…and another on “where did everything come from?” by Aron:
No, I don’t know you other than as a loaded name on a forum. On the other hand, it is plain as day that whatever “research” you pride yourself on having done is woefully inadequate. Had you done adequate research, you would be well aware that, among many other things, it is supremely naïve to expect that reality can tidily be packaged into bite-sized chunks with some or other metaphysical ribbon tied around them. You want a total solution in the form of a perfectly consistent worldview. To you, the presence of unanswered questions, possibly unanswerable ones, is sufficient justification not only to sideline all that we have learnt, but also to introduce by implication various absurdities, false dilemmas and non sequiturs into the proceedings. That’s on top of dictating which forms of evidence are okay and which aren’t, and your ridiculous lies concerning the falsifiability of macroevolution and Big Bang cosmogony.
Consistency, indeed!
The idea that some “god” is necessary to explain various things must stand or fall on its own merits. It is simply a transparently convenient ruse to demand of a worldview that it must provide evidence for the non-necessity of certain elements that it doesn’t address. What’s more, it’s philosophically bankrupt. If you think otherwise, feel free at any time to provide convincing evidence that the existence of fleas is unnecessary to explain the bounce of a tennis ball.
'Luthon64
A God is posited at every point where science starts to fail. And then, when the requirement of god is lifted, science progresses. It is maybe not known today what caused (if anything) the universe. But your definition is so vague that quantum wave fluctuation would fit. So the argument is pointless. For examples where “the god of the gaps” previously existed, and no longer can exist, because science squashed it, see here:
The God of the Gaps (by Neil deGrasse Tyson)
Of course, I don’t believe the universe exists quite yet.
Please prove that creation has taken place at all, given that you may just be experiencing this universe as a thought being implanted into your future mind.
first of all. English is not my native language. So sorry for my bad spelling.
it seems you endorse willfully ignorance. As you could not be sure based on the evidence on hand, if our universe must have had a beginning, or not.
Already heard about the second law of thermodynamics?
or based on scientific evidence of the Big Bang, which strongly suggests a beginning of time,matter/energy, and space ?
or why our universe cannot be eternal based on philosophy of time ?
[i]I don't know[/i] is a valid and true answer. Making shit up, never is and never will be.
i have not made shit up, have i ? if so, what are you referring to i wrote ?
" i don’t know " based on the scientific knowledge might be a valid answer for many things. In regard of the origin of the universe, your position is probably unjustified.
Actually, it reveals just willfull ignorance. A cheap escape.
Why is a God necessary for our universe to exist? Please answer this simple question now.
that is not the issue of this topic. But it reveals quite a lot. Atheists are accostumed to let theists expose the reason of their faith in God, and then have a lot of reasons to attack that faith.
But when it comes to THEM expose the evidence for their position, they behave without honesty.
then you should be quit sure the universe had most probably a beginning.
Why, what a dishonest claim! It is exactly the topic. All you have done is to state the topic in the negative in a futile attempt to shift the burden of proof. On top of that you expect participants to take a stand but are to cowardly to do so yourself.
But when it comes to THEM expose the evidence for their position, they behave without honesty.
It’s been stated repeatedly (and in several different ways) that there is no testable evidence to support the idea that a creator (and for the sake of the argument I’m assuming you are talking about the Biblical kind) had ANYTHING to do with the observable universe.
Not believing because there is no reason to believe sounds pretty darn honest to me.
Mintaka
The irony is so thick you could julienne it with the blunt end of a bible.
'Luthon64
Jahaziel, suppose that person A is religious. By that I mean that he/she believes that the universe was created by god, (and he/she may also believe a bunch of other stuff) Person B is not religious. Person B looks at the world and may some day ask the question “my I wonder how all this came to be here…” So person B is likely to go read a bunch of stuff written by people who are presumably clever (they certainly usually sound clever) and if person B is capable of structuring an argument in any logical way, he/she will conclude that we have no satisfactory explanation as to how exactly our universe started (assuming that it did indeed have a “beginning”) Person B assessed available information and came to the conclusion that he/she does not have sufficient information to conclusively answer the question. Person A, for whatever reason, decides to listen and assume as factual testimonies of other people (scarily often suffering from delusions and genuine mental illnesses such as schizophrenia) and the contents of a ‘holy book’ that has been translated and re-written (scarily often by people who could not read and were just copying over the symbols) so many times I can’t even count that high. Person A essentially, in my opinion, chooses to base his/her hypothesis (that god made the universe) on insufficient and inadequate data. That is not something that I would like to do.
Your original question: “why is god not needed to explain our existence?” is just a weird question in my opinion. One must at the same time ask: "why is he/she/it necessary to explain our existence? And is the explanation that he/she/it (or, rather the various ‘holy men’ who claim to know about these things) satisfactory? Because, to me, it isn’t, and I would rather admit to not yet having an explanation for our existence.
you are making a lot of assumptions here. I have just made a very basic question, to understand on what effectively your world view relies on. Instead of answering straightforward that question, you try to attack me. I have not given you any base for that. If you are not capable of answering my question in the initial post straightforwardly, and stop trying to find ways to attack me, further communication will be senseless.
To you, the presence of unanswered questions, possibly unanswerable ones, is sufficient justification not only to sideline all that we have learnt, but also to introduce by implication various absurdities, false dilemmas and [i]non sequiturs[/i] into the proceedings.
please point them out. each one of them i made. Please do not introduce new arguments, until this issue is not resolved.
That’s on top of dictating which forms of evidence are okay and which aren’t
more empty assumptions. where did i do that ?
and your ridiculous lies concerning the falsifiability of macroevolution and Big Bang cosmogony.
you can accuse me of lying only, if you can present falsifiable, empirical evidence of boths. can you ?
The idea that some “god” is necessary to explain various things must stand or fall on its own merits.
so does the idea, the universe created itself without a cause, or is eternal, without a beginning.
quantum fluctuations are used as argument, that our universe could have come into existence out of nothing. virtual particles do however not arise out of absolutely nothing. The argument is pointless, therefore.
Neither is it mine. This site has a build in spell checker as does FireFox or you could install this nifty add-on for IE.
it seems you endorse willfully ignorance. As you could not be sure based on the evidence on hand, if our universe must have had a beginning, or not.There is nothing [i]willful[/i] about it. I would truly like to know. I don't think it is a creator as I have seen not a single shred of credible evidence in all my life. The Big Bang takes us back to the singularity - what caused it (if it was in fact caused) or what precedes it (if anything can be said to precede it) - [b]we simply do not know[/b]. Neither very clever scientists, neither very rock like theists and neither ignorant atheists. No one knows. To put God in that gap is simply fallacious.
Already heard about the second law of thermodynamics? or based on scientific evidence of the Big Bang, which strongly suggests a beginning of time,matter/energy, and space ? or why our universe cannot be eternal based on philosophy of time ?I've heard it all from all sides. Enough to know that you are truly clueless on these subjects and that discussing it with you would be fruitless.
i have not made shit up, have i ? if so, what are you referring to i wrote ?You propose God is needed to explain our existence. You have yet to tell us why, after having asked you directly a couple of times. Evasion noted by all.
" i don't know " based on the scientific knowledge might be a valid answer for many things. In regard of the origin of the universe, your position is probably unjustified.It isn't.
Actually, it reveals just [i]willfull[/i] ignorance. A cheap escape.I'm willing to listen to evidence presented by you to correct my ignorance....
that is not the issue of this topic. But it reveals quite a lot. Atheists are accostumed to let theists expose the reason of their faith in God, and then have a lot of reasons to attack that faith. But when it comes to THEM expose the evidence for their position, they behave without honesty.Fucking bullshit. I'll break it down for you:
Atheist: … ← indicates position for all eternity if theist doesn’t open mouth
Theist: There is a creator and we have to worship it. You have to believe like I do. ← damn theist just had to open mouth eh?
Atheist: What? What makes you say that?
Theist:
Atheist: That is bollocks go away and leave me in peace
Theist: <Tries to change education, interferes with science and politics and make a general nuisance of themselves>
Atheist: Stop that shit
Theist: There is a creator and we have to worship it. You have to believe like I do.
There abounds dishonesty, but not from me… benefit of the doubt that you may have never heard this nor understood it before. From here on out, it is distinctly dishonest to shift the burden of proof…
i will expose my position and answer to each argument brought up by the participants. I want to examine YOUR argument and position. This topic is not about MY point of view. Capiche ? If you don’t like it, don’t participate. Why is it that hard to understand that ?
THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE ASKED FOR !! DO YOU HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY TO COMPREHEND THE FIRST QUESTION AT MY TOPIC ?
[i]Not believing because there is no reason to believe[/i] sounds pretty darn honest to me.
heard of goedel’s theorem ? all of us rely our world view on things, we cannot prove. You too.
Round and round we go. I think the problem with understanding is you.
Science commonly accepts today our universe had a beginning. Why should someone, after carefully examine the scientific evidence, still doubt about that ? If so, what are YOUR doubts about that ?
GOD IS SUPERFLUOUS TO ANY EXPLANATION AND DOES NOT IN FACT OFFER AN ANSWER TO ANY SUCH QUESTION BECAUSE ALL IT DOES IS SHIFT THE GOALPOSTS FROM WHAT “CREATED” THE UNIVERSE TO “WHAT CREATED GOD”. AND IF GOD CAN BE ETERNAL THEN IT IS FUCKING SPECIAL PLEADING, A LOGICAL FALLACY, TO NOT ALLOW FOR AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE. PLEASE LEARN TO READ, YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED IN SEVERAL WAYS.
heard of goedel's theorem ? all of us rely our world view on things, we cannot prove. You too.Yeah yeah yeah - I believe funky bullshit and so do you therefore my funky bullshit is true. Staggering logic.
Wow, there’s one way to miss the point completely. I made a serious attempt to address your question, as you have been begging and shouting for people (atheists on this forum) to do, and this is your response?! (wtf!!)
OK I will try one more time. You ask: “why is god not needed to explain our existence?”
I answer: “zeus is not needed to explain our existence. who died and made jesus so special and important?!”
I’ll help you out a littlebit. And be aware i am not using any creationist websites. Evidence is truly abundant, so i do not see any reason , why the participants here expose a doubt about the beginning of the universe. That is a widely accepted hypotheses in science and supported by many scientists :
Science supports Einstein’s claim that the universe is a closed system.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which “from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand”. More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :
That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn’t be writing this article and you wouldn’t be reading it either!
Isn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Strictly speaking, according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity’s mass is therefore finite, the ‘infinity’ refers only to the maths.
Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.
Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.
Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know.
Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.
The Big Bang takes us back to the singularity - what caused it (if it was in fact caused) or what precedes it (if anything can be said to precede it) - [b]we simply do not know[/b].
We do not know in the sense of having empirical proofs. But we can come to valid and reasonable conclusions, based on philosophy, and reason.
Do you agree that everything that begins to exist, needs a cause ?
To put God in that gap is simply fallacious.
is it fallacious, to put " something " in the gap, not calling it God ? Or do you think, our universe could have pop out of absolutely nothing ? would that hypotheses be reasonable to you ?
I've heard it all from all sides. Enough to know that you are truly clueless on these subjects
how about remain on track, and attack my arguments, if you think you have better answers, and not attack me ? how do you know i am clueless about these subjects, if i have not even exposed what i believe?
and that discussing it with you would be fruitless.
then i understand you are waisting your time here ?
You propose God is needed to explain our existence.
please show where i said that.
There abounds dishonesty, but not from me... benefit of the doubt that you may have never heard this nor understood it before. From here on out, it is distinctly [i]dishonest[/i] to shift the burden of proof....
no shiften burden of proof. i have not made any claim so far. just ask the participants to expose their thinking. that seems really hard …
until einsteins theory of relativity, science believed the universe was eternal. Why is it not special pleading, to argue the universe might be eternal, but God is ?