How do you think the world began?

[Tastycles]

As I'm sure none of you remember, my degree is in Astrophysics and Philosophy of Science. Anyway, for my dissertation, I am looking at various theories for how the universe began. What I've noticed is that back in the day, the theories were either that a god, some gods or a godlike thing made one universe like this on purpose or that there are a lot of universes either in space or time with different laws and one of them happened to be suitable for us to live in. Nowadays, we have those two ideas as well as the simplistic there's one that happened by chance.

I don't wish to bore you with any more detail, so I'll leave it there, but I am interested in what other people think. If it's interesting, I'll use it in my dissertation. Maybe. So, how do you believe the universe began? Try to be as specific as possible. If you think God did it, do you mean he instigated a big bang, a literal Genesis creation, or what? If you think it was a purely scientific one, why do you believe it was so perfectly tuned to the universe - if some physical quantities changed by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%, then the Universe would have either immediately imploded or it would have torn itself apart. So what, or who, made it possible for us to be like we are today. It doesn't matter if you're shit at physics, I'd just like to know how everyone believes it all began.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I like this topic, and I respect your major because that kind of mathematic and scientific thing is way out of my spectrum, I'm more attuned to the arts if you know what I mean. This is an interesting topic thought and I will make some kind of attempt at giving you something to add to your disinfectant or whatever, LOL!


I think this could easily be broken down to a conversation of Intelligent Design vs Evolution in a lot of ways. I think the relationship is obvious here. Was it a being or intelligent force that brought all this about, or is it a scientific fluke? I have always been inclined to believe that what is supported by science is proof of the power of a living God outside of our conscious perception. There are too many things that are all intertwined that all work together just right, just perfectly enough that they and nothing around them are thrown out of balance for it too be mere coincidence.

What I've noticed is that back in the day, the theories were either that a god, some gods or a godlike thing made one universe like this on purpose or that there are a lot of universes either in space or time with different laws and one of them happened to be suitable for us to live in.

I would have to take a little from both and say that this planet Earth, was created and designed by a higher power intentionally, to harbor and sustain the various lifeforms that it does. Where we used to believe we were the center of the universe, we now know that we are in fact one small planet orbiting an average sized sun, which is only one star of many in our own milky way galaxy. Hopefully that puts everything into perspective a bit. We know that there are billions of other galaxies in a universe that is infinite and expanding which raises so many questions about what else is out there, why is it all here, how did it come to be, and so on that you could spend your life trying to figure it out. I would have to say that it is without question the work of a higher being, and power beyond our comprehension and our perception.

You could even link this conversation to the debate about extra terrestrials and UFOs. I think that it is blind arrogance for us to believe that out of everything we know is in existence, that many refuse to entertain the idea that in all those other galaxies, all those other star systems and worlds beyond worlds that we can't even see, we are the only life forms that exist amongst all of it. When you put it in that kind of perspective the idea becomes much more logical. How could we be the only living beings and the only world to sustain life out of all the the countless reaches of the Universe? The concept whithers away when you look at it like that.

This also leads right back to the origin of the conversation. Was or is it all a product of coincidence or is there something else with sway controlling everything? If you want to look at Science there is always the topic of Dark Matter or the Higgs Boson particle as well. Now I am not qualified to get into detail about them as I am not of the scientific mind and I don't know how to explain them in the appropriate terms. To put it bluntly, dark matter, and the Higgs Boson particle have often been said to lend proof to the existence of God. This is a marriage of Science and Religion which is what I believe you must do to find the right answer, each lends proof to the other.

If you think God did it, do you mean he instigated a big bang, a literal Genesis creation, or what? If you think it was a purely scientific one, why do you believe it was so perfectly tuned to the universe - if some physical quantities changed by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%, then the Universe would have either immediately imploded or it would have torn itself apart. So what, or who, made it possible for us to be like we are today. It doesn't matter if you're shit at physics, I'd just like to know how everyone believes it all began.

I would say that the literal Genesis creation is a part of it, and the Big Bang was apart of it. I think that indeed God or a God(however you want to say it) made these cataclysms happen, and that may be how the Earth was initially formed. Then after that, is when you get to some of the Genesis creation. I have heard it theorized that in the Holy Bible when God says "Let there be light" it is a metaphor for the Big Bang. Then you have the creation of nature, lower life forms, and eventually man. I don't think there is a purely scientific answer nor an answer based solely on religion that touches the truth, they both play a part. It makes sense to me that we can figure out the scientific end of it to some degree, but that we can't figure out whether a God entity had something to do with it. If we could prove the existence of God we wouldn't need the science, we'd have our proof, but then the idea of having faith would be ruined which is why we can not in this life and in this form know for sure.

I would almost have to say that that lends more evidence that there most definitely is a God that is of a higher power, because here we are and we think we know so much scientifically about how things happened, but with all our "Knowledge" we are still countless steps behind whatever is not allowing us to figure it all out. That would indicate that someone or something is not allowing itself to be detected, or that there is something beyond our understanding at work. I just really couldn't be so naive as to think that all of this works so well in harmony with everything else, everything is set in place just right to make everything exist without disturbing anything else all by coincidence. Someone or something had to have laid out some kind of intelligent design for it all to work so perfectly.

 

[CardiffCam]

This is something that can confuse anyone really fast.
If you consider religion, and that there was a god or entity of some sort that started all this- where did said entitys come from? Everything has to have been made from something.
Same goes for science. Where did those hhydrogen particles appear from? Was there just a nothingness beforehand? How long was there a nothingness? etc.
Something that no one will ever know imo, and isnt worth thinking about due to the confusion.

 

[Mr. TM]

Ever play Age of Empires?

You have to start somewhere I guess. If you look at Milton's vision of God and everything, I think it shows what it could be like. THe Universe (His World) was a sphere that was ever expanding into "Chaos". I think its something like that, and the view we have of the universt, and dark matter is very 2D on what the world is like. I do believe in God as the starter of an equation so advanced it forms everything in the universe that we know.

 

[Razor]

God created the Universe. Whether that is the Abrahamaic God, Hindu God, or Zoroastrianist God, I don't know. However, I believe that a God would have had to tune everything into order. As you said, changing the value for gravity by + or - .0000001% would either have us flying away from the surface of the Earth or swallowed by the Earth's gravity. Either we're completely here by happenstance, or God set us up. I like the God part, mainly because even the good ole law of "If it's statistically possible, it will happen sooner or later" doesn't really fly.

God created the Universe through what I'm assuming was the Big Bang, seeing as though we see the background radiation that should be there. We calculated the value before we even tested to see if it existed.

Through God the laws of the Universe were set, and Evolution was left to run its course, as was the Universe. I myself believe God left everything there, maybe interrupting Evolution here and there to bring about our Evolution.

But to not bore you any longer, I believe in the Watchmaker Allegory. God created the intricate machinery of the Universe, and let it be to tick away at it's own pace.

 

[BladeRunner]

I'm neither theist nor atheist, but a pantheist.

I believe nothing has ever been created. And also, that nothing has ever been destroyed.

There is only one great being. There's no such thing as "nothing". Everything is a something, which is being.

There was just one thing. And there was always just this one thing. You can call it energy or God or matter. I don't know if you can really call it anything, because it's everything.

This thing has movement within it. This movement creates modes. Or states of energy.

These modes are the various energy states, like this mode of the one thing is a person, that mode of the one thing is a tree. The various modes are always changing because of the movement within the one thing.

But the one thing never changes into anything but itself, never began, and never goes away. It just changes into various modes.

 

[Zigglerfan227]

I feel that there must have been a creator of the world. How can something just come to be? I don't know how the God came to be but there has to be a God. This world is amazing and no big bang or evolution could have caused such a great thing to come about. I do not know if eternity is real, but I must believe in a God. I don't know if there is a set of rules left here by God like the Bible or the Quar'an, but I have called myself a Christian all of my life because I do believe in God. I really do not know if Jesus was the Holy son of God, but I know that he lived for God and that he put his life on the line for us all. Have you ever wondered why we all are born with this "knowledge" of good and evil? We really do not have to be taught much to feel that something is right or wrong. We have this feeling deep down in is. We all are under some kind of law. I believe that it is God's law. And, have you ever wondered how we are all here on earth which is the perfect planet to live on? The other planets have issues with life. We are at a perfect distance from the sun to live. Have you ever thought about how special all of the designs are in this world? It is crazy how our minds are made up. Our cells and our whole bodies are perfectly put together. We don't have feet for hands and hands for feet because that would not work. Some God of infinite knowledge put everything where it belongs.

Sometimes I doubt God, but I pray to Him and He always answers me in some shape, form, or fashion. I don't know a whole lot but I feel that there must be a God over us that created us.

 

[lenguy]

I'm not so taken by the theory that a god or gods created the world and everything around us. I'm not religious in any way and I'm not against religion in any means, I'm just indifferent is all. To me religion has no solid backbone in answering these types of questions, there just stories with no real evidence to support them. The thought of some mystical other worldly holy and divine being seemingly just creating existence just seems to defy logic.

Science and physics is bound by evidence and its based around hundreds of years of scientific research and scientific trail and error. For thousands of years there have been tails and stories that have been shared that tell the creation of the world. In today's society there is actually solid proof on how things came into existence. People say that we are just a cosmic fluke and I believe it, everything just happened to fall into place in perfect unison. Now, people would clam this to be the work of god, how else would everything have worked out so perfectly? I'm not going to sit here and tell you your wrong because for all I know maybe I'm wrong. There are still many unanswered questions out there that we are all trying to figure out, religion to me is just a quick fix to try and give you all the answers in simple terms and make it seem like everything just came into being at the snap of a finger.

If you dig into the physics you would see that no, its not that simple, the evolution of not just us but the entire cosmos is in fact a very complicated thing. There are things in this universe that not even man understands and in the struggle of it we will forge any idea we can in order to understand where we come from and what our place in all of it means.

So I believe that we got our start with the big bang and some 5 billion years later, gases came together and compressed under gravity and coalesced to form our sun. Then gradually rock and debris from what left over came together to form the planets and Earth. After about another billion years live started to take foot in the hot chemical compounds of the waters that we seeded on earth from most likely comets and amino acids and smaller bacteria took hold and over the course of millions and millions of years they evolved into the many diverse and complicated life forms you see all around you.

I'm not trying to discredit anybody who believes in a god or has strong loyalty to a religion, to each their own. I'm simply not swayed by mere stories found in a book with no real evidence to support its clam. I'm convinced by stone cold facts, its simply not enough to just state somebody created the earth and everything else then to turn around and say this book and its stories justify your reason for solid proof. In light of this all, I would loved to be proven wrong, as exciting as science of physics really are I must say it would be far more exciting if there actually was a god who created all this.

Remember, this is just my opinion and how I feel on the topic. I'm not saying I'm right although the facts would seem to point in my favor but this is just my interpretation on how the world began.

 

[RockFan89]

I firmly believe that God of the Bible created the universe. The manner in which He did so is unclear from Genesis, but I don't doubt that he did.

As the OP mentioned, if the constants that govern the universe were changed by the tiniest of margins, our universe would collapse. The chances that everything would be perfectly fine tuned for life is so small that we would have to call it supernatural. (The Teleological argument)

Another argument is the cosmological argument, it goes as followed:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now that cause must be outside of the universe and the universe encompasses all of space, time, and matter. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. So whether or not you call that cause God, you would have to concede that these are the characteristics it must contain.

If you consider religion, and that there was a god or entity of some sort that started all this- where did said entitys come from? Everything has to have been made from something.

God is defined as being eternal, causeless, and changeless. He doesn't need to have a cause. And not being able to explain the cause of God is not an argument against God being the cause of the universe.

But the one thing never changes into anything but itself, never began, and never goes away. It just changes into various modes.

The problem with that is you end up with an infinite regress. If there is no beginning, we could go back an infinite amount of time and it would be impossible to reach the present time. There must have been a beginning.

 

[Calderownz]

I firmly believe that God of the Bible created the universe. The manner in which He did so is unclear from Genesis, but I don't doubt that he did.

Fair enough. I'd disagree, but that's beside the point.

As the OP mentioned, if the constants that govern the universe were changed by the tiniest of margins, our universe would collapse. The chances that everything would be perfectly fine tuned for life is so small that we would have to call it supernatural. (The Teleological argument)

The problem with the Teleological Argument is that it bases it's principles off of assumptions. The biggest/most known example that The Teleological Argument comes up with is "The Watchmaker" argument. However, at it's root, the watchmaker argument is flawed.

Essentially, the argument goes that if you stumbled across the watch in the middle of a forest, for example, and you had no idea what the watch was, you'd still assume that the watch was made by a higher power. An intelligent designer: the watchmaker. People claim that the universe itself shares those same signs and thus the universe is a product of an intelligent designer.

However, the flaws with this argument are three-fold. Firstly, the argument "begs the question" so to speak. While a watch does OBVIOUSLY involve intelligent design as human beings contain intelligence, it's man-made. We'd have to assume this, however. Change the object to something that isn't directly man-made and it begins to fall on it's face. Take an orange for example. You'd "beg the question", Where did the orange come from? Who planted the tree? So on and so forth. This would suggest natural development. However, the orange is still designed.

Both are designed. However, one is man-made, the other is not. If you stumbled across either without knowing what they were, you'd assume two entirely different things. In the case of the watch, you'd assume a designer was needed. In the case of an orange, you'd wonder where it can from. So, the assumption itself doesn't prove that either was or wasn't designed. Regardless of whether or not it was designed. We'd simply assume it of both.

Secondly, most people that use this argument believe in THEIR version of a God. Which is fine. However, the watch itself isn't typically the work of ONE designer. Over time, it's been developed as an object due to the work of many different individuals. Now, more than ever (but not exclusive to "now"), watches are mass produced. Many different "watchmakers" are used to assemble any number of watches. If the "watchmaker" analogy were to completely fit, you'd have to "assume" there were more than one God involved.

Most people simply don't believe that.

Another argument is the cosmological argument, it goes as followed:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now that cause must be outside of the universe and the universe encompasses all of space, time, and matter. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. So whether or not you call that cause God, you would have to concede that these are the characteristics it must contain.

Here is where the third portion of my argument comes into play. Once again, your argument is unfortunately laced with assumption. You're assuming that a cause would have to be outside of the universe and must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However, assuming such a thing doesn't prove it.

I am not burdened with trying to prove that something could be formulated from within. However, you are burdened with trying to prove that the universe would HAVE to be created from outside of itself.

You could reasonably make a claim that the universe is like many other things. It has to be created from outside of itself. Like a watchmaker making a watch. However, that still isn't proof or evidence. It still only leads to assumption. And assumption isn't proof.

We wouldn't be comfortable with only assumption in virtually any other facet of life, I don't think it should be any different in this case.

People seem to think that science/scientists assume they know everything. No "good" sceintest would ever make this claim. They base their "beliefs" or more appropriately, their opinions, on the knowledge they have.

"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Nothing that involves solely assumption. Hardly any assumption is involved. Science is rarely used to back up stone-cold facts, it's more than likely used in almost any case to back up theory and the knowledge we have discovered. Scientifically, God being causeless isn't a well-supported theory.

God is defined as being eternal, causeless, and changeless. He doesn't need to have a cause. And not being able to explain the cause of God is not an argument against God being the cause of the universe.

This would be a fine argument if this were provable. It's not. You're assuming that if God(s) exists, that it's your God(s). And that if it's your God of Gods, he or they are completely defined in your version of the Bible. However, none of this has been proven. You've even said yourself that the book of Genesis wasn't specific. So, by your own admission, assuming is only going to leave the lines blurrier.

And you're right. If I can't explain the cause of God, it doesn't mean that he or they or she isn't the cause of the universe. However, that still doesn't mean that he or she or they IS the cause of the universe, either.

The problem with that is you end up with an infinite regress. If there is no beginning, we could go back an infinite amount of time and it would be impossible to reach the present time. There must have been a beginning.

Assumption. The problem with this assumption is that it works both ways. If the universe is to be looked at as NEEDING a creator, then so is God. However, if God, theoretically, could be without a creator, then why couldn't the universe?

 

[RockFan89]

However, the flaws with this argument are three-fold. Firstly, the argument "begs the question" so to speak. While a watch does OBVIOUSLY involve intelligent design as human beings contain intelligence, it's man-made. We'd have to assume this, however. Change the object to something that isn't directly man-made and it begins to fall on it's face. Take an orange for example. You'd "beg the question", Where did the orange come from? Who planted the tree? So on and so forth. This would suggest natural development. However, the orange is still designed.

I'm not sure how your explanation shows that I am "begging the question." If you're saying that I'm just assuming that the universe was designed, then I would retort with the fact that the universe is in such a delicate state that even a minute change would lead to its collapse. The odds of the universe being in such a life sustaining state are so small that positing a creator is the logical conclusion. (It's like winning the lottery 100 times in a row, the chances are so small that any rational person would realize the person was cheating or the lottery was not random)

Both are designed. However, one is man-made, the other is not. If you stumbled across either without knowing what they were, you'd assume two entirely different things. In the case of the watch, you'd assume a designer was needed. In the case of an orange, you'd wonder where it can from. So, the assumption itself doesn't prove that either was or wasn't designed. Regardless of whether or not it was designed. We'd simply assume it of both.

Th Universe is so much more complex than an orange. And the reason why oranges are designed is because of their evolution over time. Their is, in essence, some force guiding their development. The tree that produces fruit is trying to find a way to spread its seeds, that explains why the Orange is the way it is. What reason is there for the universe to be the way it is? Why are the constants governing the universe so precise that even a tiny change would cause the whole thing to collapse?

Many different "watchmakers" are used to assemble any number of watches. If the "watchmaker" analogy were to completely fit, you'd have to "assume" there were more than one God involved.

Well I never brought up the watchmaker. But even if I did, you could replace the watch with something that can be created by just one person. The same idea would apply.

Once again, your argument is unfortunately laced with assumption. You're assuming that a cause would have to be outside of the universe and must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However, assuming such a thing doesn't prove it.

I didn't assume it, that is just logical. X cannot create X because that would require X to be in existence before it existed. If the universe encompasses ALL of space, time, and matter (which I assume you agree with) then it must have been created by something beyond them.

I am not burdened with trying to prove that something could be formulated from within. However, you are burdened with trying to prove that the universe would HAVE to be created from outside of itself.

You could reasonably make a claim that the universe is like many other things. It has to be created from outside of itself. Like a watchmaker making a watch. However, that still isn't proof or evidence. It still only leads to assumption. And assumption isn't proof.

Why aren't you burdened to prove that something could be formulated from within? Logic dictates my assumption that X cannot create X and our experiences would confirm that. My position is intuitive, I don't know what you base yours on.

Scientifically, God being causeless isn't a well-supported theory.

I agree, it isn't scientific. But science isn't the only arbiter of truth.

This would be a fine argument if this were provable. It's not. You're assuming that if God(s) exists, that it's your God(s). And that if it's your God of Gods, he or they are completely defined in your version of the Bible. However, none of this has been proven. You've even said yourself that the book of Genesis wasn't specific. So, by your own admission, assuming is only going to leave the lines blurrier.

I wasn't arguing that my God was right. I was making a more general argument for the existence of God. There are other arguments like the moral argument, the life of Jesus, and personal experience which can be made that point toward the God of the Bible, but I didn't think they were appropriate for this thread.

And you're right. If I can't explain the cause of God, it doesn't mean that he or they or she isn't the cause of the universe. However, that still doesn't mean that he or she or they IS the cause of the universe, either.

I agree, my point was to address CardiffCam's concern. It wasn't intended as a positive argument for God.

If the universe is to be looked at as NEEDING a creator, then so is God. However, if God, theoretically, could be without a creator, then why couldn't the universe?

Since God is timeless, he doesn't need a creator. It goes back to the cosmological argument, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe did begin to exist, since God never began to exist, he doesn't need a cause.

 

[Calderownz]

I'm not sure how your explanation shows that I am "begging the question." If you're saying that I'm just assuming that the universe was designed, then I would retort with the fact that the universe is in such a delicate state that even a minute change would lead to its collapse. The odds of the universe being in such a life sustaining state are so small that positing a creator is the logical conclusion. (It's like winning the lottery 100 times in a row, the chances are so small that any rational person would realize the person was cheating or the lottery was not random)

The odds can theoretically point to any direction. Until there is proof or evidence, that doesn't matter. Theoretically, the odds of Kobe Bryant making at least 2 points every game that he starts are ridiculously high. it doesn't mean that it's always going to happen though, simply because the odds might suggest that him not doing this is unlikely.

Also, both my example and your example don't really apply. I simply used mine to make a separate point. The fact of the matter is the universe is unlike anything else. Statistics haven't even been formed to calculate what is more or less likely.

Th Universe is so much more complex than an orange. And the reason why oranges are designed is because of their evolution over time. Their is, in essence, some force guiding their development. The tree that produces fruit is trying to find a way to spread its seeds, that explains why the Orange is the way it is. What reason is there for the universe to be the way it is? Why are the constants governing the universe so precise that even a tiny change would cause the whole thing to collapse?

I could know the answer to this. I could not. (I don't.) But, simply admitting that I don't doesn't prove that God must have created the universe. That would be the equivalent to not knowing the answer to a math problem and simply assuming it's not solvable. Not knowing why the universe is the way it is doesn't mean you must go to God. It means you go with the best possible answer. Science would suggest that God is not that asnwer.

Well I never brought up the watchmaker. But even if I did, you could replace the watch with something that can be created by just one person. The same idea would apply.

However, assumption would still have to take place. Since THIS has a creator, then THAT must have a creator. No proof in either case. Proof and belief are not the same thing.

I didn't assume it, that is just logical. X cannot create X because that would require X to be in existence before it existed. If the universe encompasses ALL of space, time, and matter (which I assume you agree with) then it must have been created by something beyond them.

Let's say I agree with your logic. Then, you'd have to assume that God falls into the same category. You can't have it both ways. You can't say X needs something to have existed before X could have been created... Of course, unless X = God. That isn't scientific. That's dogmatic. Dogmatism has no place in science unless it can be proven. God, cannot be proven.

Why aren't you burdened to prove that something could be formulated from within? Logic dictates my assumption that X cannot create X and our experiences would confirm that. My position is intuitive, I don't know what you base yours on.

Because I'm not making a claim. I'm debunking claims. I didn't state that I believe the world/universe was formulated in this way or that way. Therefore, I don't have to prove anything. If I do anything, all I have to do is debunk, theoretically speaking.

I'm not saying the world couldn't have created itself. You're saying that. So, I'm asking you to prove it. Don't assume. Don't say that nothing else has, it could not have. Because you're claiming that God has. So, I'm asking you to PROVE that the universe could ABSOLUTELY not have any way of creating itself.

I agree, it isn't scientific. But science isn't the only arbiter of truth.

Knowledge is science. Therefore, it actually is the only form of truth. Or, at the very least, the best theory we will come up with on these types of matters will indeed be scientific. Science isn't a laboratory and an old man in a white coat. Science is the knowledge we have.

I wasn't arguing that my God was right. I was making a more general argument for the existence of God. There are other arguments like the moral argument, the life of Jesus, and personal experience which can be made that point toward the God of the Bible, but I didn't think they were appropriate for this thread.


I agree, my point was to address CardiffCam's concern. It wasn't intended as a positive argument for God.

Fair enough point. I hope I didn't make it seem like you were trying to do anything that you weren't. If I did, I apologize.

Since God is timeless, he doesn't need a creator. It goes back to the cosmological argument, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe did begin to exist, since God never began to exist, he doesn't need a cause.

According to some beliefs, God is timeless. However, this isn't provable. And until it is, even if I were to assume he existed, he'd need a creator. And I'd still ask you the question; If God can be timeless and essentially create himself, why couldn't the universe?

The best argument you could make is that the universe has a date for when it came into existence. However, that's the best date WE have. Doesn't mean that any form this universe took prior to our time line is able to be traced.

We'd still need a better argument.

 

[RockFan89]

The odds can theoretically point to any direction. Until there is proof or evidence, that doesn't matter. Theoretically, the odds of Kobe Bryant making at least 2 points every game that he starts are ridiculously high. it doesn't mean that it's always going to happen though, simply because the odds might suggest that him not doing this is unlikely.

But the probability of Kobe scoring less than two points is a billion times greater than the probability of the constants of the universe falling in such a way that life could even exist, let alone thrive. It might not be direct evidence, but it is very, very strong circumstantial evidence.

I could know the answer to this. I could not. (I don't.) But, simply admitting that I don't doesn't prove that God must have created the universe. That would be the equivalent to not knowing the answer to a math problem and simply assuming it's not solvable. Not knowing why the universe is the way it is doesn't mean you must go to God. It means you go with the best possible answer. Science would suggest that God is not that asnwer.

But I've given you characteristics of what the answer should be. It must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. You might not call it God, but we're still talking about the same thing.

I'm not sure why you say science would suggest that God is not that answer. Science cannot answer the question: Why is there anything instead of nothing? That's a pretty big hole left unanswered.

However, assumption would still have to take place. Since THIS has a creator, then THAT must have a creator. No proof in either case. Proof and belief are not the same thing.

If you're looking for observational, repeatable evidence, than I doubt you will ever find anything. But the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. My proofs are logical ones that philosophers use. Like I discussed before, the characteristics of the cause of the universe must include timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Do I have direct proof of it? No. But simple logic would tell me it does.

Then, you'd have to assume that God falls into the same category. You can't have it both ways. You can't say X needs something to have existed before X could have been created... Of course, unless X = God. That isn't scientific. That's dogmatic. Dogmatism has no place in science unless it can be proven. God, cannot be proven.

Like I said before, everything that begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, therefore he does not have a cause. The universe did begin to exist and therefore must have a cause.

So, I'm asking you to PROVE that the universe could ABSOLUTELY not have any way of creating itself.

Beyond logic, what proof could possibly satisfy that? That's like me asking you to give me proof God didn't create the universe. Yes I am assuming stuff, I'm assuming the laws of logic have always applied. If we can't both assume that, than a discussion about the origins of the universe can go no where.

Therefore, it actually is the only form of truth.

Then why do we have philosophers? And can you use science to prove that science is the only form of truth? Can you scientifically prove the laws of logic (i.e. something cannot be both X and not X at the same time and place) without assuming the laws of logic are true?

According to some beliefs, God is timeless. However, this isn't provable. And until it is, even if I were to assume he existed, he'd need a creator. And I'd still ask you the question; If God can be timeless and essentially create himself, why couldn't the universe?

The best argument you could make is that the universe has a date for when it came into existence. However, that's the best date WE have. Doesn't mean that any form this universe took prior to our time line is able to be traced.

Like I said before, God has always existed, he transcends time. Even if God wasn't the direct cause of the universe, following your argument, you would get into an infinite regress of causes. You have to, at some point, have an uncaused cause.

 

[Calderownz]

But the probability of Kobe scoring less than two points is a billion times greater than the probability of the constants of the universe falling in such a way that life could even exist, let alone thrive. It might not be direct evidence, but it is very, very strong circumstantial evidence.

But in any scientific theory I've ever read or studied or researched or what have you, I've never heard anything that stated the universe simply fell into place. It was a gradual progression. A big difference.

One is like claiming the coffee mug simply flew off the table. The other is claiming that the coffee mug was budged and budged and budged until it finally slipped off the coffee table. The cause of this budging is unknown. So are it or His or Her characteristics. Doesn't mean God has to fill the hole. Doesn't mean God is likely, either.

But I've given you characteristics of what the answer should be. It must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. You might not call it God, but we're still talking about the same thing.

I'm not sure why you say science would suggest that God is not that answer. Science cannot answer the question: Why is there anything instead of nothing? That's a pretty big hole left unanswered.

I would ask you why? Without any evidence or proof, why MUST God be anything? This is still assumption. You can base your assumption on strong circumstantial evidence or weak circumstantial evidence. It's still not actual evidence. This wouldn't hold up in court. Why should it hold up with one of the biggest questions known to man?

Science can't do anything. Science doesn't do, it is. It is the knowledge we have. It is the best theory we can come up with. It is the experimentation that allows for intellectual growth.

With the knowledge we have, there has been no evidence to suggest that God exists. Certainly no proof. Regardless of the questions that people can or can't answer, science is NEVER wrong. Science is human study. It's not black and white. It's finding out the best possible answers. God doesn't work in those parameters.

Even if God were likely, it would still require proof or evidence that couldn't be explained away. A argument for the existence of God doesn't have that. Therefore, scientifically, God is simply not supported.

If you're looking for observational, repeatable evidence, than I doubt you will ever find anything. But the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. My proofs are logical ones that philosophers use. Like I discussed before, the characteristics of the cause of the universe must include timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

Fine. That still isn't convincing. It would still not hold up in court and shouldn't hold up here. Philosophically, you can come up with a number of conclusions. For or opposing God. Neither proves anything.

Like I said before, everything that begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, therefore he does not have a cause. The universe did begin to exist and therefore must have a cause.

I could reasonably consider this to be true. It still wouldn't prove God exists. It also doesn't stop someone from assuming that the universe, with how massive and complex it truly is, is the ONLY thing that could have begun without a creator.

I could be wrong. It would only be based on assumption. Just like assuming God created the universe.

Beyond logic, what proof could possibly satisfy that? That's like me asking you to give me proof God didn't create the universe. Yes I am assuming stuff, I'm assuming the laws of logic have always applied. If we can't both assume that, than a discussion about the origins of the universe can go no where.

If you're assuming that logic should always apply, than you'd be forced to realize that you shouldn't believe in God until you have something more than circumstantial evidence.

Secondly, it's not logical to assume that the answer must be God. Simply due to the fact that not having a viable answer for how the universe came to be, doesn't mean that you instantly go to God.

Then why do we have philosophers? And can you use science to prove that science is the only form of truth? Can you scientifically prove the laws of logic (i.e. something cannot be both X and not X at the same time and place) without assuming the laws of logic are true?

This isn't a question of philosophy for anyone other than believers. Philosophy has it's place. Rarely is it properly utilized in scientific study and research. If any time at all.

The definition of science is...

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

I left one of the definitions of science bold for a reason. It mentions observation. People tend to assume that assumption and observation are one in the same. They are not.

Assumption indicates you take for granted, definitively. That you presume, without careful study. Observation implies that one studies before making an analysis.

However, in the case of "the watchmaker" for example (not saying you brought it up, it's just one of the more famous examples), it's far more assumption than it is observation. Regardless, it wouldn't prove anything if it were observation or assumption. It would still, in a nutshell be based on what has happened with similar things.

The problem here is that nothing is truly similar to the universe. Logic would dictate that if the universe is that much different, different circumstances could at the very least, possibly apply.

Not saying they would or wouldn't. What I'm saying is that I need proof in either direction. I haven't gotten any.

Like I said before, God has always existed, he transcends time. Even if God wasn't the direct cause of the universe, following your argument, you would get into an infinite regress of causes. You have to, at some point, have an uncaused cause.

And I'd argue that it's easier for most to believe the universe was "uncaused" than it is to believe that God is "uncaused." Considering, we have proof that the universe exists in the first place.

 

[RockFan89]

But in any scientific theory I've ever read or studied or researched or what have you, I've never heard anything that stated the universe simply fell into place. It was a gradual progression. A big difference.

But things like the constants that govern the universe would have always been the same. I agree, the universe hasn't always been in the state it is in today, but the laws that govern it have always been in place. (With the exception of the nanosecond after the big bang) Why did these constants just so happen to fit into the narrowest of ranges in which life could be sustained?

I would ask you why? Without any evidence or proof, why MUST God be anything? This is still assumption. You can base your assumption on strong circumstantial evidence or weak circumstantial evidence. It's still not actual evidence. This wouldn't hold up in court. Why should it hold up with one of the biggest questions known to man?

Very strong circumstantial evidence can be used in court, but that's beside the point. Whether we call it God or not, I think I have proven that some timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused cause created the universe. Whether you call it God or not, we are talking about the same thing.

Fine. That still isn't convincing. It would still not hold up in court and shouldn't hold up here. Philosophically, you can come up with a number of conclusions. For or opposing God. Neither proves anything.

If that's not convincing, then I'm not sure what would realistically convince you that something outside of the universe created the universe. I'm not saying the cause of the universe is loving, just, involved in our lives, or anything like that. I am making a very general case for the existence of God.

I could reasonably consider this to be true. It still wouldn't prove God exists. It also doesn't stop someone from assuming that the universe, with how massive and complex it truly is, is the ONLY thing that could have begun without a creator.

I could be wrong. It would only be based on assumption. Just like assuming God created the universe.

There are three ways in which something can be created:
1) Created from some outside force
2) Create itself
3) Have always existed

Now the universe has not always existed. It is well accepted by the scientific community that the universe had a beginning. And even if you don't agree with them, the problem of infinite regress with time demands that at the very least time has a beginning. And the universe cannot exist outside of the dimension of time. (That might be an assumption, but I think it is a fair one)

Now nothing can create itself, I've said it multiple times. That would be illogical. Your assumption that the universe created itself may be simmilar to my assumption that God created the universe, but my assumption would be logical. Yours isn't.

That would leave some outside force creating the universe.

If you're assuming that logic should always apply, than you'd be forced to realize that you shouldn't believe in God until you have something more than circumstantial evidence.

Secondly, it's not logical to assume that the answer must be God. Simply due to the fact that not having a viable answer for how the universe came to be, doesn't mean that you instantly go to God.

As I said before, my arguments haven't pointed directly to the God of the Bible, but they do point to a force outside of the universe. I just happen to call it God

I left one of the definitions of science bold for a reason. It mentions observation. People tend to assume that assumption and observation are one in the same. They are not.

But your list of definitions even include examples of unobservable sciences. Math is completely based on logic. You don't observe that 1 + 1 = 2. You use logical assumptions about the numbers and symbols to get to the truth. And the mathematical sciences helped to explain the natural sciences, specifically in the arena of physics. All the theories about the origins of the universe are based more on mathematics than on observation.

Observation is not the only forms of truth. If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes! You might argue, we know from observation that when tress fall they make sounds. But how do you know it's not just our minds playing a trick on us? Or how do you know that trees only make sounds if people are around? Yes, I'm making no sense, but that's because I'm not assuming anything at all. My point is that there are assumptions we must agree to; otherwise, we aren't going to get anywhere.

The problem here is that nothing is truly similar to the universe. Logic would dictate that if the universe is that much different, different circumstances could at the very least, possibly apply.

It sounds to me that the only possible way you will be satisfied is if we get a time machine and go back to the beginning of time and observe all of this. We cannot experiment with the creation of the universe.

And I'd argue that it's easier for most to believe the universe was "uncaused" than it is to believe that God is "uncaused." Considering, we have proof that the universe exists in the first place.

Again, logic would dictate that the universe has a cause. While neither the belief in an uncaused universe or the belief in a God (or some force outside of the universe) may have proof, mine at least follows logically.

 

[Calderownz]

But things like the constants that govern the universe would have always been the same. I agree, the universe hasn't always been in the state it is in today, but the laws that govern it have always been in place. (With the exception of the nanosecond after the big bang) Why did these constants just so happen to fit into the narrowest of ranges in which life could be sustained?

Once again, if I didn't have the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that God or a supernatural being is in charge. That's assumption, not science.

Regardless, one theory is that this is something that has happened several times. We are simply living in a situation where it actually "worked out" for us. Couldn't prove it, wouldn't have to. It'd still make more logical sense than just chalking it up to a supernatural force of any variety. Regardless of how difficult it may or may not be to assume that a big bang has happened several times, we at least have some science to back that it's possible.

Very strong circumstantial evidence can be used in court, but that's beside the point. Whether we call it God or not, I think I have proven that some timeless, spaceless, immaterial, uncaused cause created the universe. Whether you call it God or not, we are talking about the same thing.

In my opinion, this wouldn't be very strong circumstantial evidence.

You haven't proven it. Proof is something that cannot be denied and that has to be taken by any logical person as a reality. I'll finish this point up in a bit.

If that's not convincing, then I'm not sure what would realistically convince you that something outside of the universe created the universe. I'm not saying the cause of the universe is loving, just, involved in our lives, or anything like that. I am making a very general case for the existence of God.

I don't understand why you would assume I need an answer now. When the answer presents itself or it is discovered, I will be more than happy to accept it. Whether that would be God or Allah, or Space King, it's fine. Until then, I'm not believing in something that doesn't have legitimate proof or evidence. Assumption doesn't apply. Regardless of how LIKELY the assumption may or may not be, it's irrelevant.

Believe what you want. That's fine. You can't scientifically call it proof.

There are three ways in which something can be created:
1) Created from some outside force
2) Create itself
3) Have always existed

Now the universe has not always existed. It is well accepted by the scientific community that the universe had a beginning. And even if you don't agree with them, the problem of infinite regress with time demands that at the very least time has a beginning. And the universe cannot exist outside of the dimension of time. (That might be an assumption, but I think it is a fair one)

Now nothing can create itself, I've said it multiple times. That would be illogical. Your assumption that the universe created itself may be simmilar to my assumption that God created the universe, but my assumption would be logical. Yours isn't.

That would leave some outside force creating the universe.

It's not more illogical than you claiming God has always been. Besides a book that has been debunked on various levels, what would make you assume that God has always been? Has always been in existence?

If you want to believe that something has to be out there, fine. Still... not... proof.

Secondly, I wasn't claiming/assuming that the universe created itself. What I said is that if the illogical assumption can be made for God creating the universe, so to can the illogical assumption that the universe created itself.

And yes, they are both illogical. More on that in a bit.

But your list of definitions even include examples of unobservable sciences. Math is completely based on logic. You don't observe that 1 + 1 = 2. You use logical assumptions about the numbers and symbols to get to the truth. And the mathematical sciences helped to explain the natural sciences, specifically in the arena of physics. All the theories about the origins of the universe are based more on mathematics than on observation.

Mathematics and logic don't immediately go hand in glove. Several mathematicians would sight formalism over logicism. Not important.

However, you claiming that the origins of the universe are based more on mathematics is out of place, for several reasons.

I agree with your notion. Mathematics and science in general have been used to determine the origins of the universe. However, this has nothing to do with God. They do not point to God. In fact, a simple break down would show that God is unlikely. Especially when you add in the attributes that you've mentioned.

Within this debate, you've mentioned that God is omnipotent, spaceless, immaterial and limitless. Four different attributes.

Here's an example of how this would work.

Let’s show this in terms of a computer monitor. If we have a computer monitor that is just monochrome, where the colors are only black or white, we can represent each position on the screen with an x and y position. If our screen is 100 pixels by 100 pixels, that makes the chances of any single pixel being turned on 1/10000. If you pick 2 pixels, you need to square that number, which means that the chances of you picking both of those pixels is 1 in 100000000. 3 pixels and we have to multiply that by 10000 again for a 1 in 1000000000000 chance. 4 pixels and we have a 1 in 10^16 chance. When we extrapolate this out, the chances of having every pixel on the screen white are 1 in 10^40000. That’s an insane number considering that the chances of you and I picking the same atom in the universe are roughly 1/10^80.

So, when you say that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all good, a creator, placed all the stars in the sky in the positions they are in, has a son named Jesus, etc., you are adding attributes that lower the possibility every single time.
Possibility That God Doesn’t Exist

Now, even though there are multiple things that people claim God does, the chances still remain 50% that God doesn’t exist. The reason is, claiming God doesn’t exist doesn’t rely on any proclamations of properties. God either exists or he doesn’t. My position is that he does not exist. Nothing will change that possibility to lower than 50%.

Some might say, “Hey, you have the same odds against any particular thing happening that I have that it does.” and that is true, but I don’t assert that there is a God that lacks the properties you suggest God has. I say there is no God whatsoever.

Imagine that I were to say there is no screen. I am making no specific assertions about individual pixels, I am making an assertion about the entire screen. There is a 50% chance that there is no screen where there is a 1/10^80000 chance of any specific picture being on the screen if it exists. My chances are way better than yours.

Only assumption, regardless of how likely it seems. Therefore, as you've said yourself, you cannot outright prove that God exists. I believe he does not. You, at the very least, believe that he does. I have 50/50. You have a far lower chance with the more you add to God.

Observation is not the only forms of truth. If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes! You might argue, we know from observation that when tress fall they make sounds. But how do you know it's not just our minds playing a trick on us? Or how do you know that trees only make sounds if people are around? Yes, I'm making no sense, but that's because I'm not assuming anything at all. My point is that there are assumptions we must agree to; otherwise, we aren't going to get anywhere.

No need to shout. Lol.

Regardless, I'd agree that their are assumptions we must agree to. This, simply, isn't one of them.

It sounds to me that the only possible way you will be satisfied is if we get a time machine and go back to the beginning of time and observe all of this. We cannot experiment with the creation of the universe.

I agree, we cannot experiment with the creation of the universe. The point I'm making is that until we can (likely, we never will be able to), you can't rpvoe God exists. Once again though, as the quote I sighted suggests, my odds mathematically/logically are simply higher if I believe that God doesn't exist.

No, I'm not requested a time machine. We didn't need a time machine to prove how old the world is. I want evidence of proof. I wouldn't assume a time machine can be made, because I don't believe in the supernatural.

Again, logic would dictate that the universe has a cause. While neither the belief in an uncaused universe or the belief in a God (or some force outside of the universe) may have proof, mine at least follows logically.

If you believe in any version of God, you aren't using logic. The idea of God itself requires a lack of logic. It requires belief. Hence, followers are called believers and not rationalists.

It falls back to Bertrand Russell and Russell's Teapot argument. If I were to believe that a teapot was in between Mars and Earth but it was so small, that even the strongest telescope could not detect it, I would simply be looked at as wrong.

You couldn't disprove me. You simply couldn't. However, it's still unlikely that I'm right. The burden of proof wouldn't be with you, however. It would be with me.

And logic would suggest that if you had no way of seeing it, I certainly wouldn't, either. I could be given an infinite amount of time to prove my theory. I would never give you any legitimate proof or evidence. Ever.

Sure, I could say that since we have no better explanations for the universe or for this or that, it must be the work of the Teapot. You might call it God, but I call it the Teapot. I'd still be stuck with the burden of proof.

Finally, logic does not side with God or any version of God you described. God is simply illogical. Logic tells us that something cannot be square and round at the same time. However, God is claimed to be omnipotent and -- in your words -- would have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. You're version of God, then, would be able to make something square and round at the same time. As he should have limitless power. That is not logical. No matter how much you assume that God would HAVE to be these things, they can't be proven.

Therefore, they are illogical. As is God.

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Frankly guys I'm not really up for debating this one. I'm a staunch non religion person, I'm sorry I can't deal with the rules and all the stuff that follows with church. I've been to church before, but my idea is If I can't prove it I don't believe it. I do however believe that unlike the churches proposed ideas about biblical creation the Big bang can in some ways be explained. We will never fully understand imo how the universe was created, but I believe that scientists are very close to the reason the universe expanded and how the planets and such were formed.

It's been said that the holy spirit wrote the bible, that the apostles wrote the bible. That the church itself wrote the bible to promote blah blah blah. Honestly I take the bible as something to read, and some guidelines to follow and nothing more than that.

Scientists in the other hand are a large group of people that are working on their own and together to find the reason why it happened. I really don't know, but I'll take the big bang theory for the time being