I don't know why people extrapolate things . In the Bible it says he created the heaven and earth. The word heaven is extrapolated to universe , I don't thing it should be . By extrapolation the atheist like you have a premise to discredit His existence, as you point in your argument.
Well, not quite. Theists scoff at science as a way of explaining the existence of the Universe. They consistently claim a Universe cannot be explained without God and insist a god had to create the Universe.
Thank you for generalising all of us based on Creationist Christianity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh I'm sorry...I'm generalizing? I retract that part. You are welcome to share your own position of how the Universe came into being and we can proceed from there. Otherwise, are you fine with a non-deity explanation for the Universe's existence?
Some theists. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07b6BnXg5n8 And here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k782BqrvfMM
It's really just the way you said "theists" and followed it with dogma that's really quite specific to Intelligent Design and Creationism. Both of which are largely Abrahamic schools of thought. Most Christians and Jews don't view things in a literal Creationist fashion. I've met very few Neopagans that think that way about the creation myths, same with Polytheistic Reconstructionists. I've not met enough Hindus or Buddhists, but I'd expect the same. Yes. I agree with current scientific theory of the universe's expansion. I don't believe the gods created the universe, not in the sense that monotheists think of their as having created the universe. So, in effect, I do not disagree with non-theistic explanations and scientific theory. How the gods interplay with reality and the physical universe is something I have only speculation on, and no solid opinion. First off, I believe that they exist independent of and outside of physical reality; physical laws and logic don't necessarily apply to them, I view them as beings of pure will or spirit. Because of this, I speculate that they may exist in a non-linear fashion in relation to time. So, they didn't so much "create" the universe as are, have been, and will "create" it. But even then, I don't think "create" is the right term as it implies a chronological causal relationship. And I do not think that is the case when it comes to the gods and their place in the universe. Again, just speculation based on how I've interacted with my gods. I don't have a solid opinion on it, and I refrain from making one until I am better informed.
Putting aside the contradictory concept of something "exist"ing independent of physical reality for later, and also of abandoning scientific explanations for one "existent" but yet adopting them to explain another, what is the point of postulating a God or gods that are unnecessary to explain anything? If the Universe arose without their assistance, what need do we have to explain anything that occurred after that, such as the formations of the galaxies and planets and the evolution of Life, by invoking a God or gods? The whole point of invoking a God or gods today is something theists use to counter atheists/scientists when they make claims something could have occurred without intelligent assistance; without a God or gods. But if gods aren't needed to explain any of it, why are we even bothering to bring them up?
Probably because discussions about how things arose without intelligent assistance are just as superfluous as you anticipate the topic of god is.
Makes me laugh hearing and reading science people talk of god and ridiculing it. I saw a bob lazar vid the other day, and what he said was that science when confronted with such things label it higher dimensions. He scoffed at the idea, and said that is just them saying it as they had no idea. Like also the idea of coincidence, another term by science to label something they have no idea on. Science knows barely nothing, at least the part they tell us. Science has no answers beyond there own mind, like the rest of the world. Yep in the universe a being may be able to answer everything, but that being is not humans, our brains are as useless as an ants trying to understand us. I am sure beings with far greater capacity than ours to work out the universe exist, but that is not us. At least they understand probably the futility of being inside the problem they are trying to solve.
The universe exists in space-time, but at the speed of light, time and space are not relevant. This can be inferred from Einsteins Special relativity. Also science has shown that the speed of light is the same in all references; omnipresent. God would need to exist at the speed of light to be consistent with the historical claims and the needed physics. At the speed of light, space-time breaks down into separated time and space. This allows one to move in time without space limitations or move in space without time limitations. By tradition, God is defined as spirit and not matter, with spirit more of an energy concept, which would need to travel at the speed of light. In Genesis, God said, let there be light. God uses the speed of light to make creation easier, since this allowed time without space and space without time, allowing things to come together in synchronized ways, far and wide.
So why is science using such a nonsense as a Big bang , Nothing rises from nothing , Inflation , and other imaginary terms to fit their explanation . It is fine to set a model but coming up with vacuum energy and more , it is just plain bull.
Dude, the Big Bang theory doesn't say it all came from nothing. The theory doesn't in fact say anything about the physics at T=0, because we don't know.
It does say the so called grain was very small, in comparing to what we see now. from that highly compressed mass we have now a hell of a large mass. I follow that bs and it is interesting wen is it going to cave in. Or do they have the guts to admit it is a nonsense whre the Jesuit pries come up with.
Have you learned about atoms? Most of it is empty. A teaspoon of matter in a neutron star is about a billion tons!
You've made some interesting points. While not enough to make me believe in God, I'll have to think about them.
Fuller's proof of God Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller) I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God. "Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer July 12 1979 To be satisfactory to science all definitions must be stated in terms of experience. I define Universe as all of humanity's in-all-known-time consciously apprehended and communicated (to self or others) experiences. In using the word, God, I am consciously employing four clearly differentiated from one another experience-engendered thoughts. Firstly I mean:_ those experience-engendered thoughts which are predicated upon past successions which are unexpected, human discoveries of mathematically incisive, physically demonstrable answers to what thereto fore had been missassumed to be forever unanswerable cosmic magnitude questions wherefore I now assume it to be scientifically manifest, and therefore experientially reasonable that scientifically explainable answers may and probably will eventually be given to all questions as engendered in all human thoughts by the sum total of all human experiences; wherefore my first meaning for God is:- all the experientially explained or explainable answers to all questions of all time- Secondly I mean;- The individual's memory of many surprising moments of dawning comprehension's of as interrelated significance to be existent amongst a number of what had previously seemed to be entirely uninterrelated experiences all of which remembered experiences engender the reasonable assumption of the possible existence of a total comprehension of the integrated significance- the meaning- of all experiences. Thirdly, I mean:- the only intellectually discoverable a priori, intellectual integrity indisputably manifest as the only mathematically stateable family of generalized principles- cosmic laws- thus far discovered and codified and ever physically redemonstrable by scientists to be not only unfailingly operative but to be in eternal, omni-interconsiderate, omni-interaccommodative governance of the complex of everyday, naked-eye experiences as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range of only instrumentally explored infra- and ultra-tuneable micro- and macro-Universe events. Fourthly, I mean;- All the mystery inherent in all human experience, which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity, is individually limited to almost negligible twixt sleepings, glimpses of only a few local episodes of one of the infinite myriads of concurrently and overlappingly operative sum-totally never -ending cosmic scenario serials. With these four meanings I now directly address God. "Our God- Since omni-experience is your identity You have given us overwhelming manifest:- of Your complete knowledge of Your complete comprehrension of Your complete concern of Your complete coordination of Your complete responsibility of Your complete capability to cope in absolute wisdom and effectiveness with all problems and events and of Your eternally unfailing reliability so to do Yours , dear God, is the only and complete glory. By glory I mean the synergetic totality of all physical and metaphysical radiation and of all physical and metaphysical gravity of finite but non-unitarily conceptual scenario Universe in whose synergetic totality the a priori energy potentials of both radiation and gravity are initially equal but whose respective behavioral patterns are such that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings is always less effective than gravity's non redundant syntropic integrating Radiation is plural and differentiable, radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing, is interceptible, separatist, and biasble- ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities; Gravity is unit and undifferentiable Gravity is comprehensive inclusively embracing and permeative is non-focusable and shadowless, and is omni-integrative; all of which characteristics gravity are also the characteristics of love. Love is metaphysical gravity. (eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these two opposite forces.) You, Dear God, are the totally loving intellect ever designing and ever daring to test and thereby irrefutably proving to the uncompromising satisfaction of Your own comprehensive and incisive knowledge of the absolute truth that Your generalized principles adequately accommodate any and all special case developments, involvement's, and side effects; wherefore Your absolutely courageous omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing alone can and does absolutely guarantee total conservation of the integrity of eternally regenerative Universe You eternally regenerative scenario Universe is the minimum complex of totally inter-complementary totally inter-transforming non-simultaneous, differently frequenced and differently enduring feedback closures of a finite but non-unitarily conceptual system in which naught is created and naught is lost and all occurs in optimum efficiency. Total accountability and total feedback constitute the minimum and only perpetual motion system. Universe is the one and only eternally regenerative system. To accomplish Your regenerative integrity You give Yourself the responsibility of eternal, absolutely continuous, tirelessly vigilant wisdom. Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You, and we worship You awe-inspiredly, all-thankfully, rejoicingly, lovingly, Amen."
8x10[sup]13[/sup] g/cm[sup]3[/sup] is 80 billion Kg/cm[sup]3[/sup]. That's a whole lot more than 10,000 kg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Before I go any further, please take note that I am not trying to convince you that they exist. I have no reason to do so. I am merely explaining my perspective. I may not have been clear about my reasons for believing in the gods. I do not use them as a fall-back point when explaining the natural world. I don't believe that they necessarily have "a point". Not anymore than we do, or anything else does. I believe that they exist because I have had personal experiences involving them, and have listened to others' accounts of their personal experiences to compare and corroborate. This thread is all about whether or not we believe in a god or gods, and why. My reasons are wholly separate from teleological and ontological arguments. My beliefs are subjective; they are based on experience and perception. Like literally any other kind of opinion.