One reason why I believe there's a creator...

[Heyo]

(the following is my opinion alone, and not an attempt to sway anyone)

A basic law of physics is the law of cause and effect...

Which pretty much means that every event that takes place, big or small, has to have been triggered by some previous event... right down to radioactive decay of atomic nuclei..

Even with the uncertainty principal in place.

How far can you go back in the chain?

I believe in the big bang, or that the universe was once at least extremely small, dense and hot....

There would have to be some triggering event... I am not a big fan of the idea that the laws of phsyics can spontaneously broken by nature alone...

Nothing just HAPPENS randomly or spontaneously without being triggered by *some* previous influence.. what the nature of that influence was, I won't claim to comprehend.

I think that most of the study of cosmology are accurate, dark energy and inflation, etc.. and it's pretty much my favorite topic of study.

Everything after the big bang or the begining of the universe as we know it... can happen based on the laws of physics..

But there had to be some initial event that set the whole thing off...and that had to occur spontaneously with a true and complete *nothingness* before it...which is impossible based on physics... even if you believe the big bang arose from a previous gravitational collapse.. something had to set off the whole chain of events at some point in the very distant past...

I'm a huge fan of authors and scholors like Kip Thorne, Max Plank, Brian Green, etc.. and of course Hawking...and Hawking said it pretty good I thought.. "Why would the universe go through all the bother of existing"

This doesn't mean I believe in all the stories in the Bible per-say, although I am not against following some of the teachings...

But I believe in a divine hand and/or some form of intelligent design..

Just my 2 hundredths of a dollar.

Heyo O8)

[seventhson]

1. I agree. See Dr. Ernest Sternglass's "Before the Big Bang"

http://www.hypography.com/Article.cfm?id=28091

read more Sternglass at radiation.org


Sternglass basically proves the existence of God by the rules of physics and probability.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. so your concept of God is

a "relativistic electron-positron pair"? How depressing.

[kiahzero]

2. Logical fallacy -

If everything has to have cause, then what is the cause of the First Cause?

[billyskank]

9. That's the whole problem

to which the original poster was alluding, I think.

Either you accept that there is no first cause or there is. If you do accept, then you might as well call that first cause God, because it can't be explained by any kind of science we have now. If you do not accept, then the chain of cause and effect goes on forever. An infinite chain is a beginningless thing, which, therefore, is a first cause in itself.

One thing I figured out while studying physics at university was that it is impossible to approach the Ultimate Truth, whatever that is, using logic. With logic, one can always ask a further: "why?" to any answer that anyone may give. Following logic takes you on an infinite journey.

[kalian]

3. Hmm...

ok then...
What created the creator...? :shrug:

[seventhson]

14. The CREATOR just IS! Always!

"I am the I am"

said "God" to Moses.

Or

"I am THAT I am"

Conciousness requires differntiation.

The ancient teachings of the Vedanata etc. address this by saying that all we see here is Maia - a dream in the "mind" of God which we are a part of.



In order for us to be able to "see" we have to have the illusion of seperatness from God.

But the reality is that we are NOT seperate, but are actually a part of, God.

The idea that God created us out of Love, i.e. not to be the ONLY one, but to be at one with a multiplicity - including us and all of creation, works for me.

Peace/Salaam/Shalom

[LiberalFighter]

15. So the creator was created out of nothing

[billyskank]

18. Well, something has to be

created out of nothing, that is. That thing is the Ultimate Truth.

[kcwayne]

76. Go out into the wilderness

Edit < Oops, I posted this on the wrong response>


and observe a mother duck with her new hatch of ducklings
swimming merrily along a creek bed. Watch this idyllic scene as the ducks paddle along, periodically diving in search of sustenance. When they are fortunate they find a minnow and snarf this living, sentient being into their bills. Sometimes it dies a slow horrifying death in their gullets, as it is digested alive.

Then observe a magnificent hawk flying among the treetops suddenly swoop into a steep dive. As it hurtles toward the waters surface at 60 mph, it suddenly breaks, with its claws propelling forward and it deftly clasps this baby duckling and then accelerates skyward again. The mother duck panics and starts moving erratically sensing danger for her entire brood and tries to marshal them to safety. Meanwhile the hawk lands on a large branch of a tree, and pinning the baby duckling down with its claws, it uses its sharp beak to rip open the ducklings back, and starts devouring its newfound flesh. The duckling struggles in resigned panic, and succumbs on the third strike of the hawks beak into its belly. The last few seconds of the ducklings life are pure terror and gore on the one hand, and the pure satisfaction of a lunch well won by the hawk.

This is nature. Is this arbitrary and random brutality upon which the ecosystem is built on the outcome of intelligent design? It is a hideously sadistic and murderous design. Hardly seems worthy of a being capable of creating something as large as a universe, does it?

[Trajan]

116. Perhaps there was never ..

Nothing ... ever ....

When we talk about the Big Bang, many wrongly presume this represents a 'creation' event, yet no evidence has ever been presented to suggest that 'nothing' existed prior to the Big Bang ...

[Trajan]

117. Popeye just 'is' ..

"I yam what I yam" ... Popeye ...


See ? ... a priori evidence that Popeye is the alpha and the omega ... Popeye is the almighty ineffable ...

[flaminbats]

64. the waiter did....

he takes the orders and the creator makes them :spank:

[waterman]

4. That's an awfully deep post for a Satuday afternoon. But a good one.

I hope you can re-post it sometime later in the week, when all the intellectuals are here. Today seems very dull and lifeless here at DU, especially compared to the last few days. I do like your post though. Very well thought out.

[Skittles]

5. it's just the idea that there is an all-knowing critter overseeing

all of the SH** on earth that I find utterly ridiculous.

[salinen]

6. My religion states

that there is no beginning. An infinite number of big bangs have taken place. Starts and ends are concepts that relieve our tiny brains of confusion.

[stopbush]

7. How does one explain/comprehend the infinite in finite terms?

There's the rub, eh?

Do we exist as part of some grand plan? Maybe. Maybe George Carlin is right - we were put on the Earth for the sole purpose of inventing plastic.

[Exultant Democracy]

8. The rules of cause and effect break down at a quantum level,

Quantum particles have a tendency to disappear into nothingness, and also appear out of no where. One of the holy grails of physics the "dynamic casimir effect" is the attempt to mine these shifts by collecting the spontaneous shifts that occur in a vacuum, in effect getting something from nothing.

[Heyo]

45. Good post..

however this is based on the uncertainty principal.. and the net amount of zero-point fluctuation energy averages out to zero in a given volume of space

Cool concept.

:toast:

Heyo

[Ysabel]

10. I'm sorry...

Am I at the religious discussion board...?

I thought I was at DU...

[Q]

11. Here's how it works:

1. DUers are accused of being 'intolerant' towards Christians.

2. After being put on the defensive...most DUers won't complain when their political discussion board is turned into a religious forum.

[Sophree]

44. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing religious philosophy.

After all, it relates to a fundamentally, universally human question- Where did we come from? How did we get here? What happens after?

Politics, Religion, Humanity, Life, Death- it ALL makes for interesting conversation and it's all related. And I'd rather have these conversations with the most intelligent people I know- you guys (DUers) than with anyone else.

[rustydog]

12. You could be right...

Too bad your divine being doesn't give a rats ass about what he/she created.

[Trajan]

13. What does Bertrand Russell say ?? ..

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument… The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."
-- Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian

[Jim__]

65. Score another one for Russell - n/t

[Toronto Ron]

16. I'm no physics expert, but:

I do not think there is such a thing as a "law of cause and effect" in physics, let alone a "basic" law. Physics consists of mathematical models that are consistent with observation and have had predictive accuracy. Any "law of cause and effect" along the lines you suggest, belongs not in the domain of physics, but rather in that of metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy. Finally, the laws of physics say nothing about what occurred at or prior to the Big Bang. They begin to take effect a fraction of a second after the Big Bang occurred.

On edit - A comment about "I believe in a divine hand and/or some form of intelligent design" : For thousands and thousands of years, humans have attributed divine agency to that which could not be explained. For example in earliest times, animals and even the rain where thought to be divine or the result of a human-like intelligence. "Miracles" are occurrences beyond our current explanatory power. Five-hundred years ago, one might have thought that only God can cause a person to be transported across Europe in a small number of hours.

[billyskank]

23. The concept of causality is central to physics;

that, from an initial set of conditions, the outcome can be predicted. Like you said: "Physics consists of mathematical models that are consistent with observation and have had predictive accuracy." In other words, the models are deterministic. This is classical mechanics.

An event that has no cause is said to be spontaneous. Spontenaeity exists in the quantum-mechanical world, but when you zoom out to macroscopic scales (e.g. ordinary human existence), spontenaeity disappears. Classical mechanics has no room for spontaneous events. There may be no explicit "law of cause and effect," as you put it, like there are Newton's 3 laws of motion, for example, but nevertheless the concept of causality is inseparable from modern physics.

Physics does very well to describe the behaviour of matter and energy. What it doesn't touch is consciousness.

[flaminbats]

71. I support the infinite dominos theory....

ordering an infinite amount pizza toppings will result in an infinite amount of sucky pizza deliveries. :9

[camero]

17. Good luck to you

I was flamed for positing the same question.

[Bandit]

19. Why do you think there is only one universe?

I believe there is a whole universe of universes. Infinity is a concept that is impossible to fatham so we call it God.

[OnceBlind]

20. I think

it takes "faith" to NOT believe in God, as much as it does TO believe in God.

[Bandit]

22. Okay I agree ~ Is one person's faith more "correct" than another's?

:shrug:

[billyskank]

27. Yes, but I don't believe it is possible to prove

that one person's faith is correct, or more correct, compared to another's. Since the Absolute Truth cannot be approached by argument and logic, which always take circular paths, the only possible method left is realisation through introspection, i.e. meditation. Nevertheless, whatever realisations one might thus attain can never be given to another through verbal means (otherwise that would always be how it is done) so, even if one has realised the Truth, one can never prove it to another who believes something different. Everyone has to realise it for themselves.

[OnceBlind]

30. Well, I imagine that somewhere, somehow....

SOMEBODY must be right. I mean, we really couldn't ALL be right, do you think? I don't believe it is a matter of whose is better than others. I just figure SOMEBODY has to be on the mark. Does that make sense?

[Bandit]

32. Right and wrong are conceptual

What is right for one person may not be right for another.

[billyskank]

34. I thought

we were talking about the truth; not what works for a person. That's different, surely?

[Toots]

119. I believe God can only be found within ~ so yes it is a personal

thing. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. Is God the truth? Ask any preacher and the answer is yes. Ask any non-religious person and the answer is show me. Truth is in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to religion. And yes everyone can be right about this subject.

[billyskank]

33. Perfect sense.

I don't buy the postmodern view: there is the Truth, whatever it is, and somebody may know it, but certainly everybody can't be right with conflicting views.

[Nobody]

49. Faith vs evidence

I've heard this line so many time about how atheists must have faith to believe there is no supreme being.

Let's compare the search for god to the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI).

So far, in my mind, there is no evidence for either. If anyone wants to prove to me god exists, I'm happy to listen. I may even change my mind.

A lot of spritual people are searching for god. A lot of people are doing this search. I know people who are trying out a lot of different religions and seeing what fits best. Sometimes nothing does.

SETI is a scientific endeavor looking for proof that we humans are not along in the universe. A lot of people have SETI@HOME running on their computers, sifting through radio signals.

Just because people are searching doesn't mean there's anything to find. To me there is no god. No evidence exists to prove to me that there is one. To me there are no aliens. Again no evidence. But the search continues.

Attributing everything not understood to the existence of god is no different from calling it magic. The scientific method is a means of finding ways to explain the world in ways that can be repeated. If Scientist A writes down the process, Scientist B should be able to do the same thing under the same conditions and get the same results. This is proof.

A quote whose source I can't recall fits here: Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

[Jose Diablo]

21. Its a dead end

google "Kalam evidence for existence of God"

[BillZBubb]

24. Believe what you want, but your argument has no merit.

You mention several points: original cause, cause and effect, randomness, why the universe exists.

It now appears that many quantum phenomenon are completely random. No cause. Almost every quantum phenomenon is probabilistic. We cannot know exactly what is going to happen, only that whatever happens will follow a certain probability density function. For each individual particle, the event is random.

Since we see things on a large scale, not the quantum level, those occurences are not familiar to us. The random effects get washed out in the change of scale. Cause and effect is only valid at the macro level.

Someone previously pointed out Bertrand Russell's counter argument to your original cause point. It's a solid refutation of original cause.

The logic of creation has several possibilities:

1. Somehow God came into existence; God created the universe.
2. God always existed; God created the universe.
3. No God; the universe somehow came into existence.
4. No God; the universe always existed.

Interestingly, we can apply Occam's razor here: consider cases 1 and 3. Occam's razor stipulates that you take the path with the highest probability--that is, the fewest uncertain steps. Case 1 implies something had to create God who then had to somehow create the universe. Case 3 says somehow the universe got created. By Occam's razor, case 3 is the correct choice of the two. It eliminates one huge creation requirement.

Similarly, cases 2 and 4 lead to case 4 being optimal. Therefore, logically, the existence of God is something of an embellishment.

Of course, Occam's razor may not be correct here. So, it is really just a probability argument.

Some of these issues might be better understood in time, particularly if something like string theory proves workable. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but don't think there is a simple physical basis for your belief. That's why it's called faith.

[billyskank]

29. Before invoking Occam's razor

we should be able to show why the idea that the universe came into being spontaneously without outside help is the simplest explanation. As far as I can tell, that would require knowledge of how such a thing could occur.

[BillZBubb]

36. Not really

It's a pretty big leap to say God came spontaneously into being--as in case 1. That's just as difficult as saying the universe came spontaneously into being--case 3. So, it presents no problem for using the "razor".

Further, there are theories about the spontaneous creation of the universe. We, know for instance that at the quantum level, particle-anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously all the time. Theorists have speculated that such an occurence, but at a huge energy level, could account for the universe. Other theories like Super Strings have mechanisms where universes come and go over time. But, of course, they are all theories and have no experimental basis. IE, nothing disproves God's existence.

[billyskank]

39. I still think

we should understand the mechanics of a process before declaring that one explanation is simpler than another. Neither you (I assume) nor I know either how a universe may be created spontaneously, or how a god may be created spontaneously (who subsequently creates the universe in which people pose these questions).

I myself am most comfortable with some sort of steady-state explanation: either the universe always existed, or God did (the Absolute Truth, give it any name we like). There are indications that the universe has not always existed (cosmic objects receding from one another, and residual ambient microwave background radiation), that it might have a beginning. But, for me, there is another, more compelling reason why I favour the "god always existed, creates universe" hypothesis.

Existence as we know it is divided between past and future, with the only truly existent bit a period of time of zero length; i.e., the present. In this paradigm, I find the idea of a thing infinite in duration - it exists forever into the past, and forever into the future - nonsensical. The idea doesn't fit into my mind, any more than a square peg goes into a round hole. I can't prove it isn't so to you, it's just that it doesn't pass my own smell test.

I am of the opinion that time as we know it is also an attribute of the phenomenal universe; when the universe comes to an end (as I believe it must, because as I explained I cannot accept the concept of a phenomenal entity of infinite duration) time itself will also cease to exist.

This means I must believe in a second type of existence, that of eternity. In such an existence, there is only the present: the past and future all exist together, simultaneously. Time does not march inexorably onward as we experience it. From this place must come the manifestation of the phenomenal universe we know. And not just this universe, why should it be the only one? Many universes.

I do not assert this as fact. It's just how my intestines feel things ought to be. And my guts usually know better than my mind does.

On edit: corrected spelling. And also, thanks all for a stimulating discussion.

[Sophree]

53. Exactly- it's incomprehensible.

"Existence as we know it is divided between past and future, with the only truly existent bit a period of time of zero length; i.e., the present. In this paradigm, I find the idea of a thing infinite in duration - it exists forever into the past, and forever into the future - nonsensical. The idea doesn't fit into my mind, any more than a square peg goes into a round hole. I can't prove it isn't so to you, it's just that it doesn't pass my own smell test."

I don't know, and I don't claim to understand eternity, infinity. A Being of Infinite Intelligence- think about that, it's REALLY hard to wrap your brain around.

One of the little "coincidences" I find funny is the Adam/Atom homonym. These types of reoccurring pattterns/ideas appear all around us, everyday, and the more I think of existence in terms of circles, patterns, rather than linear time, the more sense it makes to me.

[billyskank]

55. It sure is

incomprehensible, that is.

[BillZBubb]

54. Hmmm...

Infinity is virtually impossible to grasp for everyone. But, to me that hardly justifies the leap to believe God always existed. No offense, but that sounds sort of like the old argument that because someone can't imagine or comprehend something, they have to attribute it to God.

Using time as a metric is not a convincing approach. Time is a funny thing, it is not a constant, it depends on the reference frame. Eons of time in one reference can be a short time in another. If the big bang is true, the universe was an almost infinitely dense singularity at the beginning of time. Prior to the bang, time had no meaning. It was frozen--your eternity if you will. It's sort of like asking where was I before I was born (or conceived if you wish). "I" wasn't anywhere.

The most recent data seems to indicate that the universe will continue to expand forever. If so, that's an infinite expansion. Time was meaningless prior to the big bang, then began at the big bang, and now goes on forever.

There are a number of theories that postulate a large or even infinite number of universes. Some, like those based on string theory, are quite plausible. They require the premise that there are 9 or more dimensions--which is REALLY hard to imagine.

[billyskank]

58. Well, if you want to put it that way

I can't imagine or comprehend something, so I have to attribute it to God. I am not complaining, even though there is definitely a whiff of a sneer about it. But that's OK. I used to feel superior when I was doing my physics studies, to those who resorted to invoking a supreme being in order to make sense of the world. It came to me in the end that the scientific method I held so dear was actually constitutionally incapable of answering the really important questions ("what am I?" "how did I come to be in this position?" "what should I do?").

[thebigidea]

25. ...

"Consider the One God Universe: The spirit recoils in horror from such a deadly impasse. He is all-powerful and all-knowing. Because He can do everything, He can do nothing, since the act of doing demands opposition. He knows everything so there is nothing for him to learn. He can't go anywhere since He is already fucking everywhere, like cowshit in Calcutta."

- William Burroughs, "The Western Lands"

[slinkerwink]

28. there might be an intelligent design but he or she doesn't care

about us.

[OnceBlind]

31. It seems like

if somebody created us, they would care.

[slinkerwink]

35. no, I think whoever it was designed the universe, but I don't think

it meant to have us. We were an accident of evolution.

[OnceBlind]

37. Hypothetically speaking here,

if we were an accidental formation in this creation, and this being had the power to create this universe, it seems like it could easily remove us. Just seems logical.

[Heyo]

48. I doubt that....

I don't think, by the mere definition, any "God" could make mistakes..

Also I think we are the jewel of evolution, not a mistake.. we are it's highest order.. (that we know of so far)...

Because of the level of our conciousness....

We are the only creatures known that can even ponder these qustions...

Heyo

[meow mix]

84. =) ding!

exactly!
the world/universe views AND questions itself. through us!
(or other intelligent-conscience species)

"What is the nature of the world, such that it can give rise to the question: "What is the nature of the world?" How is it that the world can see itself?"

[OnceBlind]

103. I am having alot of trouble making sense

of what you are trying to say. I have never heard anything put quite that way. Can you explain it in more detail?

[jus_the_facts]

38. THE eternal paradox....

.....SUCH IS LIFE! *SIGH* x(

[Sophree]

40. This is the question that eventually affirmed my faith in God.

What was there before the big bang? For me, the answer is a Being Beyond All Space and Time, in a Word- God.

Since God is outside of space and time, it is impossible for us to logically define or understand Creation within the limited constructs of space and time, beginning and end, Alpha and Omega.

Albert Einstein said that the more he studied the Universe, the more he believed in a Higher Power. For what it's worth.

[DrWeird]

41. Logical fallacy.

Who created God?

[billyskank]

42. But not accepting a God does not remove the fallacy

there necessarily must be something that simply Is, and was never created.

[warrior1]

43. hmmm

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain

[billyskank]

46. He's said more intelligent things than that. n/t

[Heyo]

47. The very term God

in itself implies a concept that does not need to be created, as it is absolute and eternal...

The fact that it was not created is part of what defines the concept as "God"

Heyo

[Malva Zebrina]

50. could be a frog for all we know

right? Could be a mist or a cloud or a weird animalistic figure with no eyes, ears or even brain. But, once you describe it, then your whole argument is shot. How can you describe it? YOu already have--it is something that transcends time. OOps--if you can describe it's attributes and thereby describe it, then you must be applying some human corporal attributes--ie that a mortal can, in the end, describe "it".

[billyskank]

51. That's why some people call it transcendental

because it transcends our material existence. Words are also part of this material existence, so they cannot touch it. Therefore, it cannot be adequately described in words. Does that mean it isn't so?

[Malva Zebrina]

60. My point is that if it is described by a human being then it is not

a mystery or even a god, but a god of the human imagination-you have just described the god again-

The human being has decided it can actually describe this god. Listen to that and what it says. It says the god is subject to human description. The god is here described as
"existing" (another description) outside of time. We know that nothing exists virtually without a causal beginning. It is only faith in this imaginative being, or blob or whatever, that indeed qualifies it to be a god and a god with attributes given to it by human beings who have faith.

We must depend upon language--nothing has any meaning or any ability to communicate effectively without language. If there is a different way that is practical in this world then let me know.

God or the concept described by human beings over time, that changes according to the changes in human society,as we see in this thread that has invented a god that would fit the recent discoveries in science, becomes a god that would serve humanity and it's changes--and the god is invented by men.

In this case, it is a god that was just was--there was no time so there was no need to be a cause. All of the logical arguments must be defeated, but the problem is as we progress along in science a new god has to be invented to comply with the rational discoveries of science.

Now is is a god that transcends time as we know it. I have a suspicion though that that god is the Christian god--even though no one knows anything but that it transcends time. It is the god of Abraham perhaps?

[billyskank]

63. That's why I have often referred to it as The Truth

because the term God always starts people thinking in the way you have just described.

Nevertheless, something is The Truth, whatever it is. It is the answer to the questions: what are we, why are we here, why is this universe here, how did it come to be here, etc. I want to say The Truth is out there, but it's such a cliche that I'm loath to say it. Nevertheless, my point is that, whether we are capable of understanding it or not, there is still an objective truth (no matter what postmodernists say) and some people are simply driven to seek after it. This Truth, being objective and true, does not change to fit human understanding as they evolve - any truth that has to be changed thus is obviously neither ultimate nor objective.

As for "we know nothing exists virtually without a causal beginning," I do take issue with that. Something must exist without a beginning, for the reason I stated earlier in the thread. If there is no first cause, then the chain is a beginningless thing: a thing with no beginning is itself causeless, so something indeed does exist that has no cause.

So, if you like, when I say God, what I am referring to is that thing that has no cause.

[Malva Zebrina]

72. and that it has no cause, in your "truth" although that concept is not

proven, makes it a god?

I don't understand . Why must something exist without a cause unless one grasps onto that as a reason for one's faith in a god? And, further I cannot accept if something could be proven to exist without a cause that it is a god at all.

I submit that the advances of science have given sway to the change in the concept of a god as the creator of the universe. It is fitting the god concept, the conclusion to the premise, to the advances of science.

It is still an invention of the human being--this god. And, it is still, I suspect, the god of Christianity that most talk about-for I think that few who would embrace this prospect would be willing to admit that it could be a god of the wheat, or a god of the corn, or the god of nothing at all-it could be a "god" of anything one wants it to be and therefore any old concept of any person is acceptable and has to be acceptable to all who embrace that theory of a god that exists that created the universe.

It could even be a pagan god from long ago. It could be nothing but a blob of carbon matter but certainly it could also be something not even imagined by any relgion at all. Therefore, all the religions are off base. And any believeing in this concept surely in order to be consistent, must be disdainful of every modern religion around today.

[reprobate]

75. And, more to the point, WHY?

[mike1963]

52. It's turtles all the way down...

:eyes:

[Az]

67. Can't fool me

Great story. ;)

[Az]

56. Flaws with this logic

First off I do not discourage you from believing what you do. I am only offering another view and suggesting some possible logical flaws.

The first flaw comes from a standard fallacy. Begging the question is a flaw wherein you create an argument that does not really answer the question. By suggesting going with a simple reading of cause and effectg and insisting that all things must have a cause and therefor the universe had to be caused by god you beg the question what caused god?

As has been pointed out Occam's Razor would suggest we elminate an unnnecissary step. Creating an unexplainable god to explain an unexplained universe is an unnecissary step. Occam's Razor is certainly only a general guide but it does indicate that this extra step does not really answer any question.

The arugment also runs afoul of another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is an argument based on the notion that since you cannot fathom the solution it must be thus. Simply because you do not know where the universe came from does not indicate that god is the solution.

As to proposing god as the solution to the creation ex nihlio problem this is usually suggested based on the observation that a comlpex universe cannot arise from nothing. Yet one could argue that an infinitely powerful god capable of creating such a complex universe would certainly be more complex than the universe itself. Thus again you have worked yourself back into a fix of having an even more complex thing arising from nothing.

There are a number of theories concerning the nature of the universe that would seem to explain some of our observations in conjunction with the notion of where did it all come from. I would suggest you look into some various String theories (of particular interest is M-Theory). There is some reason to suspect that the universe is actually the current state of a multiplicity of universes each giving rise to each other. Quantum fluxes in each giving rise to another universe. Representing and nearly infinitely small point in the originating multiverse each extrusion contains a null balanced set of energy protruded out into its own existance. The originating multiverse need only be an endless void with instabilities within its weave. This nothing giving rise to an virtual infinite number of subuniverses.

Just some ideas. Please take them as you will. Keep in mind that in science we sometimes just have to say "I don't know".

[Heyo]

57. Cool...

Busy cleaning house.. but skimmed your post...

Want to re-read it when I get a moment to sit down... well written...

So far my pre-reply is: So maybe the universe IS God? :toast:

Will reply in depth later...

regards...

Heyo

[Mari333]

59. as if human beings will ever know why the Universe exists

heh, they wont ever know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. There is a theory which states

that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Douglas Adams

[Az]

96. The English seriously mistake the portent behind cricket

Ok, that may be a bit of a deep ref. But I can hope someone gets it.

[Sophree]

100. And-

"Let there be light."

;-)

[Sophree]

97. I LOVE Douglas Adams!!!

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

So Long and Thanks For All the Fish.

Highly recommended novels for all who are enjoying this discussion. His humor and writing style are twisted and insane and yet so clear, if that makes any sense. You will literally laugh your ass off- sidesplitting laughter. (I'm thinking of the biscuit story in So Long and Thanks For All the Fish- lol.) :D

[Cronus Protagonist]

61. "Prime Mover" argument - Aristotle would be miffed

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ARISTOT.HTM

"In the Physics Aristotle proves that movement is eternal and that there is an eternal Prime Mover. He argues that since movement is eternal there can be no first or last change. If there were a first change there would have to have existed something capable of causing change, and to explain why something caused a change at a certain time and not before we must assume some actual change just prior to that time, or a change before the supposed first change. Change therefore must be eternal. Eternal change is explained by the assumption of the existence of a being which is unmoved (for if it were self-moved it would cause change and also undergo it) which can cause eternal movement. This immaterial Prime Mover causes all movement and maintains the eternal life of the universe. In the Metaphysics he calls this Prime Mover "God," whose only activity is pure thought. It must think of itself only, since it is the most excellent of all things, and "its thinking is a thinking about thinking." God causes the movement of the heavens out of love. "

The next thing for you to discover is that "to think is to be" and then it will be Descarte's turn to roll over in his grave... :)

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Ksec]

62. Go out in a feild on a clear night

lay a blanket down and just look up and get lost in the size and scope of what your looking into. Just lay there and take it all in for an hour. Once you do that youll realize that there is a God.

[Az]

66. That diminishes the wonder for me

I love gazing into the cosmos. It was the start of my philosophical journey. However to my view the idea that someone placed the stars in the sky seems to diminish the wonder for me. Marvelling at the complex dance of the universe to me gives me a sense of awe at the potential within this universe. That it can gaze back at itself is a true wonder to me.

There are those that believe that in unweaving the nature of the world around us we diminish its beauty. I suggest instead this enables us to find and create even more beauty. When Newton discvered the composition of Rainbows critics claimed he had destroyed it by unweaving it. But rainbows are still beautiful and we have learned so much more and discovered new wonders from his discovery.

I do not begrudge you your view. I just have my own. We look onto the same stars and marvel for different reasons. That we can share them is wonderous enough for me.

[billyskank]

68. For me the most wondrous thing

is that spark of consciousness that is you marvelling at it all.

[Sophree]

85. That's not exactly how I'd look at it.

"However to my view the idea that someone placed the stars in the sky seems to diminish the wonder for me. Marvelling at the complex dance of the universe to me gives me a sense of awe at the potential within this universe."

Someone just placing the stars in the sky. It's so much bigger and more profound than that.

I'd wager that your sense of awe and wonderment is not very different from mine. :-)

edit grammar

[Jose Diablo]

69. Also mosquitoes

:)

[seabeyond]

73. what i do know

is i dont know, and i know no one else knows.

when we go to the past or when we go to the future always that is in illusion. a story told. the movement that is being talked. in the now is stillness, it is a being. no battle struggle, a nakedness true freedom. it is not trying to become it is not looking for.

fear is a creation, it is a physical bodily reaction to something that is created. looking ahead to a what if, or a past of this has happened, yet in the now it doesnt exsist.

the medical field has created so much fear of what could happen. the bush so much fear of what could happen, all of us in talking bush and religion, of what could happen, yet in the stillness, there is no fear.

when in an experience without agenda, without story, without fear......not attached to the outcome, i suggst a clearity comes in how to be in the purer, with no attachment to this is bad, or good, no need to dress it up

ex: what i give to the right, i dont need to create bush in something he is not to love him. i can love the liar he is, i may chose to not hire him to do a jo, yet i can love the liar. as long as the right has to create an illusion to honor they will not be in harmony, yes all with universe, source, now god however one choses to feel

the moment we bring in agenda we have attachment to outcome, and this, create battle and struggle and that alone gets the pendulum, polarity, illusion, story being told. the drama of life. and we are no longer being, we are now in ego in illusion

an excellent book is power of now

[Malva Zebrina]

78. a sense of awe and beauty does not necessaril for me mean

it is connected to a god.

I have no reason to think that things I do not understand or sense great beauty in are connected to a god. I do not dispute your interpretation nor would I try to prevent you from that belief , but for me, I do not see a god when I look at the beauty of the night . I see things that have yet to be explained or explored and that someday will be explained or explored. Nevertheless, I do think it fascinating and beautiful seen from this perspective on earth.

[seabeyond]

81. this is merely my take on it

and subject to change, cause i dont know and i dont advocate to god, necessarily, lol. my feel that is could be a passion for the bible or god or jesus, it can be a christ conscious, it can be in children cause so simply go to truth cause they have the least amount of garbage to wade thru, it can be animals, it can be sound that goes within body, awakening a language with self, it can be in nature and earth, it can be the embracing of male and female, the good and the bad.....i see so many ways, tools in life to experience. i know it isnt me telling you your experience or another creating me

i dont have to be right i dont have to be wrong. i get to just be and in that their is not a battle......

the sun i use a lot to turn to and feel the warmth and the enrgy from. the sun to me has its own language that can bring me to peace. whatever we use to cometo peace, in peace is the answers truth site clearity. and i have yet to find where it is to restrict or limit contain another. anytime you feel a containment restriction is a clue ego, illusion battle is created

[kcwayne]

79. Go out into the wilderness

and observe a mother duck with her new hatch of ducklings
swimming merrily along a creek bed. Watch this idyllic scene as the ducks paddle along, periodically diving in search of sustenance. When they are fortunate they find a minnow and snarf this living, sentient being into their bills. Sometimes it dies a slow horrifying death in their gullets, as it is digested alive.

Then observe a magnificent hawk flying among the treetops suddenly swoop into a steep dive. As it hurtles toward the waters surface at 60 mph, it suddenly breaks, with its claws propelling forward and it deftly clasps this baby duckling and then accelerates skyward again. The mother duck panics and starts moving erratically sensing danger for her entire brood and tries to marshal them to safety. Meanwhile the hawk lands on a large branch of a tree, and pinning the baby duckling down with its claws, it uses its sharp beak to rip open the ducklings back, and starts devouring its newfound flesh. The duckling struggles in resigned panic, and succumbs on the third strike of the hawks beak into its belly. The last few seconds of the ducklings life are pure terror and gore on the one hand, and the pure satisfaction of a lunch well won by the hawk.

This is nature. Is this arbitrary and random brutality upon which the ecosystem is built on the outcome of intelligent design? It is a hideously sadistic and murderous design. Hardly seems worthy of a being capable of creating something as large as a universe, does it?

[Jose Diablo]

82. The concept of brutality is a human concept

Nature is neither cruel nor humane, it just "is". And what about the hawk. Shouldn't it also live?

From what I see, by and large most of nature fits together, a form of harmony. Each specie dancing with another. Some are prey, some are predators, but each fits with each other in a relationship. And most importantly, humans are also in this dance or at least we were up until a few centuries ago.

[kcwayne]

86. Nature may fit together in harmony

but it is a harmony dependent on horrific pain and suffering by some species all along the food chain. Most creatures struggle against their deaths. They are born with the awareness to make a distinction that life is preferable to death, and choose life.

Would you sing in tune if you happened to come across a wild grizzly bear in the woods, while he is ripping open your belly for a snack?

My point is that if design is intelligent, it could easily have created an ecosystem where life forms all obtained nourishment from inanimate objects, as opposed to one where the animate objects are required to prey on one another.

[Jose Diablo]

92. An interesting concept

"an ecosystem where life forms all obtained nourishment from inanimate objects, as opposed to one where the animate objects are required to prey on one another."

Do you think its possible to build a ecosystem like you describe?

All the energy comes from the sun. Plants convert the energy of the sun to a form animals can consume. Then animals consume each other. The amount of energy available in inanimate objects is kinda low.

There is life at the bottom of the oceans that consumes sulfur compounds from hot water vents. There is life in hot springs at volcano areas that consume sulfur. But again, how much life could there be in the world environment we have today?

It is hard for me to imagine a balanced, self-regulating ecosystem we have today that could be any other way than it is now, or would be if we would stop killing it. But that me, maybe someone else could design a system where death was not part of life.

Life without birth and death would be a very 'rigid' system. There would be no room for changes in the environment. Thus life cannot exist without death.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Wouldn't a system of plants and fungi be like that?

Plants take in energy from the sun and inanimate nutrients; after they have died, the fungi extract energy from the plant material (and also other dead fungi), leaving inanimate nutrients again.

Yes there's death, but not from onr form preying on another.

[Jose Diablo]

95. But then again

The plants also depends on the animals comsuming the oxygen the plants give-off from the photosynthesis energy conversion. What would the animals eat?

[kcwayne]

107. But plants are not dependant on animals consuming oxygen.

There were plants on this planet for billions of years before life emerged. The converse is not true, because plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and without their contribution the air would become poisonous to mammals.

[kcwayne]

99. I am not a biologist

but why couldn't a lifesystem evolve that only needed oxygen and heat to sustain itself? I don't have a problem with such as system having birth and death, and think it would be a necessity based on the way matter behaves in this universe.

And back to my orignal point, if the universe and the life on this planet is the creation of some intelligent being, then the laws and behavior of the universe could have been set up to make this a reality.

[Jose Diablo]

101. Thus the creator is cruel and brutal?

If he exist that is. Is that the point?

[kcwayne]

105. No, thus a creator is not a likely source of the origin

of the universe. That is assuming of course that a being powerful enough to create something that is apparently infinite in time and space is intelligent enough to devise a system not predicated on deliberate and necessary destruction, much of which is senselessly cruel and brutal.

[Jose Diablo]

109. It doesn't follow

You are stating that because we interpret the world as a cruel and brutal, a creator wouldn't create a cruel and brutal world, therefore the world doesn't have a creator.

Again my response above, nature isn't cruel and brutal, it just "is".

The existence of the world as we see it, neither confirms nor denies a creator. Nor would it confirm any attributes about a creator, unless you say the creator was extremely wise in setting up the various cycles and relationships.

And if the world was created, it would not be our place to be able to judge this creator, unless we could do it 'better' according to our judgment as to what is cruel and brutal. Last time I checked we could not even determine how best feed ourselves, forget about the ducks.

Frankly, I wouldn't be worried about a ducks ability to survive a hawk, rather I would be concerned about a ducks ability to survive humans.

But the natural world is very beautiful, for whatever that is worth.

[kcwayne]

110. Well then you won't object to being brutally raped, beaten, and consumed

by a sadistic and pschopathic cannibal (like the one just convicted in Germany), because that is their nature. And nature just "is".

I presume that you would object to assertion unless you are a deeply disturbed masochist. As such you have asserted a judgement againt the supposed creator of this world, which you claim you have no right to make.

Or maybe you will object that the cannibal's act against you is not natural, but is some perversion of nature, that in nature the brutal killing is only enacted for the act of self preservation. But canines, felines, and pyrannahs are just some species that do sport killing. Ever had a cat that killed a mouse and then played with the dead mouse for awhile before triumphantly delivering the mouse to your bed as a present?

I have a mind. I am able to reason. I am able to use deductive logic. That empowers me to make judgements. It is my place to do so irregardless of whether I can do it better than some mythical being that is not held to any standards of physics, logic, or morality. This is my nature.

[Cronus Protagonist]

83. I've done that and not come to your conclusion

How can you explain that?

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[neomonkey]

70. Good question, and your child will ask one day...

<Daddy,mommy> who made god?

You are reading into the law of cause and effect that it can explain origins when all it really explains are effects; effects which have lived since the beginning of "us". I believe the origins of all we are transcend all laws and knowledge we currently possess. And unfortunately, in the face of human impatience, we paint a picture of god.

[Mattforclark]

74. Cause & effect

"A basic law of physics is the law of cause and effect..."

A basic assumption of theoretical physical models describing the universe is cause and effect.

This assumption is, first of all, an assumption. It has achieved what I would think are great results, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is an accurate description of the universe. Newtonian physics achieved great results, but has since been overturned by more succesful theories. It is possible, though not necessarily likely, that someone may be able to come up with even more succesful theories without the assumption of cause and effect, or with some other assumption. Who knows?

Second of all, cause and effect, insofar as it is testable, exists only within the universe. One could suppose that it exists also outside the universe, or that it extends outside the universe, but there is no particular reason to do so, because all our experience of it is within the universe.

As an analogy, imagine that you are in a room with no windows, and solid walls on all sides. No sounds, light, or anything else detectable comes from outside it. You have been in this room for as long as you remember. It could be the case that there is something outside of it. It could also not be the case that there is something outside of it. You have no way of knowing, unless you extend concepts that work within the room to outside of the room. What justification is there to extend a concept that helps you understand the inside of the room to the outside of the room, which you do not even know, as a matter of science, exists, because you have never observed it?

[reprobate]

77. I'm waiting for an eyewitness to the beginning of the universe.

Then maybe I'll believe.

[neomonkey]

80. Ah believe ah can ansa that

his name would be George W. Bush x(

[jsw_81]

87. I disagree

Nature can be absolutely horrifying and brutal and I see no evidence for any kind of intelligent design whatsoever. And judging by the fact that a recent poll of America's top scientists showed them to be overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic, it would seem that I'm not alone in this view.

You speak of "intelligent design," but the fact is that there there is an enormous amount of waste, violence, suffering, and horror in nature. I could post dozens of pictures of tumors, deformities, diseases etc. that would make you sick to your stomach. And I could be mistaken, but I read that something like 99 percent of all species are now extinct, and it's only a matter of time before we're gone, too. That's pretty odd if there's really some "creator" presiding over this mess.

No, I'm afraid that all of this talk about a "creator" and "intelligent design" is just wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is that we're just tiny little ape-like creatures living on an irrelevant little planet out in the middle of nowhere; we could be wiped out by an asteroid or a plague at any moment and the universe would neither notice nor care. Many wish to ignore this fact and find solace in religion/myth, but I cannot. As the late Carl Sagan said, it's far better to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

[DianeG5385]

89. We might be an atom on some other universes breakfast table

When mom cleans up, what then? I think that's why there are so many religious zealots out there. The alternative would make them insane! Maybe Virginia Woolf was right, there is no there there.

[DianeG5385]

88. Why hasn't God visited or communicated

with someone in 2000 years? Who is he talking to today? I don't believe it's Fallwell, Graham, Roberts or any other RW so called preacher. Is there someone out there who has his ear? I kinda think he's not doing alot of talking, if he ever did....What happened to all the miracles? We could sure use some right now. A Dem Prez win in November might qualify!

[flaminbats]

93. He used to communicate using a variety of navigational flags...

but after the telephone and television were invented, people could hear or see God.

Now he relies mostly on the Internet and Morse Code.

[Auntie Bush]

112. That wouldn't be a miracle...it would be just good

logical, intelligent thinking/voting.

[DianeG5385]

91. I am curious though

Something must have started something, after all we are here...

[meow mix]

98. me too

and having life rise up out of the mix, everywhere it can.
and become intelligent.. and start talking to you, asking questions and stuff!
thats highly suspicious in my book =)

[Ksec]

102. So when I gaze upward I wonder when or if it ever ends

Does it look like a bubble and if so whats outside our bubble? If it goes for eternity and never ever ends I believe this would be substantial proof of God. The enormity is proof. Something so vast is beyond anything humans can grasp so there has to be a power that comprehends this.

[DianeG5385]

104. Maybe it's beyond comprehension, so we had to invent God

I was the kind of kid who gave this great thought, and it frightened me because I was raised such a strict Catholic. I thought questioning "Heaven" was a sin. It's just to me, heaven seemed so boring. My parish priest told me during confession, when I dared to confess my fear of eternity (or lack thereof)that Heaven was a cool place where the kids played ring around the rosy and were never hungry. So of course, my first questions were so where are my mom and dad and my brothers and sisters?? What about the cat???? Does she go to heaven? And I like to eat. Do we still eat even if we're not hungry?? He sent me out with my novenas and never gave me a good answer. To this day, I don't have the answer.

[arrogantatheist1000]

120. Excellent thinking!

I find it sad that christains dont' at least make up an interesting heaven. The muslims really have them beat on this one.

You hit the nail on the head with where are your mom and dad and others in heaven. What if your mom wasn't a christain, and she didn't make it into heaven. Isn't that a huge punishment on you?

This silly story of gods and heavens is so incredibely ridiculus I can't have any serious respect intellectualy for someone who believes in it. I can respect them in other ways like fighting for what they believe in for example. But I could never respect them intellectualy, and indeed people in my college course who are believers have a very difficult time understanding many of the things in the course.

They simply can't comprehend things beyond the simplest of explanations. Knowledge isn't a linear or declining adventure, its something that the more you learn the more exponentialy vast your knowledge becomes. When you understand evolution in all of its brilliant simplicity and elegance, every part of your life and understanding changes and is enriched. There are hundreds of other ideas like evolution that expand your thinking geometricaly, and indeed there are infinetely more that we havent' discovered yet.

But make no mistake those thinkings that push us forward that are infinetly more beautiful then the bible or any dogma will be found by those with open minds, who have a passion for the pursuit of knowledge.

Let me give you an example of why I cannot really even relate to believers anymore. I was debating with people on another forum about meme evolution and its implications for world religions. I was making the argument for the longterm danger of militant islam, by looking at the evolution of catholism from the point of jesus. And also looking at how king henry the 8th contained the catholic meme.

Anyway we were having a great debate, and then some believers came in and were saying things like, dude evolution is proved to be false. They were so many orders of magnitude less intelligent then someone who expands their mind over many years, that it is pointless to even acknowledge their exsistance let alone give a damn what they say. These people could not even fathom what evolution was, let alone see hwo in their own belief systems how that most powerful of natures influenced events. It was like explaining calculus to someone who is just starting to learn arithmatic. There is so many revolutions in knowledge that they have to go through before they even comprehend what you are talking about, that any opinion they have on calculus is completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people are believers so in terms of interesting debate on things such as the origions of the universe they cannot partake. However it is very interesting to study how and why people believe in such concepts, and to learn that it is very easy yourself to profit from that and attain power. Even though I am still in college I have used my understanding of the way people believe in the illogical to manipulate and control many people. Understanding how you can make people do terrible things like cheat on their spouses by making them feel absolved. Getting people to beat or steal in the same way. There are many other applications and it seems each day that goes by my knowledge of how to control events through these understandings grows rapidly.

[Ksec]

123. Believers

Great post arrog, really made me think. You shouldnt discount believers though. Its really all in the definition of what a believer is. I think you are a believer in something spiritual , something much more than human , a devine being. Could that not be considered God? For someone so obviously intelligent I believe you narrow yourself by discounting the possibility. Could it not be unanswered questions about everything be just as easily discvered to be attributed to a supreme being as anything else?

[meow mix]

106. wouldnt that be wierd? if it has a "shape"

i think so..

“We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB… We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case.”

Looking at the symmetry of the CMB – measures technically called its octopole and quadrupole components – the researchers uncovered a curious pattern. They had expected to see no pattern at all but what they saw was anything but random.

“The octopole and quadropole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That’s weird… We don’t think this is due to foreground contamination,” Dr. Tegmark said. “It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and cannot yet explain it.”

i do like this particular article =)
http://ascension2000.com/04.10.03.htm

[Ksec]

108. so if it has a shape then you

have to think that there is an outside to the shape. What is this? Infinity? Its very mind boggling.

[Trajan]

118. A vast huge expanse of nothing ...

an infinite void ... is 'proof' of a god-being ?? ..

[Ksec]

124. To me it sure beats the alternative. Nothing. nt

[Heyo]

111. As far as nature bieng brutal sometimes..

It is also very beautiful other times...

As far as human suffering...."why does God let people suffer or do terrible things?"

I believe we have free will for a reason... and I don't beleive in this stage of the universe God will interfere in any way.. In the future? who knows.

What good would free will be, if we HAD free will but every now and then God steps in and changes things around...?

I don't believe in the evangelical God that meddles in affiars on Earth or who "poofed" the world inti existence in six days.. I see God as an infinite spiritual energy.... not the proverbial "invisible man in the sky"...

As far as god "putting the stars in the sky"... I don't believe it happened that way...

I believe some all powerful Truth that I know as God.. started the begining of time at what we have come to know as the 'Big Bang', and is letting nature run it's course naturally....perhaps the universe itself IS God.. either way... I believe there is a great unseen truth or force or being in the unverse that we cannot comprehend nor will we ever see in this life... I dont think it was meant to be that way....it's a matter of faith, because it's *supposed* to be a matter of faith.

There are alot of things also, like conciousness... that I wonder about all the time but do not claim to fully understand....

I have a few theories, but that's it..

I believe to understand the true nature of God, we would have to be God.

Heyo

[masshole]

113. shit happens

Is that a "law" of physics?

I really don't care about how we got here, just about what we do while we're here.

[DebJ]

114. Heyo, have you seen/read "The Elegant Universe" which discusses

string theory? It was on PBS awhile ago and is now available at Borders for 29.95 (two DVD's). When I saw that, something hit me:
I could see God in the other 8 dimensions that we can't perceive in this life. It's a great DVD to see, and I'm no physics major. In fact, I never took physics (regretably).

[Heyo]

115. Absolutely!!!!

Possibly one of my favorite books... I have studied it intensely and read it through about 5 times... I also have the Elegant Universe thing taped on VHS from when it was shown on PBS.. awesome!

I can't wait to get Brian Green's new book.. The Fabric of Spacetime I think it's called...

Truly a remarkable author in the way he is able to explain things...

Have you read the new book yet?

I think next paycheck I'm gonna pick it up.

Heyo

[opihimoimoi]

121. Humans are a Lazy Lot, Far too lazy to work for Peace

Instead, we must pray for it.

Its the easy way out for a lot of things.

[rman]

122. interesing how science is used to argue religion

doesn't make religion any more scientific though.