. The chemical composition of our planet, coupled with the environment, had all of the necessary tools to create simple amino acids, and that's what happened. Once these chemicals were formed, and there are many different ones which were, some were able (due to their chemical structure and the other surrounding chemicals) to combine and replicate. This is where evolution begins.

Over billions of years these chemicals became more complex, more stable chemicals. They gradually became organized, with parts that allowed for intake of, or attachment to, other present chemicals. They developed tools for creating and/or processing simpler necessary chemicals like proteins, ATP, and glucose. The beginnings of what we would recognize as a cell (most likely similar to today's virus) had formed. This was the very first 'living' thing on Earth. From there we've had roughly 4 billion years of evolution which has led gradually to all life on this planet. Every single living thing on Earth gets it's genetic information from this initial organism.

Again, if that isn't your 'world view' then you need to assess your position. Either be honest with yourself and admit that you'd rather not believe the facts because you don't want to let go of your religion, or come to realize that the realities of our universe are wonderful, amazing, awe inspiring, and fascinating and endeavor to understand them, even if it means you have to admit (at least to your self) that you're current beliefs are wrong, and likely will be wrong many times again, and simply follow the facts.

Either way, these things (big bang, evolution, etc.) are facts. They are real, they happen/have happened, and are proven. Any argument against them has failed miserably, and will almost certainly continue to do so. They are widely held and understood ideas in the scientific community not because people 'like them', but because they have been demonstrated to be true.

Believe me, the truth about life is so much more beautiful than anything any religion has conjured up anyway and you're missing out by denying that reality. Or, if you prefer, you can always do as most of your fellow Christians (and many other religious folk) have and think of science as the 'how' God created everything if you're unwilling to part with your belief in Him.

Than almost all of science is a sham.

No, science is not a sham. Science is the method at arriving at fact, and the attempt to understand the facts we find, nothing more.

First, God is an omnipotent being. Second, Scripture tells us that God was, and is, and is to come. So he always has existed, and always will exist.

So you cite causality saying that a singularity of matter/energy cannot exist and, due to quantum fluctuations, rapidly expand, but then you say that an omnipotent invisible being is out there? If you really want to stick with your causality argument then you have to admit that each thing created would require an (at least) equal force creating it. If there is a God then someone must have created Him. And someone must have created his creator, since we cannot have a result without a cause. However we know that the 'big bang' happened and it doesn't defy any established laws.

Again, you could say that the 'big bang' was God's way of creating the universe if you like so you can accept reality and not discard your religion. It doesn't make it true, or even probable, but it's better than being being blind to the reality of the universe we live in.