The beginning

seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The beginning

Ok so to come up with weather or not one believes in God you have to start at a logical place. Let’s see why don’t we start at the beginning. Sound good to you??? I think so. Ok so I want to hear from both sides. Where did everything come from? (Please don’t give me the big bang bullshit) something most have existed for all time. Since this is so, what has existed for all time? (Everything come from something, however there must be at least one exception to this) (The most common ideas are a creating thing (most call this God) or the opposite of that, the universe has existed for all time) I side with the first for many reasons, for now we will go with this one; because even the most extreme scientist would not dare say the universe has existed for all time.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So the Big bang is bullshit?

So the Big bang is bullshit? Do you consider yourself more intelligent than Stephen Hawking, not to mention virtually every other Astronomer/Astrophysicist?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts

seekingfacts wrote:

something most have existed for all time.

So I must adhere to your constraints? Why is that? Why must something have existed for all time?

 

Quote:
because even the most extreme scientist would not dare say the universe has existed for all time.

Not true, the Inflation Theory which is gaining alot of ground these days supports a universe without a beginning. 

 


wickedcity
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
There are a couple theories

There are a couple theories that go beyond the big bang.... string theory and M-theory come to mind..


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
By the same argument, where

By the same argument, where did an all-powerful, super-intelligent, judgemental God come from?  And if you do believe in some intelligent creative spark at the beginning of the universe, that's still a long way from the Abrahamic God, rather than Zeus or any other, and still further from an inconsistent, immoral organised religion having the right to tell the rest of us what to do.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The big bang theory is not a

The big bang theory is not a viable logical theory for the beginning of everything. Here is why I say this.  The theory summarized is this. At the center of the universe a ball of mass formed and then exploded into the universe as we know it.  Problem, where did the mass come from. To say that it formed would be the same as to say that if you took a glass ball and vacuumed all air and matter out of it then given enough time a new mass would form in the middle of it and that mass would in time explode and create a universe.

Ya that makes a lot of since.

 

J D


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: Ok so

seekingfacts wrote:
Ok so to come up with weather or not one believes in God you have to start at a logical place.
Let's start with "whether or not one believes"
If you believe there is a god, that is your prerogative. But, if you claim there is a god, then you have the burden of presenting evidence of your god.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Yes but to say that there

Yes but to say that there is anything that created life would then make the idea of atheism obsolete. So really the first logical thing to do would be to use this simple argument to make that obsolete. I don’t have to prove that one God is the real God if your argument is that there is no God then I simply have to bring doubt to that argument.

J D


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Wow. I have never heard

Wow. I have never heard these lame and fallicious arguments before. Oh wait...


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
"Let's start with "whether

"Let's start with "whether or not one believes" If you believe there is a god, that is your prerogative. But, if you claim there is a god, then you have the burden of presenting evidence of your god. "

 

I am not saying that i can undoubtedly prove the existence of God if i could then there would not be a debate it would be fact. However you can not prove that there is not a God for if you could you would and there would not be an argument it would be fact.

J D


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
KSMB ... so you took all the

KSMB ... so you took all the time to read this and all you put was that. thanks for well um nothing. im looking for both sides here and you added what to this... nothing. so thank you

J D


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The fact that we don't YET

The fact that we don't YET have perfect scientific answers to the start of the universe doesn't mean Goddunnit.  People used to think that the reason the sun rose and set, that floods happened, that diseases came, that the stars hung in the sky etc etc was God(s)dunnit. But after only a few hundred years of dedicated enquiry by really only a few thousand people it's provable and predictable that these are natural phenomena.

Ideas like the big bang are just as counter-intuitive to us at this point in history as it would have been in previous times that mixing chemicals makes new materials, or that people could speak through wires, or that banging some atoms together would cause an explosion.  Let go of your fears in the unknown and read up some popular science material like Hawking and Dawkins.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
There are a couple
There are a couple theories

There are a couple theories that go beyond the big bang.... string theory and M-theory come to mind..

 
do you have much info on these they could add a lot to this topic.

J D


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
 “Let go of your fears in

 “Let go of your fears in the unknown and read up some popular science material like Hawking and Dawkins.” sorry dont have fears of the unknown ... everything i see shows that there must be some super intelligent behind this. its simple to complicated for random chance and luck. the complexity of the human eye to the complex workings of a single bacteria they are just to complex for random chance and luck.  a side note. why would a single celled organism want to combine with another to make a multiple celled one???

 

J D


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not this shit again...

Not this shit again...


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
''sorry dont have fears of

''sorry dont have fears of the unknown''

Then sorry you must just be lazy or have learning difficulites.  Answers to questions of 'complexity' in the eye or in bacteria are available in any good bookshop or library uner 'Biology'.  The evidence and answers are too involved to get into on a web forum.  Suggest you try Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker.  Or are you afraid of what you may learn?


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
  Not this shit
 Not this shit again...

Not this shit again...

what??? i guess you get this all the time. perhaps you all have a form letter for a reply ... or is that just on your emial system.

lol sorry that was kind of mean. if you have had it many times before then you can give me a answer with out a problem im sure.

J D


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote:  if

seekingfacts wrote:
 if you have had it many times before then you can give me a answer with out a problem im sure. Where did everything come from?
Depends on what you are referring to as being everything.

Let me assume that you mean the universe. The universe always existed.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
This is a stupid straw man

This is a stupid straw man argument that eveybody has heard a million times. No one said that any of those things came about by random chance or luck except you.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
no you misunderstand what

no you misunderstand what im saying ... i understand the complexity of the eye and of the bacteria im more asking why and how would that have developed by random chance. why would a cell that’s perfectly comfortable working on its own. want to take on the problem of another cell. and why would they desire this connection so much that they would deny control and become a cell in the entirety of a organisms.

J D


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Wouldn't God be much, much

Wouldn't God be much, much more complex than an eye or a cell? So wouldn't something have had to have designed God then by your logic?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
evolution....in the

evolution....in the beginning there was matter unbound expanding across the vastness of space. that matter randomly connected (to say it is anything but random would say that there is a sort of logic behind it, something controlling it, and that gets really close to intelligent design don’t you think) with other matter to create worlds and on those life. (were not even going to get into the question of where the spark of life came from.) life started as single celled bacteria and in time randomly connected with and developed into more complex life forms until it came to the world as we know it today where it stopped. (we have seen no macroevolution in recorded history) (of course this dose bring up the problem of why this would have happened... each thing wanted to better it self???? if that’s the case how many things could still better there selves by continuing in this and if they can better themselves why are they not... or did they just forget how????) like is said this all make very little to no since to me and requires MUCH MORE FAITH THEN I HAVE !!!!!!!

 

J D


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
(add on to my last post) 

(add on to my last post) 
faith:
Belief without evidence
(http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm)
Faith
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith)

J D


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
"Wouldn't God be much, much

"Wouldn't God be much, much more complex than an eye or a cell? So wouldn't something have had to have designed God then by your logic?"wow mattshizzle your being quite forgetful and digging quite a bit aren’t you...remember the point of this debate... the beginning and my opening statement.

"something most have existed for all time. " God or the universe"

 

J D


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Good Strawman version of

Good Strawman version of evolution by the way.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
thanks...so do you have a

thanks...so do you have a better way to put it??? i would have fun picking at that one too Sticking out tongue ... im really let down by the Christians on this website... almost no good argument out there. sad really. im worked and am working out my own faith and they are ... well it seams they have not gotten past what mommies and daddies told them. the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity is Christians.

 

J D


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
''that matter randomly

''that matter randomly connected (to say it is anything but random would say that there is a sort of logic behind it, something controlling it, and that gets really close to intelligent design don’t you think) with other matter to create worlds and on those life''

Who says matter randomly connected or that it connected by a controlling intelligence?  Simple laws of physics and chemistry requiring no intelligence, like gravity and pressure, created stars planets gases etc in an entirely non-random way. 

''life started as single celled bacteria and in time randomly connected with and developed into more complex life forms until it came to the world as we know it today where it stopped.''

Wrong again. Life would not have started as single celled bacteria, but as fundamental, replicating building blocks like amino acids.  The connections that resulted in simple and eventually complex life came from incremental, non-random natural selection. Many clusters of 'cells' may have formed randomly, but at least once that allowed the 'cells' to survive better and reproduce more. Nothing could be further from pure, random chance.

 ''We have seen no macroevolution in recorded history''

Yes we have, in many examples.  Eg the rapid lizard adaptation of the University of California at Davis experiment in the Exumas. There's a separate, new species of mosquito now in the London underground system.  Or did God create the Tube as well?


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Gravity- a fundamental

Gravity- a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 1039 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gravity what in this definition would say that this law would cause things to combine together to form something?????  Pressure- : the application of force to something by something else in direct contact with ita : the action of a force against an opposing force b : the force or thrust exerted over a surface divided by its area: the pressure exerted in every direction by the weight of the atmospherehttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pressure and this????  Here let me help you … the only way gravity would have done something is a larger mass (that we still don’t know where the mass come from to begin with ) pulled smaller masses to it… how ever this would cause one to strike the other… this causes destruction not creation…. Or pressure… the pressure of one thing against the other causes things to break apart once again distraction not creation…. Use better laws next time. Thanks.  Yes what you said was true I’m not stupid I know that everything has building blocks … I have said that earlier on this forum … and if I did not I’m saying it now… however the point still reminds about random; that the connection of the building blocks was random and that a large amount of time is needed for the one that worked to grow to a controlling amount… and you still did not say anything as to why these would change to something more completed. (by the way congratulations you used servile of the fittest. Good law… its logical and founded on something)  (Sadly you totally destroy the creatable things that you say by not know what the difference between microevolution is and macroevolution is…. ) (Once again let me help you)  Microevolution. - comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Microevolution. Sound like what you where talking about there????  Eg the rapid lizard adaptation of the University of California at Davis experiment in the Exumas. There's a separate, new species of mosquito now in the London underground system” The adaptation of a species …  Macroevolution- evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/macroevolution what I was talking about … the formation of a new species.  And just to clear up any confusion….  Adaptation- : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environmenthttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adaptation formationan act of giving form or shape to something or of taking formhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/formationformto take form : come into existence http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/formeddevelopmentthe act, process, or result of developing <development of new ideas>

J D


Roly1976
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Holy Hand Grenade! Think

Holy Hand Grenade! Think you need to wipe some of the flecks of spittle from your chin there buddy...

''Here let me help you …''

Oh, thanks very much. 

 ''the only way gravity would have done something is a larger mass (that we still don’t know where the mass come from to begin with ) pulled smaller masses to it… how ever this would cause one to strike the other… this causes destruction not creation''

Not if the objects are in a liquid or semi-liquid state, like molten rock, or gas, or clouds of tiny particles.  One puddle of liquid merges without any destruction into another, one blob of playdough into another.

''Or pressure… the pressure of one thing against the other causes things to break apart once again distraction not creation…. Use better laws next time''

Distraction? Are you using some sort of voice recogniser?  Again, pressure can have all sorts of effects, not just destruction - your body stays together under atmospheric pressure, it would burst apart in a vacuum.  The enormous pressure and heat in stars created the basic chemicals from which living things were eventually made, including you and me.

'Macroevolution'

Sure, like I said, the new species of mosquito: http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html

is one account of it I just grabbed off google, there have been lots more.  Or the Flavobacterium discovered years ago in Japan feeding off nylon in factory waste ponds.  A completely new adaptation.

It may be counter-intuitive to you, but complexity comes from gradual, incremental non-random selection, over huge time spans.  I really recommend Dawkins' God Delusion on this, as he explains it elegantly and in proper depth.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: The big

seekingfacts wrote:
The big bang theory is not a viable logical theory for the beginning of everything. Here is why I say this. The theory summarized is this. At the center of the universe a ball of mass formed and then exploded into the universe as we know it. Problem, where did the mass come from. To say that it formed would be the same as to say that if you took a glass ball and vacuumed all air and matter out of it then given enough time a new mass would form in the middle of it and that mass would in time explode and create a universe.

Ya that makes a lot of since.

Actually, the theory states that the universe itself (time and space) that was compressed into an incredibly small point. All of space was very dense with energy. I suppose that technically it was in the center of itself.

It probably doesn't make much "since" because you don't have enough information about the theory.

-Triften 


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
yes i know and by time they

yes i know and by time they mean the rocked and such decided slower because of the gravity being placed on them..... yes I do understand and i do know more then you think i do about the big bang theory it however dose not fit in the idea that everything comes from something. I’m not the one that puts the time constraint on evolution. the scientist give an age to the universe not me. as long as there is an age then there is a time that the ball of mass did not exist thus a beginning and if it has a beginning then it came from something. that means it was created and something created has a creator. you have to say that it existed for all time or show how things are created out of nothing. i am looking for the theories that say the universe existed for all time. it is the only logical starting place for evolution. if that can not be then logically the idea of god is better then the idea of a universe that created it self out of nothing.  How ever I must say you all are getting better that makes me happy.

J D


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
this would be easier to read

this would be easier to read if you used quotes.


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
good on the stars have the

good on the stars have the building blocks need for things. Still nothing on the spark of life, but better. Also we don’t live on a star .... so you have to get life or at least the building blocks to the plants .... and once you get them there you have the whole random thing again that takes time. (bring me back to the whole if it did not have a time constraint that would begin to be plausible.)  on to the new species of mosquito .... it still a mosquito ... macroevolution a new thing a new creature. A mosquito adapting it self to live underground is very different then a fish growing lags, a rat getting wings or whatever.

 

J D


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
then please tell me how to

then please tell me how to do quotes in an easier way. every time i start a new paragraph it takes away the break when i go to post it. (i don’t have the time right now to mess around with this to get it to do what i want it to do)

J D


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
if you write quote inside

if you write quote inside square brackets then write /quote in squarebrackets at the end of it then that should work.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: yes i

seekingfacts wrote:
yes i know and by time they mean the rocked and such decided slower because of the gravity being placed on them..... yes I do understand and i do know more then you think i do about the big bang theory it however dose not fit in the idea that everything comes from something. I’m not the one that puts the time constraint on evolution. the scientist give an age to the universe not me. as long as there is an age then there is a time that the ball of mass did not exist thus a beginning and if it has a beginning then it came from something. that means it was created and something created has a creator. you have to say that it existed for all time or show how things are created out of nothing. i am looking for the theories that say the universe existed for all time. it is the only logical starting place for evolution. if that can not be then logically the idea of god is better then the idea of a universe that created it self out of nothing. How ever I must say you all are getting better that makes me happy.

Time would have began then as well. Under the big bang theory, there was no time before the big bang.

Your claim that there is not "enough" time is argument by incredulity.

 ----

Macroevolution is a strawman term. To claim that creatures adapt but can't change too much is like saying that you can't walk a mile because each step is so small. How many changes are necessary to go from one item to another? No one expects a rat to be born with wings, but if you take a look at flying squirrels and compare them with bats, you could come up with a few possible intermediate steps to go from one to the next.

----

One more thing, no one HAS to take one stance or the other on the age of the universe. People are allowed to say "I don't know."

-Triften 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10720
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: Ok so

seekingfacts wrote:
Ok so to come up with weather or not one believes in God you have to start at a logical place. Let’s see why don’t we start at the beginning. Sound good to you??? I think so.

What beginning? You can point to a beginning? Please do.

seekingfacts wrote:

Ok so I want to hear from both sides. Where did everything come from? (Please don’t give me the big bang bullshit)

The big bang happened. It's not bullshit. Understanding it is what's at hand.

seekingfacts wrote:
something most have existed for all time. Since this is so, what has existed for all time? (Everything come from something, however there must be at least one exception to this) (The most common ideas are a creating thing (most call this God) or the opposite of that, the universe has existed for all time)

I take the second. There's never been any evidence either for a god or for needing a god.

seekingfacts wrote:
I side with the first for many reasons, for now we will go with this one; because even the most extreme scientist would not dare say the universe has existed for all time.

Neither would they say it began. They wouldn't say anything, since they don't know.

seekingfacts wrote:
The big bang theory is not a viable logical theory for the beginning of everything.

It isn't a theory for the beginning of everything, so I'm not sure why you're going here. It's a reality that about 13 billion years ago there was a massive explosion. The results of the explosion are the stars and galaxies we see today. I've never heard a single scientist or even anyone else claim that all matter and energy were created by the big bang. It was already there. It just blew up.

seekingfacts wrote:
Here is why I say this. The theory summarized is this. At the center of the universe a ball of mass formed and then exploded into the universe as we know it.

Not quite. All matter and energy were compacted beyond stress tolerance, and critical mass beget a super explosion. Similar to a super nova, though obviously far more massive.

seekingfacts wrote:
Problem, where did the mass come from.

That is a good question. But nowhere in the big bang concepts are the answers to that question suggested.

seekingfacts wrote:
To say that it formed would be the same as to say that if you took a glass ball and vacuumed all air and matter out of it then given enough time a new mass would form in the middle of it and that mass would in time explode and create a universe.

Wouldn't that be interesting? Theoretically it could happen, but then one would have to ask how. Either way, you are correct as far as spontaneous matter generation goes. I've only heard of one theory that could suggest matter and energy forming from nothing without breaking the laws of physics. And that theory isn't fully formed due to our lack of knowledge of dark matter and anti-energy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: i am

seekingfacts wrote:
i am looking for the theories that say the universe existed for all time. it is the only logical starting place for evolution.

 I have to question you 'looking' for this evidence. You are merely holding to your own presupposition and attempting to support that stance without considering evidence that contradicts your current premise. Inflation Theory is one that supports an eternal universe. Inflation Theory helps resolve many issues with the big bang and with it also supports the idea of a universe with no beginning. Moreover it is not the only theory of a universe without a beginning. 

 Using your logic, aslong as such theories with a high degree of probability exist then it gives credibility to an atheistic worldview. 


seekingfacts
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Using your logic,

Quote:
Using your logic, aslong as such theories with a high degree of probability exist then it gives credibility to an atheistic worldview. 

You know what your right ... that means that you all finally brought up creditable theories used by evolutionist that can begin to make this a fair argument. look essentially what I’m saying is that both sides creation or evolution have possible theories all anyone can do is pick there poison. If one feels there is something higher then themselves, that there is something greater then them out there then they pick creation if not then evolution. Neither one can prove the other to be totally false. Everyone has ideas and feelings causing them to lean one way or the other. There is a problem with trying to make things totally rational. We are not just rational beings... that is only one part of a very complex thing call a human. We have emotions, feelings, and desires that are hard at best to explain and almost impossible to control. We have a desire for food and there is food. We have a desire for sex and there is sex. We have a desire for rest and there is sleep. Many people have a desire to connect with something greater then themselves. What is there to meet that desire if there is no god? The fact that the desire is there would say that there must be something to meet it. This is just one of the leanings in me that cause me to be a theist. But to say that there is no way that your ideas could be true is silly of me I know nothing more then any man. Just like you know nothing more then any man. There is no proof either way so the possibility of one or the other can not be ruled out. Earlier I said I do not fear the unknown that’s because to me it is known. I know what I believe, what I understand to happen in the after life. Am I perfect hell no!!!! Not even close. Is my life perfect nope not in the least. Is my life all grand and glorious? Nope. I have many things that I have to deal with everyday challenges and problems that I have to face. That does not mean that there is no god. If god wishes to send me to hell I trust his judgments for they are fair and just. If there is a way for him to get me in to heaven then I’m sure he will if not then I have no one to blame but myself. To try to say that ones convictions once they have actually worked them out for themselves are totally wrong is silly. We know not what there is out there and where it all came from. And that’s ok. I am very glad you all are here if for no other reason then to make people think. Make people determent what they feel is true not what they have been told all there lives by this person or that. So thank you.

J D


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: Ok so

seekingfacts wrote:

Ok so to come up with weather or not one believes in God you have to start at a logical place. Let’s see why don’t we start at the beginning. Sound good to you??? I think so. Ok so I want to hear from both sides. Where did everything come from? (Please don’t give me the big bang bullshit) something most have existed for all time. Since this is so, what has existed for all time? (Everything come from something, however there must be at least one exception to this) (The most common ideas are a creating thing (most call this God) or the opposite of that, the universe has existed for all time) I side with the first for many reasons, for now we will go with this one; because even the most extreme scientist would not dare say the universe has existed for all time.

As I see it, all possibilities lead to the conclusion that something must have "always existed". From there, we develop three major theories: 1) infinite causality, 2) intelligent creation, 3) Big Bang and evolution; and with your permission I will take on all three of them.

1) infinite causality - quite obvious: everything has a cause that precedes it, and that goes on in the past to infinite; the problem always remains, in this case, what has happened to all those gazillion years before us, and what will happen to the same after us? This hypotheses is especially accepted amongst mathematicians, since working with infinite series or graphs is part of the job description

2) intelligent creation - someone that has the generic name "God", and that is necessarily a sentient, intelligent being, has generated and organized everything; that "God" is presumed to have "always existed"; the only problem is what did this "God" do before generating the Universe? Why did it generate the Universe? etc. - typical hypotheses for theists and theologians

3) Big Bang+evolution - also involves something that has "always existed", yet it doesn't define it in terms understandable by a simple, untrained human mind, generically called "singularity"; it expanded vey quickly (check definition of "explosion&quotEye-wink and, through a natural process, evolved into today's Universe; life evolved through a natural proces; its lato sensu hypotheses make time and space infinite, thus allowing the possibility of some advanced concepts, like Dirac's Ocean; many consider falsely that the Big Bang doesn't involve something "always existing" (thus, "seekingfacts", you are wrong in your last sentence), and "always existing" means here that whatever was the state of the singularity before the Big Bang, we do not know and we will possibly never know; also, this hypotheses, again taken lato sensu, doesn't necessarily rule out other possible entities than our singularity, thus doesn't rule out the possibility of "other universes"

Please note that 1 and 3 are not mutually exclusive (3 being more like "the physical way 1 happened&quotEye-wink, as are 1 and 2, or 2 and 3.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
seekingfacts wrote: You

seekingfacts wrote:


You know what your right ... that means that you all finally brought up creditable theories used by evolutionist that can begin to make this a fair argument. look essentially what I’m saying is that both sides creation or evolution have possible theories all anyone can do is pick there poison. If one feels there is something higher then themselves, that there is something greater then them out there then they pick creation if not then evolution. Neither one can prove the other to be totally false. Everyone has ideas and feelings causing them to lean one way or the other. There is a problem with trying to make things totally rational. We are not just rational beings... that is only one part of a very complex thing call a human. We have emotions, feelings, and desires that are hard at best to explain and almost impossible to control. We have a desire for food and there is food. We have a desire for sex and there is sex. We have a desire for rest and there is sleep. Many people have a desire to connect with something greater then themselves. What is there to meet that desire if there is no god? The fact that the desire is there would say that there must be something to meet it. This is just one of the leanings in me that cause me to be a theist. But to say that there is no way that your ideas could be true is silly of me I know nothing more then any man. Just like you know nothing more then any man. There is no proof either way so the possibility of one or the other can not be ruled out. Earlier I said I do not fear the unknown that’s because to me it is known. I know what I believe, what I understand to happen in the after life. Am I perfect hell no!!!! Not even close. Is my life perfect nope not in the least. Is my life all grand and glorious? Nope. I have many things that I have to deal with everyday challenges and problems that I have to face. That does not mean that there is no god. If god wishes to send me to hell I trust his judgments for they are fair and just. If there is a way for him to get me in to heaven then I’m sure he will if not then I have no one to blame but myself. To try to say that ones convictions once they have actually worked them out for themselves are totally wrong is silly. We know not what there is out there and where it all came from. And that’s ok. I am very glad you all are here if for no other reason then to make people think. Make people determent what they feel is true not what they have been told all there lives by this person or that. So thank you.

 

Just because I adhere to a naturalistic worldview does not at all mean that I don't marvel at this world. Or stand in awe of the mysteries pertaining to life and how everything has come into being. But to be honest with myself and my intellect, I have to maintain that religion is a device that is man's attempt to reconcile these mysteries. I see universal themes throughout various religious beleifs, to mention a few - being the quest for an afterlife. Man's constant attempt for immortality. Another are the various messianic tales with men being conceived by Gods. These are just a few of the many themes we see throughout religions. Its equally interesting that these can be found in beliefs where the cultures had no contact with another.

If surely there is a God then it must expect me to utilize the intellect which it has given me. If I am to suffer eternally for following my heart and mind, then so be it. God would have known my fate before I was even born. For now I am fine with acknowledging the limitation of humanities knowledge pertaining to our origins. It will always be limited and more than likely unsolvable. 

 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
seekingfact, seeking

seekingfact,

seeking facts?

Here are some facts taht you may have been seeking;

Common Cosmological Misconceptions

todangst would have discovere dthis eventually and replied, and since this is a subject he knows about, I figured I'd post what he's written in the past.

Yes, this is a subject we've dealt with numerous times in the past.  As non-believers, we get used to answering the same questions from people who think their challenge is new.  We realize that theists don't realize this, but sometimes it gets under our skin.  We're not perfect; we're human, all too human, perhaps. 

 Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.