Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[TINNY]

C1ay, thanks for the response.

I respectfully disagree. Recent aastronomical discoveries continue to find galaxies and clusters that appear to be older than the theorized big bang. Growing technology is accelerating the rate of these discoveries. IMO it is extremely immature for mankind to draw these types of conclusions based on the very limited, archaic observations he has be limited to thus far. I also believe there are many discovereis left to find for which the enabling technologies have yet to be conceived.

which part is it that you did not agree with? That the universe was created out of nothingness? Or the Big Bang? What about the Big Bang? Or do you disagree with the equation E=mc^2?

 

 

 

I do not find this concept alien at all. There very well could have been a local singularity that expelled mass and energy through space in all directions in the event referred to as the big bang. I do not believe that we can conclude that this singularity contained all or even a majority of the mass of a universe bigger than that we can observe. Any such conclusion requires an assumption that nothing lies beyond the event horizon, that we can observe all that there is. We have no evidence to support this and any such conclusion is simply a leap of faith. Without the proof that we cannot have I cannot accept such a conclusion with no supporting evidence.

Of course, nowadays we don't find the concept of an expanding universe as alien. But observation of space before GR seemed to show a static universe. So it led people to think that it hadeither existed for infinity or it had been created instantaneously at a specific time without going through an evolutionary process.

[C1ay]

Hi C1ay, for the proof that the natural laws are behind creation - you can look to any reputable scientific book on cosmology.

 

Creation? What creation?

[C1ay]

which part is it that you did not agree with? That the universe was created out of nothingness? Or the Big Bang? What about the Big Bang? Or do you disagree with the equation E=mc^2?

 

The universe was created? I don't believe anything was created. IF there was a big bang it was from matter and energy that already existed. The observable evidence indicates that matter and/or energy is neither created or destroyed. And what exactly has E=mc² got to do with creation? AFAIK this equation does not indicate that energy or matter is created or destroyed.

 

Of course, nowadays we don't find the concept of an expanding universe as alien. But observation of space before GR seemed to show a static universe. So it led people to think that it hadeither existed for infinity or it had been created instantaneously at a specific time without going through an evolutionary process.

 

A good example that shows why ideologies of the past are outdated. I can see why people of the era believed in some divine creation but, that was then and this is now.

[TINNY]

The universe was created? I don't believe anything was created. IF there was a big bang it was from matter and energy that already existed. The observable evidence indicates that matter and/or energy is neither created or destroyed. And what exactly has E=mc² got to do with creation? AFAIK this equation does not indicate that energy or matter is created or destroyed.

i was not expecting a rather fuming response. You must have got me wrong. I was only asking you on which part that you did not agree with upon which I gave suggestions to what you were referring to. Please check your post and clarify.

 

A good example that shows why ideologies of the past are outdated. I can see why people of the era believed in some divine creation but, that was then and this is now.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Of course that ideology of the past is outdated. Let me clarify again.

In those days, it was held as a common assumption that:

a)an infinite universe which has always been there (standpoint of atheists)

b)a universe created as it is at some moment in the past (creationists).

 

That is why I say that a concept of an evolutionary universe that is expanding was an alien concept. I don't think there is any difficulty accepting this. Why all the anger hatred and condescence?

[C1ay]

i was not expecting a rather fuming response. You must have got me wrong. I was only asking you on which part that you did not agree with upon which I gave suggestions to what you were referring to. Please check your post and clarify.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Of course that ideology of the past is outdated. Let me clarify again.

In those days, it was held as a common assumption that:

a)an infinite universe which has always been there (standpoint of atheists)

b)a universe created as it is at some moment in the past (creationists).

 

That is why I say that a concept of an evolutionary universe that is expanding was an alien concept. I don't think there is any difficulty accepting this. Why all the anger hatred and condescence?

 

Ohh no! You read that with the wrong tone of mind or something. It was certainly not written with a fuming frame of mind. Quite sorry if there was an implied tone of hostility.

 

I believe that the matter and energy that make up the universe has always existed. I accept the possiblity that a subset of this matter and energy could have come together into a local singularity resulting in an event called the big bang. I do not claim that there was or was not a big bang. I do not think mankind can conclusively prove it one way or the other.

 

Again, my apologies if you thought I was trying to be hateful or condescending. That tone was not my frame of mind in composition.

[TINNY]

I believe that the matter and energy that make up the universe has always existed. I accept the possiblity that a subset of this matter and energy could have come together into a local singularity resulting in an event called the big bang. I do not claim that there was or was not a big bang. I do not think mankind can conclusively prove it one way or the other.

Einstein's theory of gravity predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravity is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. But, it is most likely, and widely accepted, as shown by GR, that there was a singularity with no space-time. 'Prior' to that must be something that is free from time, and occupies no space. though there is no such 'time' before time. what can be this other than photons initally coming into existence at the singularity?

[TINNY]

Ohh no! You read that with the wrong tone of mind or something. It was certainly not written with a fuming frame of mind. Quite sorry if there was an implied tone of hostility....Again, my apologies if you thought I was trying to be hateful or condescending. That tone was not my frame of mind in composition.

We both have to learn how to utilize smilies effectively eh?

:o

[C1ay]

But, it is most likely, and widely accepted, as shown by GR, that there was a singularity with no space-time. 'Prior' to that must be something that is free from time, and occupies no space. though there is no such 'time' before time. what can be this other than photons initally coming into existence at the singularity?

I believe that time and space have always existed as well. In my view, any singularity was composed only of matter and energy. A simple analogy would be a bucket containg water and a collection of sponges. The water represents space and the sponges represent matter and energy. If enough sponges come close enough together they could collapse from their mutual gravity, but the water (space) would not collapse with them.

 

We both have to learn how to utilize smilies effectively eh?

:o

I'll second that :o

[TINNY]

I believe that time and space have always existed as well. In my view, any singularity was composed only of matter and energy. A simple analogy would be a bucket containg water and a collection of sponges. The water represents space and the sponges represent matter and energy. If enough sponges come close enough together they could collapse from their mutual gravity, but the water (space) would not collapse with them.

Space is the structure defined by the set of "spatial relationships" between objects. These objects are expanding from each other, thus an expanding universe. Space is not separate from material existence since it is the product of it. So is time. You cannot have space and time existing for eternity in an expanding universe. Thus, going far enough in time, all matter would meet at the singularity. Sorry I misunderstood you.

[DEIOLOGIST]

Creation? What creation?

C1ay -- Creation of all that is -- you know the universe we live in, every other universe.

[C1ay]

Creation? What creation?

C1ay -- Creation of all that is -- you know the universe we live in, every other universe.

 

Prove that it was created then. It is one thing to simply say that is what you believe, it is another to declare it as fact. The same is true of your claim that nature is God. If it is a personal belief the say so, if you are declaring it as fact then prove it.

[Queso]

don't even bother. they never give proof because they never have proof and they never will. they believe they do and when they realize that what they brought forward was not proof at all-well, they don't realize that. it's something they can't, won't admit. because they have FAITH. who needs proof when you have faith?!

obviously that was a sarcastic statement.

[C1ay]

who needs proof when you have faith?!

 

I think those that have faith that they can fly need proof, lest..... :)

[Agentquantum]

hello all.

i've been a member for quite some time now, yet this is still my first post...lol, coz as a student in my country in general and my school in particular i have been EXTREMELY busy and really didn't have the time to keep up with all the discussions. but after skimming through this thread and the one on "the creator" started by galaxy some time back, i feel compelled to post my arguments. wouldn't be surprised though if this is gonna be my only post. heheh.

 

 

i get the impression that come christians believe that the fact that we exist despite the incredibly small probability of life occurring implies the existence of the creator. the probability of life forming might be incredibly miniscule, but that still does not mean that it will not occur, am i right? in fact, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for it not to occur in a sufficiently long timespan, since there is after all a finite probability of it occurring! in other words, no matter how small the probability of life formation can be, as long as it is not zero, it HAS to occur somewhere in the vast expanse of our universe!

 

as such, wherever and whenever life springs up in the universe and if through the process of evolution intelligent sentient beings actually come into existence, it seems that some of them will also start doing the math and think that because it is so improbable that life can occur given the circumstances, a creator must have been present? that is simply illogical. we are not lucky or blessed to be existent, just like all other sentient life forms in the universe aren't either; we just happened to be alive because the circumstances allowed for intelligent life to form on earth, despite the amazingly low probabilities of such an event occurring in this universe.

 

regarding the argument over how the existence of a creator must have preceded the creation of the elegant and beautiful universe that we live in, logically i think that this entirely human concept of elegance and beauty is simply put, only human. i think the human brain is naturally wired to perceive orderly and organised things (basically, low states of entropy) as being elegant and beautiful. as such, the only reason why the universe is so elegant and beautiful is because WE were made to perceive it that way. from a purely objective point of view, there is really nothing "elegant" or "beautiful" about the universe-- it is simply a temporal procession of physical processes, and one big demonstration of the second law of thermodynamics. there is nothing beautiful or elegant about the way life is formed, about the way planets are formed, about how ecological biodiversity works. it is purely physics at work, and such systems were created simply because the physical laws governing it allowed it to be created. if only humans being were wired to perceive utter and complete chaos as elegant and beautiful, then i don't think we would consider the current state of our universe to be very much the work of a creator at all.

 

also, as an example, what if other supposedly sentient beings like say, chimpanzees don't perceive elegance and beauty the same way? what if the only things that are elegant to them are things shaped like crescents and are yellow in color? if the universe doesnt resemble and operate similarly to a banana, of course they wouldn't be under the impression that a creator was behind the scenes to produce such well ordered and interrelated systems of causes and effects, would they? so are they at fault here, or is it simply that chimpanzees aren't "intelligent" enough in that sense? but if chimps arent intelligent enough, what makes us think that WE are? and why is it that the bible treats human beings as the Main Characters of the universe? so only humans have a soul, only humans die and either go to heaven or hell? there is simply no compelling evidence that such a phenomenon could possibly occur. the universe doesn't revolve around us, you know.

 

another argument i have is that it is not true to simply say that just because the universe appears so systematic and orderly and elegant, it is impossible that a chance event such as the big bang could have created it. according to the standard cosmological model, the universe took 13.7 billion years to develop into the way that is is today-- it is not surprising therefore that the universe now appears to be so organised and elegant, given the amount of time it had to sort itself out. what i think some people need to realise is that just because our universe appears elegant today does not mean that it had always been like that in the past. that for thousands of years after the first event, the universe was basically nothing more than ONE BIG MESS OF PARTICLES which few can claim to be elegant and that there was absolutely NO WAY to tell which developmental path it would be taking next or what would happen due to the large amount of uncertainty involved, that it was simply a matter of CHANCE that our universe came to be so systematic and orderly today, and also that had the strong nuclear force grown a little stronger in the formative period of the universe, molecules would not even have been able to form! would a universe without molecules seem like the work of a creator to anyone then? i subscribe to the concept of parallel universes, and i think that our universe came to be this way because it just so happened to be one of the very few universes that grew up properly despite its rough childhood-- who knows how many other universes out there might have started off, screwed up and recollapsed immediately thereafter in a big crunch! once again, just because our universe developed into such an elegant form despite the incredible odds stacked against it doesn't mean that there must be some sort of foreign process involved! despite the extremely low probability that a universe like ours could take shape, the fact remains that it can still happen and therefore given a sufficiently long timeframe MUST INDEED HAPPEN! it is no surprise therefore that we are here!

[TINNY]

don't even bother. they never give proof because they never have proof and they never will. they believe they do and when they realize that what they brought forward was not proof at all-well, they don't realize that. it's something they can't, won't admit. because they have FAITH. who needs proof when you have faith?!

obviously that was a sarcastic statement.

DIdn't I just gave the proof? And you have yet to refute it, thus it stands as a proof to the existence of god so far. go figure!

[REASON]

I wanted to contribute to the poll but I also didn't find an answer that suited my position. I consider myself agnostic, which I've always understood to mean that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a god. To me this is the only truthfull position that anyone can have. It's one thing to BELIEVE that there either is or isn't a god, and I don't presume to condemn those who do. But it's entirely another thing to suggest that you KNOW for sure one way or another. The only fact that can be stated here is that nobody, ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, has the answer to that question one way or another. And there is NO WAY for science or RELIGION to provide the answer. So belief is a choice. And I don't feel that anyone should be condemned for making what they consider to be an educated decision in the matter.

 

What I consider to be a much more interesting question, and one that can be examined scientifically, is WHY it is so important for so many people, literally billions, to believe that there is a god. And WHY do so many of them feel so threatened by scientific discovery that, through painstaking reseach and analysis, simply seeks to understand the nature of the universe. Even if in doing so, undermines traditional dogmatic religious belief systems. It is not the goal of science to debunk religion. But there definately has been a need throughout history for religion to subvert scientific research and discovery. This has put science and religion at odds with one another in a way that I think is unfortunate. I believe that another inherent problem is that science is constantly looking forward to new understandings, and religion is continually looking back to old notions and beliefs. Many religious values and ideals are still applicable in our lives today, and we should hold onto them. But as scientific research continues to provide us with more and more knowledge and clarity about the nature of our universe and the processes which brought about life, religion had better let go of some of its ancient dogmatic beliefs, or risk losing credibility.

[TINNY]

religion had better let go of some of its ancient dogmatic beliefs, or risk losing credibility.

be more specific. don't provide generalizations. i'm quite sure you haven't studied every single religion in the world in-depth to make such a statement.

I did make a comment on agnosticism which I think was in this thread if you care to search. Maybe you shoudl respond to that first.