The debate "God created the universe" was started by
February 27, 2016, 8:37 am.
46 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 40 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
fadi posted 16 arguments, Alex posted 7 arguments, bennie posted 16 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 4 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 4 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 11 arguments, Anjali posted 1 argument, Maximus posted 3 arguments, Pugsly posted 3 arguments, LeviRay posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 20 arguments, swat posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
fadi, PoliticsAsUsual, NerdTagz, Voidiq, lawyerlady, president, Alex, lucylou15, bennie, Tebogo_tsweu, shinam27, Anandapadmanabhan, oscar90000, priyanthi, confident, Thomas_Jefferson, ElisaXO, Jason9374 and 28 visitors agree.
ThinkSkeptically, absureality, djchivers, RyanWakefield, Anjali, Maximus, danielle, Sosocratese, Pugsly, Upbeatethan, LeviRay, ProudAmerican888, pajrc1234, burntoast2000, Burnin, cancer_wins, sickboyblonde, swat, BhargavSharma, openparachute and 20 visitors disagree.
well if there was definate evedence of a side, there would be no need to debate.
But there isn't definitive evidence of either side. AKA pointless
Debating involves evaluating the evidence for two competing points of view. This means there is evidence on both sides which must be evaluated and then you see which side is better supported and better argued for. You haven't proved one side true or false, you have simply presented a case for believing or implementing one idea over another.
The reason we settle important issues with debate is because the world isn't black and white. There is always a gray area when we try and use hard data to come up with solutions to complex, multi vector problems. So we look for the best solution to a problem, not the perfect one.
then why are debates used to fix relevant issues?
Because debating isn't about proving or disproving something. It's a about presenting the better or worse argument. There are topics I debate that I don't even believe in.... The fat tax thing we're debating for example. I'm personally against it, but it's fun to simply argue the points.
Look at the arguments, not your opinion on the matter and it becomes quite interesting.
If we can't debate unconfimable things we can't debate ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, consciousness, self, justice, etc...
Neither can be proved so why debate it? It's just one belief after another and no one is certain.
Well, all this was to make sure you committed to exactly this argument.
You have just based your entire argument on a fallacy known as "argument from personal incredulity"
It usually takes this form
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
This is exactly the form your argument takes.
I cannot imagine a universe this complex without the guiding hand of a creator, therefore there must be a creator.
This means your entire argument is resting on a logical fallacy.
This doesn't mean that your conclusion is by necessity false, however, based on your argument you must accept the possibility of an all natural universe. Since you cannot come to truth through fallacious thinking, your conclusion cannot be accepted as truth (if it could, you would instantly be the most famous theological philosopher of all times).
This then brings me back to the probability argument. Is it more probable that God willed all of these mechanisms which would give us the universe as we see it today, or is it more likely that the properties which lead to the universe arise out of necessity; ad the byproducts of the properties of the natural forces (weak force, strong force, gravity, and electromagnetical force). I would say occams razor suggests the latter makes the least amount of assumptions.
Yes, but you verifying that everything has a purpose everything works a certain way, making it seem to me and I hope to yourself as if it was impossible that all this randomly just from chance came to existence.
And I don't deny that I said the God that fills in the gaps, because God explains why are there even gaps.
I think I'm understanding you OK. I'm just building up to a few things with you. I think I've got it all boiled down.
"So to me because of this and more like the cycle of nature as if it was intended to work the way it is, its more rational to believe in a creator. Not a god of the gaps, but a god that fills in the gaps."
You're already said you believe God fills the gaps....right there.... I demonstrated the only gap left to explain a universe through entirely natural means. This would eliminate any need for a God to have a universe that would look exactly like we see it today.
So we've eliminate God as a source of the universe in the sense of the scriptural accounts. We're left with an argument of intentionality. Meaning that there is a sense that this all has to mean something, that someone/something has purpose to all of this.
Essentially the claim made by you is something like:
" God is in the natural laws, the rules of logic, etc... guiding the events of the universe for some purpose. "
Is that about the correct interpretation?
It seems as if you not understanding, so you keep changing my words to make sense to you.
" God of gaps " , I'm saying the explanation for the existence of everything id god.
We now have a grand unifying theory. Meaning that we have successfully merged the non-gravitational forces into one theoretical body. We are stuck at T=0 because we don't have a unified theory of gravity. It's the one piece that we're missing in order to understand T = less than 0.
So since we understand the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetical force, the only force we have left is gravity.
Once we have a unifying theory of gravity, we'll eliminate the problems that arrise from our current theory (I.e. The theories break down at the very large and very small). Once we can unify gravity, we'll have an account of quantum field generation, space-time, matter, and energy. This is often known as a "theory of everything".
Since you've conceded the natural processes take over after the quantum field generation, you're essentially betting on physicists never figuring out a unified theory of gravity. That's what your argument is essentially resting on...
Seems my arguments keep getting cut off....
The phone in the desert argument is a rip off from the original watchmaker argument. It's generally accepted as the first argument from design. So yes, you are using the watchmaker argument as it is the generally accepted name for all variations of the argument from design.
The example is supposed to be absurd in order to show the absurdity of the logical structure of the argument from design.
By the logical structure of your argument I can prove that money grows on trees.... Therefore the logical structure of the watchmaker argument (or the varieties derived from it) is invalid..... I don't know how that's do hard to understand....
"And again you prove my point, that something must have existed before the big bang for it to exist."
Except that you're totally missing the point. I presented you with a natural explanation for time and space (the big bang), a source of matter (either a singularity or an eternal universe), a way to produce the matter and energy (quantum mechanics), and you have accepted all of these points. What you don't seem to understand is just what the implications are of all those concessions. I'll break it down for you. If you accept that space-time came to be through the big bang, and that matter and energy are a result of quantum mechanics, you must concede that the only METHOD in which God could have acted to create the universe is through quantum mechanics. Since you accept natural laws from the moment of the establishment of the quantum fields, God can only be found in the quantum levels.
We now have a grand unifying theory. Meaning that we have successfully merged the non-gravitational forces into one theoretical body. We are stuck at T=0 because we don't have a unified theory of gravity. It's the one piece that we're missing in order to understand T
No, I didn't use the watchmaker argument, your obviously not reading my comments.
And before you said the watchmaker argument implying on the design of life, not the creation of the universe. Now you're implying that I'm using it, when its clear that I didn't even mention the watchmaker.
"Here is the exact same logical structure in a different form.
Leaves are complex cellulose structures
Leaves grow on trees
Money Bulls are also complex cellulose structures
Therefore money grows on trees"
This example makes no sense, if anything it supports my argument by implying (structure).
"Since the big bang created time and space, the singularity or origin point (may not have been a singularity after all) accounts for all the matter and energy, and physics gave us complex celestial structures"
And again you prove my point, that something must have existed before the big bang for it to exist. Thank you!
Again, you're relying on the watchmaker argument. I, and psychdave have shown you that there are numerous responses to this line of reasoning. I'll give you another one here to show that it's actually based on flawed logic.
Here is the watchmaker argument
A watch is complex
A watch has a watchmaker
The universe is also complex
Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
Here is the exact same logical structure in a different form.
Leaves are complex cellulose structures
Leaves grow on trees
Money Bulls are also complex cellulose structures
Therefore money grows on trees
Its an outdated and bad argument from 1802. Do you really think that bringing up a argument which has been repeatedly refuted for well over 200 years is going to convince anyone of your point? Maybe you got it from that quack William lane Craig, I know he like to use this argument a lot. This argument is getting worse and worse as we know how complexity arose. The only thing we really have left here is the notion that quantum fields come to be ex nihilo.
Now, that we've successfully reduced God to randomly creating quantum waves rather than being a designer, aren't you simply naming an unknown phenomena as God? Since the big bang created time and space, the singularity or origin point (may not have been a singularity after all) accounts for all the matter and energy, and physics gave us complex celestial structures, we are left with a God that creates quantum waves.... So you're abandoning the creation myths in favor of science, and yet you hold on to a supernatural force which is reduced to nothing but quantum field creations.... That seems like an awfully small corner to put God in.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole ( structure ) would collapse.
Structure!!! see I understand, it's not that I can't "believe a particle can come to existence" it's that I can. What I'm saying is atheists can't make sense of it and they're never will.
lol, and the discussion of the phone being in a desert, is exactly how I meant to explain it. it's not that I can understand something that's so simple to understand, is that you complicate everything.
The flaw in your phone in the desert example is that it depends on the contrast between created phone and non-created desert. You aren't claiming that God created one thing, you are claiming that he created everything. Your analogy would be more honest if you picked up a phone in a desert made entirely of phones. How does one grain of sand prove that someone made the desert?
By claiming that someone has to will particles into existence, you demonstrate that you don't understand the principles behind quantum mechanics. That is why sosocratese called it an argument form incredulity. You can't believe it is true, so it can't be. The problem with that is that there is real, verifiable evidence that particles can and do cone into existence randomly due to quantum fluctuations. Your misunderstanding of the observer effect likewise shows that, while you have looked into the topic, you don't actually understand it.
And if you say that I'm not, read my comments. I repeated myself also, I said that things popping to existence on its own is not logical, I said, in the quantum field we can see particles popping in and out of existence, and particles that seems to have a mind of their own when being observed, it doesn't make sense.
So to me because of this and more like the cycle of nature as if it was intended to work the way it is, its more rational to believe in a creator. Not a god of the gaps, but a god that fills in the gaps.
My argument is exactly the way I intended it to be. And I can make sense of how something came out of nothing, is clear as water. Water, being the source of all life emerged from as God explained, but that's not enough proof for the existence of God, even though it will seem like something impossible for someone to have known this thousands of years ago, but ok. I can make sense of this, atheists that say that something can come out of nothing on its own can't make sense.
See I'm bored! that's why I downloaded this app, that's why I'm having this discussion, but I know it's hard to convince an atheist that's strong in his or her faith, but to me it's entertaining to see how many times they will repeat there argument and knowing what their texting and still can't realize that their argument doesn't make sense. Of course you can make the same claim to someone who believes, but not to someone who is open to both arguments like myself.
Energy doesn't "transmute" into matter. We know the Higgs Boson is responsible for giving mass to the other quantum fields....hence the name God particle.
Your argument actually is a great example of what I mentioned in my earlier post, an argument from incredulity.
Essentially the form of your argument is this
I can't make sense of something coming out of nothing, and therefore it can't be the source of the universe.
This is the exact fallacy I was talking about earlier. I'm a little tickled that it worked out that way.
Then you go on to the "watchmaker" argument. You are using it wrong though. It's an argument for the design of life not the universe. Since there was no complexity pretty big bang and we know how everything formed post big bang, we know there is no complexity a priori. You would have to argue that quantum fields are complex and look to be designed.
The logic is for something to come out of nothing needs for something to will it, and what is the source of everything that exist? and what existed before the big bang? and what cause the transmuting of energy into matter? if we was to come with assumption that it transmuted on its own then question will be infinite, we'll never find the source of everything, and it will be more a illogical to assume that it all just came to existence without any cause or force.
I know I gave this example of logic reasoning before, but someone always dismisses it as if its not something to take for account which its ignorant to do so.
If you was to find a phone in the middle of the desert, what would be more logical to believe, that this phone magically pop into existence on its own or someone other than you was in that desert and left the phone ?
And can something create itself?
And scientists know what human beings are composed of, why don't they try to create one on their own? which I'm sure they're trying, and I don't mean cloning, because Muslims believe one-day human beings will be able to clone, I mean make, combined, create a living being and it doesn't necessarily have to be human.
Logic is a tool to obtain truth/knowledge. It can therefore never be used to prove the existence of in the absence of empirical evidence.
This is because all arguments for God are speculative. Meaning that all arguments for God are, by necessity, invalid. Invalid is a term in philosophy which describes the relationship of the premise to the conclusion. A deductive argument is valid if and only if (iff) it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to nevertheless be false.
When we look at arguments for God, the argument is always one from incredulity. Meaning that it's something along the lines of "there must be a God, otherwise morality doesn't exist, or there must be a God because the universe has property x, or infinite regressive causation proves that there is a God, etc...." all of these arguments aim to prove God by asserting that certain properties of the universe, the nature of being, or physical laws imply him. However, just because life exists, doesn't mean a God had to have created it (in order to make that claim you would have to prove that life cannot arise without one).
Furthermore, if you could prove God through logic, the there would be no such thing as faith. Faith is the explicit belief in something lacking proof. In a religious sense, you would rob religious people of faith as a virtue if God were logically proven. Since believing in the notion that 1+1=2 is logical but not in the realm of faith, you would reduce religious beliefs to rational necessity.
There is of course the problem of which religion is then the rational one to believe in. Game theory tells us that we must presume all are wrong given that only one can be right (all religions are essentially mutually exclusive, save for a few exceptions) and that thousands will therefore be wrong. So it's illogical to just pick one given game theory and the law of large numbers.
What are you talking about NASA lied? NASA never made any claim about the earth reversing spin. That was a fabrication by religious zealots. It was debunked as a false article. NASA had nothing to do with the content....
Since you cannot support your claim that the earth will reverse spin, I take it you'll concede this point anyway....
That's good , but understand that no Muslim will ever give a deadline because there is non, we simply don't know when it will happen. So if NASA lied about that I wonder what else.
And its great that your aware of how we came to advance in such a degree, but what Darwin is saying is anything man claims as truth should be considered reliable.
oh, and wrong, there's a God because its illogical not to believe in one.
as I've said, I can't find anything to confirm your claim. With no actual evidence, I can't help but dismiss this claim as a "claim by assertion".
Darwin was a great man of his time; however, this statement is a bunch of nonsense. Basically you're saying we're too stupid to understand the nature of our universe. I think the fact that we can produce quantum computers, accelerate particles so fast and collide them in such a manner as to produce quantum particles, we've detected gravitational waves from just seconds post "big bang", we're able to manipulate genetics, etc... None of these would have been feasible in Darwin's time. Science was a pretty much a spectator sport during his time. Now we can actually apply our knowledge. This is the ultimate test of knowledge; whether or not it can stand the test of utility and prediction.
Now, you're argument makes a huge leap, and that is either: we may not be able to know all of nature, therefore there must be a God, or we have nature, therefore there is a God. Neither one of those arguments is logically sound (i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow the premise). You seem to be inserting God because it suits you, not because there is a necessity for him to explain nature. In order for God to be a valid explanation to the universe, it must be necessary to have God. Just like we don't pray to Zeus anymore because we understand lightning. It's not supernatural like we used to think.
I seen it on the Discovery channel, that is my sources. tried looking it up online but it was hard to find, it was as if there was a conspiracy going on really weird.
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
how you so sure its natural causes? and that was my point that the reason we have nature and how nature works is because of a creator.
I'll respond to a few of your "insights" here as well:
I'm sure like every other person that don't believe in a creator and not even based on logic or science, but based on you personal emotions you have your reasons. But do your research before making your own opinion over several scientists who have study these fields, just so you can go on believing that your a chemical accident with no purpose other then to pass on genetics then die.
----I have a degree in philosophy with an emphasis on philosophy of science as well as formal and informal logic. I am very aware of how to evaluate my sources and what constitutes "reason" and "logic". You have simply failed to present a case which would make me question a natural universe.
And ask what if your wrong? people who believe in a God they lived serving him and also pass on they gene pool, so if they we're wrong its all good, but atheists if they're wrong, I mean yeah only God can judge you, but what if someone was in front of judge and they act like he didn't exist totally disrespected him, what you think the judge is going to treat him?
----Good job, you've managed to rip off Pascal's Wager, except that you made some very strange points. Can you clarify what this whole gene pool nonsense is all about? What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that faith is somehow inherited? ....Well, here is the original form of your "argument" and I'll address this since it seems to be what you were going after:
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)
So there are a number of responses to this silly inquiry.
there is the "only non-theists go to heaven" argument.
Here is my favorite response to this line of thinking
Pascal's Wager must, at the very least, make one of the following assumptions:
A. That doxastic voluntarism is possible.
B. That God doesn't care if you "fake it".
----Since A is impossible, we are left with B. This means you're essentially advocating for worship regardless of belief.
That's why Pascal's Wager is kind of a joke in philosophy. Every freshman can come up with a rebuttal to it.
So you clearly haven't actually read most of my arguments. I have said repeatedly that none of what I'm saying is direct evidence against a universe created by a supernatural entity. What I have argued is that everything in the universe can be attributed to natural causes and that there is nothing about the nature of the universe, the contents of the universe, or it's history that makes a supernatural entity necessary.
Without the necessity of a supernatural entity for our universe, it is more reasonable to assume it to be of natural causes than supernatural. That is the extent of the argument. I think I have made this abundantly clear.
On to your prophecy thing. Please provide the link of the study that shows a sun rising from the west. I have seen this in the context of Muslim texts with false NASA articles claiming the same thing.
this is the only NASA article I could find which talks about the rotation of the earth being affected. However, this article only talks about the earth being affected by weather, not that the whole thing will switch directions.
this is the article that mentions the origins of this story.
So this prophecy of yours was supposed to come true in 2012 according to some of the related articles, then it was supposed to happen in 2015, and now it's back and some say it's supposed to happen in 2017.....
Again, I ask you to provide me with your sources so we can talk about the same thing. Otherwise I'm assuming you're subscribing to this same nonsense.
how do you know that if there was a god, it would be like how you believe
you are making your own assumption over several scientist who have expertise in this matter, who have calculated an experiment and came to the conclusion that this will happen in a matter of years. A prophesy does not need to have a exact date, as long as its fulfilled it what makes it a prophesy.
Nature is how the process works, nothing is random is my point!
Your an atheist I'm assuming based on how hard you try to defend your belief on a creator doesn't exist, not even accepting the possibility of one, and simply saying that there is no evidence of creator is not evidence that there isn't one. I'm sure like every other person that don't believe in a creator and not even based on logic or science, but based on you personal emotions you have your reasons. But do your research before making your own opinion over several scientists who have study these fields, just so you can go on believing that your a chemical accident with no purpose other then to pass on genetics then die. And ask what if your wrong? people who believe in a God they lived serving him and also pass on they gene pool, so if they we're wrong its all good, but atheists if they're wrong, I mean yeah only God can judge you, but what if someone was in front of judge and they act like he didn't exist totally disrespected him, what you think the judge is going to treat him?
This won't happen.
The earth's rotation is slowing. However, it will not reverse. Eventually it will simply stop. Meaning there will be no sunrise. Now, the only possible way that you could have a "western" sunrise is when the poles eventually flip turning north into south and east into west. However, this will be magnetic change, not a physical sun rising from the opposite side.
Also, this is a poor example of fulfilling a prediction. That is because it is unable to be disproved given the open ended nature of the prediction. It would be like saying my theory of "Bugs Bunny" is correct because eventually, at some indeterminate point in time, a rabbit will come to be which will have the same mannerism as Bugs Bunny.... You can't disprove that such a thing would be impossible, you can't disprove that my prediction is correct since I never gave a time-frame or mechanism for such an entity to come into existence.
The new research shows that our universe may very well have existed ad infinitum and that what we call "the big bang" is simply the latest iteration of that universe.
this is an interesting alternative to the current theory as it does away with all singularities. We still return to a single point, however, it is not as dense as a singularity and doesn't run into the same problems at T=0
Regardless of whether there was a singularity or not, neither theory requires a supernatural entity. Not a single natural law is violated by having a universe come from nothing or having existed ad infinitum.
Now, on to your version of the fine tuning thing....
Our planet is the only planet in our solar system with life because it is the only planet in the habitable zone. It would be much more compelling to have life outside of this zone as proof of a supernatural entity. Again, we have to make no assumptions of supernatural influences in order to describe a cause for life on earth.
The intelligence argument is much the same. Evolution explains this perfectly without the need for a supernatural entity driving intelligence.
I'm gonna need you to expand the "god of the gaps" argument....that made no sense to me. Are you saying that it's ok to insert God into the gaps of science? That makes no sense. That would mean we can halt all scientific studies and simply insert God into any and all gaps of knowledge....
"There's no field of science that doesn't say that the universe is somehow a design, that everything works everything serves a purpose for what it is (created) for, and everything is connected"
-----This makes no sense. This isn't an argument for God by any stretch of the imagination. Science explicitly assumes the absence of any supernatural entity and therefore can never make a claim about purpose or design. It's absurd to say that because science doesn't explicitly deny design that this is somehow an endorsement of design.
Let's talk zero energy universe real quick.
The reason why it can't be considered evidence for a supernatural cause is because a zero energy universe is exactly what you'd expect from a naturally occurring universe. This means that no exceptions have to be made in order to have such a universe. Again, this also doesn't mean that the universe can't have a creator. However, it is certainly not evidence for one. If the universe had net positive or net negative energy, then you would have something that would point to an supernatural cause. However, at this point all we can say is that a net zero energy universe is compatible with a natural universe.
If you didn't mean that quantum phenomena are not "supernatural", then you must agree that they are natural. I.e. they can be observed, studied, predicted, and follow natural laws. Therefore, all quantum fields are then natural...
In science, we consider things to be natural if we can describe their properties. Quantum fluctuation is no different....in fact we have described them very well mathematically. We can calculate how long a field can last, what energy would be required to make it last, etc... So we know there are natural principles guiding quantum fluctuations. Our understanding is still limited in this area, as virtual particles are still being discovered. However, it's premature to say that they are somehow "supernatural" and it's an affront to science to claim so. In order to make a claim that something is supernatural, you must show that it violates some natural rule or doesn't follow any natural rules.
Stating that "everything has a cause" is the principle of infinite regression. However, quantum mechanics means that infinite regression is not a viable objection to the big bang. Since quantum fluctuations require no physical cause, they only require a vacuum state in order to manifest, you would have to show that no vacuum state could have existed prior to the singularity as it is the only necessary condition for quantum fields to appear.
"Order cannot come out of Chaos" argument. This is the argument from a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
you can see here, that a natural universe does not violate the concept of entropy
to be continued.....
I have proof that god exist, the evidence to this is a prophesy that yet have not been fulfilled, the prophesy is that the sun will rise from the west and when that happens everyone will believe, but it will be to late.
scientists have discovered that the earth core have changed its rotation from counterclockwise to clockwise, they also predict that one day the Earth will change it's rotation as the core did, and because of that the someone no longer rise from the East it will rise from the West. you could go online and do your own research. "the cure to ignorance is to ask why"
The Net Zero universe is essential to the process of creation, from compressing Stars the stability of the universe etc.
I didn't mean supernatural as in Hocus Pocus, I meant as an unexplainable cause for unexplainable effect. like particles popping in and out of existence rapidly the has an unexplainable cause, like the unexplainable reaction when particles are being observed, and to say there no need for a cause on the quantum level goes against science, science teaches that there's a cause for everything and a rational explanation for it. Creation is a process of formation, not a sudden or spontaneous of existence of something. Everything has a cause, from the cause of the Big Bang to the cause of human development to the cause of Extinction.
" Order cannot come out of Chaos"
To say that everything exists by chance is it irrational is non-science, it's nonsense.
in the solar system that has multiple planets and a higher chance for other life, Earth is the only Planet sustainable for life. In our own world the number of millions of species we will not find another species that has the same level of intelligence as we do, given the higher chance that we should find another species with the same intelligence. They "the god of Gap" , when in fact they should say is the god that fills in the gaps. There's no field of science that doesn't say that the universe is somehow a design, that everything works everything serves a purpose for what it is (created) for, and everything is connected!
Your argument seems to be resting on the notion that quantum events are supernatural. So in effect saying that quantum events are not natural.
Since the two are mutually exclusive quantum events must be either natural or supernatural. Events which are supernatural are defined as:
Events unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
This means that supernatural events are by definition unpredictable since they are directed with intentionality rather than being non-intentional. Lightning for example, is a natural event, we can predict it, we know what causes it etc... If we had supernatural lightning, we'd expect it to occur in the absence of the natural phenomena that cause it. Same is true with quantum mechanics. If we can predict and use quantum mechanics then it must follow natural rules. Since we can predict quantum behavior (that's how we figured out quantum computing) it must obviously follow some sort of natural laws. Quantum mechanics is the study of those rules.
So just because quantum fields can occur without a cause, doesn't mean they are automatically supernatural.
Now, let's look at the zero sum energy universe again. The reason why this is evidence for a natural universe is because it is the only possible universe we could have without violating laws of nature. So, any universe other than a 0 sum flat universe would have been problematic. In science we look at the support of a theory and then we also see if the predictions made based on that theory would be correct. So for evolution we would expect to find simpler animals earlier in history and more complex animals later. Since this has been the case, it substantiates the theory of evolution. Same goes for the big bang. If the only possible universe is a zero sum universe, and we have a zero sum universe, then this portion is substantiated.
A supernatural entity wouldn't need a zero sum universe and so it says nothing about the existence or absence of such an entity. What you look for are exceptions to the natural laws in order to prove a supernatural phenomena. In the absence of such a deviation from the natural laws, one must assume that natural events caused a given phenomena or event.
your whole argument is contradictory each other, it doesn't make no sense.
p1: there is no Supernatural that have been documented" Yes they have, in the quantum realm the Supernatural happens every day from particles photons come into existence and out of existence, from the reaction of protons when being observed is still unexplainable,
creation doesn't say that the universe spontaneously came to existence, in fact it suggests that there is a process in which How the Universe came to existence.
And a net zero universe supports this claim, and it's also another document Supernatural event that happens every day, from energy pop into existence and disappearing .
I'm gonna piece together an argument here. I won't put too much supporting evidence in here otherwise it will take way too long. You can feel free to challenge me on any point and we can get into more detail if you want o challenge anything specific. I'll lay it out in premise --- conclusion format so it'll be easier to challenge any given point so you can just disagree with Premise #x
Premise 1: natural events are more common and no supernatural event has ever been documented.
Premise 2: effects are caused in all cases at the atomic level
Premise 3: effects may have no cause at the quantum level
Premise 4: all of matter is comprised of quantum fields
Premise 5: The Big Bang happened ----I'm sure someone will disagree here and I'm sure we can get into this.
Premise 6: The universe is a "net zero universe" (meaning that matter - gravity = 0)
Premise 7: if we have a net zero universe, no laws of conservation are violated by the spontaneous creation of a universe
Premise 8: if the creation of quantum fields can happen without cause, then matter can be created without cause
Premise 9: if matter can be created without cause and without the violation of the conservation of energy/mass, then the singularity at the beginning of the big bang can happen without the aid of a supernatural entity.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is more likely that the universe originated from natural causes.
This argument rests on a few logical razors to make it work. Most notable would Occam's razor (the answer with the least amount of assumptions is the correct answer). this is because natural causes are by far the most common type of cause. In fact, there is no event in the universe that we know of that is supernatural. So, if natural processes can account for the origin of the Universe, then we should assume that it was natural processes that formed it.
Science has proven to be reliable and if scientific evidence points in a direction of a universe with no God"
science is based on observation and experimenting, science tells you that everything has a rational scientific or logical explanation, but I don't agree that it points towards a direction of a universe with no creator, in fact in a rational and more logical explanation in how everything came to existence it points towards a creator, science tells us that the universe seems like it was contracted from physics, quantum string theory, the magnificent of its complex design this all points towards a contractor a designer to this great design, a creator.
And for the holy books, I agree there are some contradictory in two of the mentioned books, but one of them shown to be incredibly Illustrated. Almost undeniable scientific facts in the book that existed for 1500 years its actually impossible for someone to have known these back then.
atheist love to claim the "contradicts and goes against science" when dealing with the bible, yet fail to prove how. or are not clear and don't say "literal translation goes against science" which it does. unfortunately for atheists the furst 5 books bible was never intended to be tacken literally and never was until recent prodestants have done so.
We rely on science and evidence to know what is true and what is not. We use science to know how things work. Science has proven to be reliable and if scientific evidence points in a direction of a universe with no God ( and it does ) then why would we find it reasonable to ignore science to believe I'm something with no proof. Holy books ( The Bible, Torah, and Quran ) have NOT been reliable. They are full of scientific inaccuracies and contradictions.
What u mean?
no what iam saying is that it did start at somepoint
that's what I'm trying to say
it can't be wrong if you believe in physics then it is absolutely right
Why do people continue to argue this? Nobody has proof for or against the belief, so just leave it at that.
prove me wrong
What if G-d created the universe with science.?
the door of proof swings both ways and though we have our beliefs the truth is that nobody from either side has brought difinite proof to the table for or against.
nothing can be proven?
I'm just exercising the fact that nothing can be proven
Ryan- your science seems to have a lot of what ifs. don't it?
what if that's wrong?
it's age *
well because it's life has already been estimated using light
what if the universe was always here?
it must have started other wise i wouldn't be here to argue you on earth
what if it never started?
well how did it start why at that point and not another did the bigbang happen ?
there doesn't have to be a reason why
this is the problem with atheists. you can't answer "why"
So the big bang is the "Atheist version" by admission from your stance?
the same reason God was created
let me ask you this: Why? Why was the big bang done?
I can respect that. Thank you. I will try to check it out immediately, if not certainly in the next few days.
*The video is an hour and a half long.
My breif explanation from the big bang to present hardly did it justice. Its truly remarkable the knowledge we've gained about our existence and came to be in the last century. I recommend watching this documentary from the big bang to present day. Of course there are still many questions within this journey, but dont let that affect any appreciation of the knowledge we accumulated. Its an half long but it does its best to explain 13.8 billion years. Grab some popcorn!
Having beliefs about our universe is great. I personally believe in the multi-verse. But if convincing evidence suggest otherwise, I wont hesitate to alter my belief. If I had a personal or emotional connection to my belief, it would be harder to convince me otherwise even with convincing evidence. Thats one of the many problems i have with religion. It connects your emotions these beliefs in an ancient book held thousands of years ago about our existence. The more emotion, the harder itll be to change the belief.
There are still many unanswered questions that may never be answered since this universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. But we try our best to make sense of it. Thats the beauty of science.
So if you still want to believe a God created us, thats fine. But understand the difference between your beleifs and and whats been proven to be true.
and guys, can i just say again thank you guys for forgiving me. I value all these views. They make me think more.
Imo- lack of Creation would not consider things like:
* a man and woman made perfectly for eachother as together can reproduce.
*A mother ability to feed her child only after as Birth takes place and there after.
If man wrote the bible and it was indeed for purposes of controlling the masses, there is one very clear thing that would totally be counter productive to the control and that is the control and reduction in population that they forever speak of.
The Bible states for us to "be fruitful and multiply". So if this was in fact man looking for controlling the population this would clearly go against the whole idea and create a huge setback.
And finally(sorry guys for so much), I best described sometimes that maybe the best way to describe things we don't understand I would explain these 2 things like this:
In dealing with dimensions if you are say a character on a coloring book sitting on a table for example and alive you are one dimensional. So I, being a 3rd dimension(al), would would be able to run from the table the coloring book sits on, up a flight of stairs and around a corner and yell. The coloring book 1 dimension figure is limited to looking straight ahead and just wondering. So 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions and so on(while considerable) there is no real way of understanding.
And my very last thing is that when you die your body ONLY THEN becomes cold, begins to decompose. What kept that from happening your entire life? They say that your soul is Energy. Energy never dies. When it leaves your body IT MUST certainly go on/go... somewhere..
Just my thought.
and he firmly said that it in no way was evidence of God.
must I remind you a catholic priest came up with the big bang theory.
Big Bang Theory
good point, but we also can't see invisible magical pink elephants.
However, I've just shown that this is not the case.... Burden of proof simply refers to the shape of an argument. Meaning that the person who has the burden of proof must present evidence for a point while the person arguing against must both poke holes in pro's argument and present alternative theories which must be backed with reason and evidence.
So even though the atheist is arguing con on the existence of God, they're usually presenting a pro argument for a given scientific theory. So con has the burden of proof as it relates e s to his own theory.
So if we look at a fictional argument we can demonstrate this easily. Let's say A=atheist and T=theist. Now let's say they're discussing the origin of the universe as we are here.
T: God created the universe because it is fine tuned.
A: there is no evidence for fine tuning. In fact we live in a zero sum universe which is hostile to life. The big bang would create the exact properties of the universe that we see today
---> the theist here presents the nature of the universe as proof of God's existence. A counters by presenting contradictory evidence, and then argues for an alternative theory.
T: the universe may have been started by the big bang, but infinite regressive causation means there must be a prime mover and this prime mover must possess intentionality and therefore must be sentient. This entity would be referred to as God.
A: quantum mechanics tells us that matter can pop into and out of existence without the need for a prime mover. Natural events are all that are necessary for the big bang to occur. We need not make any leaps in logic or reason to place nature in place of the prime mover....
----> T uses the fact that A has the burden of proof to show initial cause and presents an alternative to nature, God as the prime mover. A then has to prove that nature is a viable alternative to God.
You see burden of proof shifts even within a topic. So that neither position can be considered as a given.
the spiritual and physical world are surely different. We can not see God, So he must not exist? We can not see air, so we must not be breathing.
Alex, your arguement is ridiculous, as it relies on the God existing for it to be true. The universe doesn't have to start by a God or even start at all. The universe may have always been here.
i'm not judging but my observation is that a tools like that allow for people to avoid thinking critically for themselves.
Haha, no. Just because they're place the burden on the Christian doesn't mean it's a matter of slipping punches.
If I were to claim a flying head orbits the sun which sends thoughts into my head and is revealing the secrets of the universe to me, you would rightfully ask me to justify such a belief (especially if I'm trying to implement certain ideas based on that belief). It's simply a matter of assigning burden of proof.
Atheists still have to argue based on facts, logic, and reason. They must present valid counter arguments to a well reasoned argument that pro provides. So, as @fadi has argued, "people can't come from chimps because people are way smarter". We can look at this argument as a case for God. So fadi has met the burden of proof. The atheist would then need to argue that this is actually exactly what you'd expect to see if evolution was true. Since evolution works from less complex forms to more complex forms, you'd expect the evolutionary lineage of the chimp to become smarter and smarter....
@fadi also brought up the issue of junk DNA or non coding DNA. This is interesting since usually junk DNA is actually a hotly contested issue among ID theorists. Junk DNA is considered to be the proverbial nail in the ID theory coffin. @fadi actually hurt their own argument.
So it's not a matter of dodging anything. However it keeps the pro side from using the position that God exists as the default. This is important because proving a negative is impossible. If you want to see what I mean, try actually disproving the tooth fairy. You can only object to arguments for the tooth fairy, but you can never present evidence to disprove it. Same goes for God. It makes no sense to place God as the defacto position since we would never be able to improve on our knowledge.
I noticed that these razors seem to be useful but all the same they seem to swat things and push the burden of proof from a serming Athiest stance in terms of religion. if i'm not mistaken its like a drfensive boxer blocking, perrying and slipping punches but not throwing and punches back.
i believe "Hitchen's razor" is in effect
well i never heard of a chimp who made a television they have primitive brains so that shows that humans are far superior
We have. They make tools to be able to get food. They are not as intelligent as we are, so their tools are much more crude, but they do make things.
well then why didn't we see a chimpanzee who invented something if they are so intelligent?
well you have said something against yourself if they all use the same source for energy then the same engineer manufactured them (god)
Not in a language we speak, but in their own language and behavior, yes. Why do you think rattle snakes rattle their tails? Even the creatures with quite simple brains have some kind of means of communication. As they get more complex, you get into dogs and cats that can communicate simply with each other and with people. Getting till more complex you get animals like whales and dolphins which have unique names and languages in their songs. Most complex you have apes, who can communicate with each other, and can be taught things like sign language. Even people can't say hi to each other if they don't speak the same language, so why would you expect to understand other species?
forget the chimp, you share most of your dna with trees and bacteria. and not noncoding. absolutely essential. aka turning glucose into energy, and pretty much all the basic reactions that keep you functioning and stable.
why do you think all life on this planet eats the same thing as primary energy? glucose.
it's the most efficient.
no that is not the truth although we share alot of genes with the chimps most of it is noncoding dna
can a lizard say hello to another lizard ?
It could have but it didnt. Evolution has been proven and is no longer a serious debate among the scientific community. We share 98 percent dna with chimps. How can you still believe were not related? As far as God creating us. There are other claims that you have to accept other than a supreme being is responsible for our existence in order to follow a religion . You need to believe this being is so concerned that one species of primate, thats existed for a small period of time compared to our universe , believes it exists or not (why would it care). This being decided to reveal itself to a small group of people in the middle east thousands of years ago. If someone believes in a different god or no god, he/she will be punished for eternity orrrr man created the idea god to answer questions and religious dogma to control a large population .
So other than humans, the earth is silent with no other creature making a sound? Because otherwise we are not the only species speaking, we just have the most complex languages.
Believing in something that all available evidence supports is madness? That seems like you have decided what to believe before learning anything.
i didn't say that evolution is wrong but believing that a human has come from an ape is madness we are much more intelligent
can i ask you a question why are we the only talking creatures on earth couldn't evolution find two ways to develop creatures with such intelligence?
Science hasn't proven the cause of the big bang. But there is a great deal of evidence it happened. Religion has never come up with any evidence god even exists, let alone created the universe. There is no reason to believe that god caused the big bang.
The human brain is better than a computer, for now. Computers get better every day. But again, saying human beings are complex does not offer any proof for god. It means that over a long period of time complex life will evolve. Why would our brains be proof of god? we can a huge amount of fossil records where we can watch our ancestors brains getting bigger and better. No divine being snapped his fingers and created it. that is scientific fact. If you deny that that you aren't very educated.
our brain is many times slower than a computer. the difference is our brain is capable of doing multiple things at once as opposed to a computer doing 1 thing at a time extremely fast.
and our anatomy is definitive proof of evolution, what kick started the whole process, may or may not be god. you may believe one way or another, but Noone knows for sure, including all of you on either side of this argument.
there are many possibilities as to what started the big bang, one possibility is god, other possibilities do not involve God. when science doesn't know, it says it doesn't know. Religion just throws God in and says the end. God may or may not exist but without definitive proof, it is just a matter of faith.
what created the big bang may be an external force from a previous universe an external universe, a routine event in a multi erse or spontaneity which routinely happens in the quantum world. before the big bang the universe was quantum small and thus subject to quantum mechanics in which particles can spontaneously enter and leave existence.
these hypothesis, as well as the God hypothesis are untestable at this time and are all equally invalid. until something is testable we have 2 choice: invent a convenient story and close the door on any future questions, which is something that ends human curiosity and would have led us to continue our dark ages existence with no electricity or medicine, or admit ignorance, not make presumptuous guesses, and continue searching with an open mind.
look at your brain haven't you noticed that it is a billion times better than a computer it is impossible that it was evolution
well can i ask you a question why did the big bang happen ?
I can't say for sure but, from what I've seen, signs point to humans creating God rather than the other way around. How convenient is it that we have everything we'd ever want in a father in this god? No, I think it was purposefully made to fit our needs.
Again, I do not know whether or not God created the universe but my guess is He did not.
How does anatomy disprove evolution? you can't just say read an entire branch of science to find evidence. Science has proven evolution. so how does biology somehow prove creationism?
You ask where does life come from. science says i don't know but here is a bunch of evidence as to why we think it is like this. Religion says i have a book written 2000 years ago that says magic did it. it must be the magic one. As to nothing being possible without god part, you can't prove god has done anything at all. you certainly can't prove that nothing is possible without him, as there is no evidence for his existence.
search wikipedia you will get answers for beginning of earth and life
to figure out if God exists we say "what is the world if God doesn't exist, how did it start"
scientists say "I don't know, I have a guess however"
I say "without God nothing is possible, so there must be a God"
FIRST THINK WETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT!
no read anatomy and you will know that it is impossible
of evolution. yes I am. there is no evidence god had anything to do with my existence either.
well yes you yourself are an evidence
there is no credible evidence to support that assertion.