Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[Nyarlathotep]

ACE for president !

[Dude_Doc]

What is really odd is that only 3 creatures on Earth is self-aware: human, ape and dolphin. Now, what about every other animal? Why are they not self-aware? Do humans need intelligence? No, we don't need it. A wild cat, dog, bird, fish, crab, you name it, all can find food without self-awareness. They all live and reproduce and die. How come some humans are so smart that they can invent things, revolutionize our views, technology and even universal rules? Why hasn't any ape or dolphin shown something extraordinary? Why do we have to have clothes? Why do we have fashion? We all know how a naked woman look like, as well as man, so why then should we hide for each other? Why do we have feelings, when we really don't need it?

Try to explain this in a basical and logical way, so that everyone can understand...

[sneezer3]

I think its humen ape and whale.

[Anathema]

Dude_Doc, in evolution it's bascily about how many offspring a specimen gets, and how many of its offspring survives long enough to procreate themselves. We invented weapons to defend ourselves and our children from animals and we invented (initially crude) medicine and health care to extend our life expectancy. This new approach was very succesful, as our numbers are huge.

[emprworm]

Indeed. The human mind is not capable of comprehending the origins of the universe.

huh? the human mind is fully capable of understanding the statements "The Universe arose from nothing" and "the universe was caused". If you are referring to the human mind being able to comprehend HOW something can arise from nothing, then you are not alone, because such a rediculous postulation is more contradictory then zen buddhism. Such is the irrationality of the atheist position. A caused universe is quite simple indeed. And fully consistent with the laws of nature.

Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is being blindly arrogant, IMO. But human curiosity continues to attempt to accomplish the impossible.

This is what atheists do when they think that the universe could pop into existence ex-nihlo. Impossible, irrational, and exceedingly supernatural.

That is why we created the concept of an infinite being.

humans already can conceptualize infinity. The concept exists independent of a humans 1.5 KG mass of gray matter in their head. The contents of your caranium did not invent the concepts of infinity and eternality. Actually, the very fact that humans can abstract such concepts is an argument against evolution itself.

We created God, my friend, through our feeble minded curiosity. Not the other way around.

nice of you to speak so empirically. you mind showing me this proof you have?

EMPRWORM:

The universe is made up of finite changing things that need causes. The sum of any set of finite changing things that need a cause is ALSO a finite changing thing that needs a cause. To postulate therefore that the universe itself needs no cause, despite all the components requiring one is a vastly more complex view to hold then mine. Set of things requiring cause = Sum of Set also requires a cause

ACELETHAL:

A beautiful web of words. How unfortunate it is that they aren't true. You can ramble on about infinite this and how it just HAD to have derived from finite that, but since you ignored me the first time, what REASON do you have to believe that there is anything beyond the finite?

Not true? Is that your cop-out? You are telling me that the sum of a set of finite changing things is not itself a finite changing thing? Errmm....Ace, did you ever take a class in high school called "Science?" Just wondering. I am going to pound this point home. I will be relentless until you provide a counter example. Do not think I will let you slime yourself out of this one. Show me ONE SINGLE COUNTER EXAMPLE of a set of finite changing things that, as a sum, is not itself a finie changing thing. Until you show one, you can profess your blind religious faith all you want, but I will maintain the scientific position: (re-iterated now)

The sum of any set of finite changing things is ALSO a finite changing thing

<rest of Ace's argument snipped until he responds to this point or concedes it>

[Dude_Doc]

Blizzards Advocate: Yes, I understand that. But take a look around, at all animals around you, cats dogs etc. They haven't developped! The very basic thing I am trying to say is: why do we need intelligence? Instincts are not intelligence. Like Emprworm said before: a fanatical human can set fire on himself without running for water or help. Humans can commit suicide, kill others without points. Basical instincts tells us that we for example should run from a burning house because we have greater propabillity of surviving. Still, humans go inside and save other people, without being firemen! This is a dirct contradiction to instinct.

James T Kirk: No, whales are not self-aware. They are amazing, but there has been no proof of intelligent whales. Dolphins are...

[sneezer3]

James T Kirk: No, whales are not self-aware. They are amazing, but there has been no proof of intelligent whales. Dolphins are...

Ok, its been a while so i wasn't 100% sure. :)

[SurlyPIG]

I don't want any of your subjective "find they inner self and you shal find me" nonsense. I want hard, objective, observable signs. Sure you can talk TO God, but can you have a conversation with Him? And unless you are skizophenic you cannot feel him. And there is absolutely no objective proof for the existence of God. If you think there is, name it. I could use a little chuckle. ;)

Ask yourself the same questions about the wind, one of the most commenly used examples.

Can you see wind?

Can you talk to the wind?

Can you feel the wind?

Can you, in any objective way, know that the wind exists?

Yes. When I'm about to take a corner kick in soccer, I pick some grass and drop it. I see the wind blow it in the direction of breeze. You can see coloured gases blow in the wind. Clouds too.

Yes, of course I can talk to the wind. But the wind is inanimate, so that would be stupid. The fact that it cannot answer indicates its lack of intelligence.

Yes, I can feel the wind. If you cannot there is probably something wrong with your nervous system.

Yes, the wind is objectively proven. You can see it in the way it blows the trees, clouds, storms, and forms hurricanes and tornadoes. You can test to create your own. You can observe how it is formed and see it in action. It is iron clad. Undisputable.

That is a conterdiction within your own statements. you can't see the wind yet you still belive there is such a thing.

I probbly missed something, but all i saw you say was it is absurd, which is no offence an absurb arguement.

Seeing something is but one of the many possible indicators of existence. There are none for God. None. I'm sorry, but there just aren't. Not objective ones anyway. I don't consider "God works in mysterious ways" to be proof of His existence.

Yes, you did miss something. A lot of things. Things in the bible that contradict the principles of omnipotence. If God is perfect and we are created in his image, why is it necessary to send some of his perfect creations to hell?

The phrase "We are all sinners" That would suggest the opposite of what the bible claims about God. A perfect being cannot make imperfect creations.

Also, the phrase "We are all sinners" would suggest that every single person goes to hell. Every single one. Many believe this not to be true. This is elaborated, and God is said to be both just and merciful. However these two are obvious contradictions (note - a perfect being cannot contradict itself). It suggests that all God's creations are NOT equal. That He, for lack of a better term, picks favourites to send to heaven and sends the rest to hell. The guy on emprworm's ex-atheist site has no explanation for this contradiction. In fact he doesn't address it, only saying that all should be happy for those who were shown mercy.

The concept of heaven and hell is the epitomy of black and white conceptualism. This would suggest that being responsible for judgement cannot think in terms of degree. Obviously a contradiction.

What are the chances you can get a plan made dictanry out of one try?

I havn't said or even alluded to supporting the big bang theory so I won't respond to this. However I will say that your anecdote is a very poor comparison.

Yes, but Evolution is just as good as a reilgus view. thats why i agree that all faiths should be tought in school. and for one thing is saves a lot of arguements agenst the ones who aren't

Did you not read what I said at all? First, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe. If you think it does then you *clearly* do not understand what evolution is (and probably the big bang theory too. Acriku pointed this out several pages ago. Second, evolution is not a religion. It's a theory/law. Like Darwinism or gravity.

Evolution (or it with any other theory aside from big bang) is not true because you can't get something from nothing.

Yet you believe an omnipotent being created it all from nothing.

Mohammed din't die for your sins.

Moses was God's servent. and inless there is something is something i don't know of, i don't think he would have said that.

The belief of Islam will preclude the belief and worship of all the other deities and "isms".

Budda is in the grave Jesus is risen.

The belief of Hinduism will embrace practically all kinds of deities.

The belief of Christianity will exclude all other religions: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6

So, in other words, according to you, all other religions and their various saviours are incorrect and inferior. Thanks. You have just made my point for me.

Just as not every kind of medicine can heal a particular life-threatening disease, so, not every religion can save a soul from hell.

But Christianity can, according to you? And since when is there a communal hell of all faiths. The notion is ridiculous. Very, VERY few religions even acknowledge other religions, so the notion that they share the same afterlife is absurd.

If you die wrong the first time you cannot come back to die better a second time. - Robert Murray M'Cheyne

Since we have wronged God through our sins, we must come to Him on His terms and conditions.

I have no interest in debating or even hearing the means you convert.

Here's a tip for you, when debating the existence/validity of God with an atheist, quoting the bible is not a good idea.

"Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?"

No.

If you belive the Big Bang then you do.

I do not. And I never said that I did.

EDIT : I'll respond to other posts tomorrow...

[Scrinlord]

I don't want any of your subjective "find they inner self and you shal find me" nonsense. I want hard, objective, observable signs. Sure you can talk TO God, but can you have a conversation with Him? And unless you are skizophenic you cannot feel him. And there is absolutely no objective proof for the existence of God. If you think there is, name it. I could use a little chuckle.

it is not so much of a question of weather or not there is proof that God exists, it is a question of weather or not there is proof that he doesnt.

And one bit of evidence that there is a God is the fact that life could not start on earth without something creating it. According to the Theory of Evolution, life started on earth when some random bits of nucleic acid somehow combined, creating a living organism. and again, when refering to evolution, notice how life went from tiny, small, simple organisms, to huge inconcevably(sp) complex organisms? That is against the basic laws of nature. I dont remember what it was called, but it is a scientific fact, things in this universe go from complex, to simple. order, to chaos. Not the other way around.

[Acriku]

Hey this is fun, let's all join God because most of us have no idea what evolution is about! Seriously people, please actually know something about evolution before trying to disprove it. Those questions about the wind are meaningless, and are not analogous to God. We can see wind, when particles are swept with it like smoke or dust. Wind is just movement of air particles, even a 6th grader should have gotten that one.

There is enormous proof for evolution in a lot of areas of science, molecular biology, paleontology, comparitive anatomy, homology, even more that I can't think of. I am baffled as to how you guys can still not believe in evolution, when evidence for it is popping up every day! New paleontological finds, breakthroughs in molecular biology that continues to back up evolution, etc. I can't stop thinking about how deprived you must be to the research done in the last 2 centuries. I can't reply to any more specifics previously in this thread, due to me not being here for 3 days and suddenly pages and pages of new material, but anything from now on I will try to reply to. Please people, what is so hard to grasp about evolution? Is it the peer pressure, the brainwashing, what?

[Andrew]

Yes dont forget the Galapagos Islands.(i think) they have same type of birds but they are different(different sizes and beak patterns) and eat different types of food. This happened because of evolution to survive on the island. (i think) please dont yell if i am wrong or different topic.

[Acriku]

Precisely Andrew, as Darwin was sailing on the HMS Beagle, a voyage to map the poorly mapped area of west coast of South America, he found finches on a group if islands, the Galapagos, and there were differences between them, based on the vegetation (large seeds for dry years, and small seeds for wet years) and this sparked Darwin's view on life. It is a great example of geographical distribution, and ultimately led him to his conclusion that new species originate from ancestral forms by the gradual accumulation of adaptations. Darwin is a great guy :)

[Andrew]

this seems to be getting a bit off big bang theory and onto evolution though. oh well.

[Acriku]

Well it's bound to get to that since it is also about Creation By God where the species are fixed and the earth ~6000 years old, and evolution that opposes it.

[emprworm]

this seems to be getting a bit off big bang theory and onto evolution though. oh well.

no, and I'm going to steer it back. if you want to talk about the faith-based unproven concept of macro-evolution that numerous PhD biologists, geologists and palentologists discount based upon the evidence (or lack thereof), then please post your comments here:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=2;action=display;threadid=7938;start=0

if you want to talk about the theory of the Big Bang and the atheistic faith required to conclude this universe is uncaused from nothing, then please continue to post here.

[Caid Ivik]

How nice thread, I can't understand how I could miss it ;D

So, first I don't think there is something in both theories denying other one. On first day God created the universe, the "earth and heaven", what might mean matter and space. Because there was no one counting our imagination, the time, it is irrelevant, also word "jom" can mean also time line without straight border, an "era". Big Bang - sudden burst of matter from one point - can be done by unlimited power. And that should do only divine Being - the God. You should say I've just joined by deists, but there are more hits of divine being. Creation of life, intelligence, soul, physical laws, subspace stability and more, affecting also our civilisation. God created and moderated Big Bang and next eras to create whole universe. Same with life evolution on Earth and elsewhere.

[Dunenewt]

Mike's at it again ::)

[Acriku]

Since when does the big bang mean something is coming from nothing?

[emprworm]

Since when does the big bang mean something is coming from nothing?

Lol, typical atheist trying to do an intellectual cop out of the ole "We don't know" rhetoric. Unfortunately, when it comes to the origins of the universe, such a cop out is ill-fated.

There are only THREE options to choose from:

1. causation

2. uncaused

3. eternal

PERDIOD. End of sentence. Those options are mutually exclusive. In regards to the origins of the universe, one of them must be true while the others false. Now, Acriku will simply ignore this argument as I have posted it probably a dozen times on this board to have it ignored by him every single time. Yet here it is again. The atheist mind is presented with three possibilities.

The universe = All that is natural.

If the natural world has a cause, then that cause MUST be a supernatural one. Therefore atheists refuse to acknowledge option #1. They even go so far as to say that option 1 is irrational.

Now, what is the natural conclusion a logical person makes when said atheist calls option 1 irrational? Lets take a look.

History of Philosophers on Earth: Three possible explanations for the origin of the universe.

#1) The universe began to exist and was caused

#2) The universe self-caused (or effected) itself from nothing

#3) The universe has always existed infinitely in the past.

Rational Theist: I think option #1 more in line with the principle of causality. Finite changing thigns need causes, of which the universe is, therefore it too requires a cause. I say option #1 is rational.

Irrational Atheist: Stupid Xian. Option #1 is absurd. Only a devolved pseudo-intellectual religious sky pixie worshipping nuthead like you would believe option #1.

Conclusion: Once the atheist denies option #1 as irrational, by DEFAULT he professes options #2 and #3 as rational above option #1. Yet he fails to provide any support as to their basis in rational thought. So when the atheist says "Since when does the big bang mean something is coming from nothing?" he is implying that he denies option #2 (or at least is refusing to acknowledge it as rational). This leaves him with the final option: #3. Therefore any atheist who challenges something from nothing by default acknowledges an eternal universe that has existed infinitely in the past- which is philosophically contradictory and impossible to be true (as well as blatantly unscientific)

[Acriku]

Heh pretty funny guy to claim you know all there is to "make" the universe. Ah but we are intelligent aren't we ::) Oh Judge Judy, what more questions can you answer for us today?

[emprworm]

as i said in my unedited post above, you will ignore that argument and continue to side-step the issue ad-infinitum. calling option #1 irrational simply means that you are elevating options #2 and/or #3 as superior, which of course have no basis in natural science. Only option #1 has that basis.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, it isn't that simple. You are thinking within the confinements of logic that exists on our planet, that goes well with our surroundings most of the time. Who's to say what is logical or not in the beginning of our time? You don't know, and it is quite arrogant and ignorant to deduce it to just 3 limited options.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, it isn't that simple. You are thinking within the confinements of logic that exists on our planet, that goes well with our surroundings most of the time. Who's to say what is logical or not in the beginning of our time? You don't know, and it is quite arrogant and ignorant to deduce it to just 3 limited options.

lol, why did i have the feeling you'd actually try to say there are more than 3 options? Here's the problem with that. That is like me saying "Hmmm..perhaps logic just might NOT exist!" Of course, such a statement which is counter to everything we know and understand about science and reason takes great faith to hold, you still have the right to excercise faith.

Now if we want to stick to reason and rational thought, we are left with 3 options as sure as we can say that "A cannot be both A and non-A simultaneously" is a fundamental law of logic.

Admit it, Acriku, you are so secure inside your "I don't know" shell, you just hate the idea of being faced with a small number of options. You adamantly and vehemently denounce option #1 as absurd while your atheistic peers are proclaiming option #2 as rational while you hold on to some kind of wierd zen-like faith that there might be a fourth option!!

If the universe has a fourth option then so does that chair you are sitting in now!!

GIVEN: Acriku's chair he is now sitting in as a formed chair.

Now there are three possible explanations for the source of that formed chair.

#1) The formed chair began to exist and was caused

#2) The formed chair self-caused (or effected) itself from nothing

#3) The formed chair has always existed infinitely in the past.

Now if acriku wants to hold to some kind of mythical "option #4" which logic, science and reason cannot ever account for, then so be it. I, too, am a religious person.

[Acriku]

Because it may seem logically sound to you right now, does not mean it is correct.

[emprworm]

lol! if it is not correct, then neither is any science or reason you have now. basically you are saying "Logic itself may not be correct."

thats ok to say, but most certainly doesn't make you very logical.

its funny how you like to propogate science and reason on other threads and here you deny it. you place a lot of FAITH that logic itself will somehow "evolve". rofl. This is the true reality of atheism exposed. I can see now why you always avoided this argument. I can see now why you like to shift it to evolution because when push comes to shove, you are a man of intense faith- just like everyone else.

Regarding Acriku's chair:

#1) The formed chair began to exist and was caused

#2) The formed chair self-caused (or effected) itself from nothing

#3) The formed chair has always existed infinitely in the past.

What part of this is unscientific? What independent fourth option is there for ANYTHING that exists?

Answer: None.

Religious people put faith in a fourth option, but must abandon reason to do so.