The debate "God Made the Universe" was started by
December 14, 2019, 8:11 am.
50 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 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.
jrardin12 posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
diecinueve posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 3 arguments, Liam posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Pistoldueler, Light, wolf, jrardin12, pompom, StrangeTime, shadab_ansari, Juwilson, Dij748, Thandaza3 and 40 visitors agree.
diecinueve, Facundo4261Arg, historybuff, TheExistentialist, JDAWG9693, Oheythere, Allirix, Entropyrose, Liam, rusianjudes and 25 visitors disagree.
Because when it helps someone to pray and they truly believe it helps them it is good. And anyone should be allowed to have something they believe in.
But that wasn't the point I was trying to make with my sentence. I just didn't want to be disrespectful to anyone who believes in God and I know many very nice people who are religious and I know praying makes them feel better and why should I strike that down?
I live in the USA.
Did you believe that for even a split second? If so you believed a lie.
I don't necessarily disagree, but why would you say believing in a god is "narrow visioned"?
In my opinion believing in a god is just a way to fill in gaps we can't answer just yet. It may be a little naive to think a book written thousands of years ago can answer our questions truthfully, but it's not necessarily a narrower world view to accept an answers to a question we cannot prove.
@Liam, Why should someone believe a lie?
No God did not create the universe for God is something made up by humans thousands of years ago.
Believing in God is perfectly normal and I encourage you to continue doing so if it helps you. But speaking realistically assuming something like a God exist is quite narrow visioned.
I disagree. God of the Gaps implies that all unknown things are to be attributed to God. I just accept that some things are unknown for the time being. The literal question/statement is "God made the universe", and I'm just stating that the concept is too vague to argue, so I do agree that it is a pointless debate until it is decided what is being argued. It would be like if I came to you and said "It is real; agree or disagree?"
You mention intentionality and personal relationship; some argue that a God could have made the universe and we are just a byproduct. "He made us". Who? Your dad? The Hebrew God? The guy who coded the simulation we live in? There can be no argument without a concrete target of debate.
I'd assume that the intent here is to confer the idea of a personal God that has intentionality. If we're just talking some undefined concept of God that is not personal and lacks intentionality, then it is a pointless debate since you can use the "god of the gaps" argument ad infinitum.
To answer that question, we must define the concept of "God". What is "God"? Is it The Hebrew God? Is it Gaia? Is it The Sun? Is it Math? Is it The Universe itself become conscious? "God" is an idea, and has no physical form that we know of yet. 100 people can all say the name and be speaking about a different idea.
You're essentially making a "God of the gaps" argument. While science can't yet say what happened "before" T=0, that doesn't mean they won't. Essentially your whole argument is "science can't say for certain what happened at T=0 yet and therefore God".
Is that really you're entire argument for God? That seems like very weak case since the second science can tell you what happened before T=0 you'd have to abandon God as the creator of the universe.
We don't know, but that doesn't mean it's God
The God of the Bible is not effected by time, space, or matter. If God was affected by a physical universe, then he would not be God.
Then what shaped the universe into being?
"Then what was it? The universe is too uniform to have come about by chance."
That's not true; inflation whether from a singularity or not provides a natural correlation between the heat uniformity of the universe and a super hot big bang origin.
This is also another argument from personal ignorance. There is absolutely no reason why the universe's "uniformity" couldn't occur through natural processes. You just don't want to believe that it could and so you claim that it can't.
In 1676, Danish astronomer Ole Roemer became the first person to prove that light travels at a finite speed. He studied Jupiter’s moons and noted that their eclipses took place sooner than predicted when Earth was nearer to Jupiter and happened later when Earth was farther away from Jupiter.
This not only proves that the speed of light is finite, but it proves that the one way speed of light is finite.
There is actually quite a bit of debate happening in physics at the moment. There have been a lot of papers that came out recently that hint at a positively curved universe. If that is the case we actually have a finite universe which originated from a non-singularity. . However, because we don't have a good theory of gravity yet we can't say for certain. The next gen CERN LHC and the next round of LIGO and Virgo datasets will hopefully get us a little closer.
Essentially we know the claim against a naturally occurring universe in contingent on finding "God" in the theory of gravity.
I'd like to continue my question about the starlight problem in the theory of divine creation. Since you are a young universe proponent; you have claimed that the starlight problems can be solved thusly:
1. It is based on the fallacious assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism by assuming that light got here by natural means, traveling at a constant rate, over a constant distance and being constant as well. While God could have used a natural mechanism, He could also do it supernaturally.
2. Just because we cannot provide a natural mechanism that does not mean the Bible cannot be trusted. Since most of creation was done supernaturally it is irrational to demand a natural explanation for them. It is arbitrary circular reasoning to say supernatural explanation is wrong because it cannot be explained naturally.
however: there are some "supernatural" problems you run into as well. Since light contains information, your God must be a deceiver if he created light "in transit". SN 2016iet is about 1 billion light years away. We observed the supernova in 2017 that lasted 600 days. So when did God provide us with the false information that the star was intact vs when it blew up? Conventional science tells us that the event actually happened about 1 billion years ago and we're just seeing it now. However, in your theory, somewhere along the line we were tricked into believing what we observe isn't what is actually happening.
Also, why do we have redshift in light (redshift only occurs if light takes time to reach the observer). At what point in time did God stop deceiving us?
The universe is uniform? Huh? The very fact it is not uniform is why galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc even exist as they do. It's all observable in the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Your repeated argument appears to be that because we don't know the answer to a question, then god must have done it. I could make the same argument that the Jedi did it, or the flying spaghetti monster. There is no evidence god even exists, let alone that he created the universe.
And even if a god did exist, the odds that it is the god you believe in are infinitesimal in my opinion.
as you said previously, god can magically break laws while natural explanations rely on uniformitalism. thus the universe being extremely uniform suggests a natural explanation rather then a divine one.
Then what was it? The universe is too uniform to have come about by chance.
what was before the big bang was not necessarily God
Exactly, God did not have a beginning, but the universe had to have a beginning.
We don't know what was before the big bang. What was before may not have a beginning
The universe cannot be eternal. The Theory of General Relativity and The Second Law of Thermodynamics prove that the universe had a beginning.
Who created God?
If God is eternal, the universe could be too, so a god would not be necessary
If they are only hypothesis why are they taught as theories. Next, there are two contradicting theories. Some agree with the Big Bang while others argue for an eternal universe.
varying speculation is not contradictory answers, becuase they are only potential answers neither proven nor accepted. they are a work in progress.
some world views are based on evidence.
others are based on hear say.
yes, no one knows before the big bang.
what contradicting theories? do you mean contradicting hypothesis?
However, you have admitted you don't know how it happened. Also there are so many different theories all contradicting each other. How, do you know which one is right? Also, science cannot tell us how the universe came about since it could and cannot be observed. All theories (whether creationist or evolutionist) about the beginning of the universe are based on assumptions and worldviews.
i will not confirm or deny whether the universe was made by god. but i will argue that it was formed as described by science, regardless of its ultimate cause.
This is a continuation of a discussion I was having about quantum physics and the origins of the Universe