In the Beginning was God

[KennyJC]

And it's amazing how naive someone can sound when they put it all so "matter-of-factly".

Yes... and liberal theists are just as bad, just see Nova's reply... "I agree that there is a god, but"...

And even more amazing than that is how anyone can NOT believe in God.

I can't take that seriously coming from someone who believes that Adam and Eve are historic figures who were the first two humans created from dust and mens ribs. It's like a child telling me Santa is real!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

...I personally find it easy to understand what our Universe was like before God created it. Simply: nothing.

If God existed eternally before He created the universe then He, at least, was always there, not nothing.

"Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." (The Sound of Music)

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Question:

If the universe was eternal itself then would not "science" expect to find today that our universe would have suffered a "heat death" an eternity ago?

Anyone have any ideas on this?

Thanks!

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Question:

If the universe was eternal itself then would not "science" expect to find today that our universe would have suffered a "heat death" an eternity ago?

Anyone have any ideas on this?

Thanks!

Everything is cyclic, when this Sun dies, another star is born.
If our Universe started from the Big Bang, what energy provoked the Big Bang?
That energy itself, had to come from somewere, energy cannot be created, only transformed. So science also contradicts itself doesn´t it?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Dear Seeker, I don't believe in any kind of God and I assure you everything is in its place and nothing missing. You and everyone else, on the other hand can believe anything you choose to, and that's fine.
How come you are so sure you can't be fooled?

It is ok if you don´t believe in God. It is way better than believing in a God that someone tells you that exists, but you don´t know it by personal experience. So it is ok not to believe in a fake God.
The only true God, we all know, but some don´t recognize it. It is also ok.

You can put God as a Father (in the case of religions) or as a Mother (nature). But God is the Father-Mother of all, it is life, it is also nothing. So when you say God doesn´t exist, you are saying God as a father doesn´t exist, and God-mother will love you always, doesn´t matter what you do. Thats what mothers do. He is incognoscible and indescribable.

I can be fooled, just not in certain cases, so I stand corrected in this one.

 

[ashura]

I understand thats personal viewpoint and opinion, but I have a hard time just accepting the fact that every unimagineable aspect of our lives, Universe and everything in between is here and working simply out of pure luck. Thinking differently is just a case of denial.

I'm afraid I don't understand. I can accept that you would have a hard accepting the luck aspect, but why would thinking differently be a case of denial?

True, but even so, it will be 100% impossible to ever know where all of the matter and energy in our Universe came from, and to know what caused all of this to enter our Universe, and what begat that, and begat that, etc... as it quite obviously, and simply, HAD to've come from someplace. I understand that hypothetically, there very well could be aspects of our Universe we will never know, so it could be possible that energy and matter DOES just appear in space and expand without reason, but I personally have to go with what makes more sense, and really, the idea of an omnipotent creator makes more sense than energy just appearing out of nowhere without a cause.

But the omnipotent creator is practically the equivalent of energy just appearing out of nowhere without a cause. What was the cause of the creator? And the cause of that? Where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw it there?

 

[geeser]

Keep saying that, maybe if you say it enough, you will believe what you are saying.

I do.

I think some atheists keep coming to Religion forum just to say that "God doesn´t exist" and "theists are delusional". But why do you guys do that? If you would really don´t care about this stuff, then just let it be.

this is a science forum, with a sub-forum on philosophy and a sub-sub-forum on religion, purely for the sciencific point of view.
religious people who come here must posit some facts to back up there extraordinary claims, or basical just shut up.

But you are not conscient of the fact that you need to say that stuff in order to hear others agree with you, and feel better. Cause you feel that "something" is out there, but no definition of God makes sence to you.

I think you find it makes no sense to the majority of people on these forums. it is a science forum after all. if you dont wish to be ridiculed or laughed at the you should frequent, a solely religious forum with people who will bend over backwards to agree with you, there are literally thousands on the net.

You feel that "something" is missing don´t you?

yes your good sense, I debate with religious people, I do it to try to understand their mindset, but I am fighting a losing battle, as I'm still not able, to understand how they can be so irrational. many religious people appear 99% rational, but for that dangerous 1%, that gets people killed.

You cannot fool me. Guess what, God cannot be defined or described, so nobody can prove you wrong, happy now?

I know that, I know that a god is extremely unlikely, I just dont understand, why you dont.

Richard Dawkins during the Hay-on-Wye book festival - was asked by a lady in the audience "Do you think the archbishop [of Canterbury] is a deluded, foolish man ?"
to which Dawkins, ever the diplomat, replied : "You put the question with merciless clarity. I think he's very bright. And I'm absolutely baffled why he believes in god."

us atheist are all baffled, religious beliefs are one of lifes quandaries.

 

[mybreathyourlung]

I'm afraid I don't understand. I can accept that you would have a hard accepting the luck aspect, but why would thinking differently be a case of denial?

Perhaps that was a bit harsh of an accusation to make, but I think I feel that way because of how strongly I feel on the subject. I think alot of the time when people hear about "the complexity of life" they don't really stop to think about the magnitude of what that means. For one, the odds alone speak for themselves. Therefore, I think that recognizing the fact that our Universe and world is incredibly distinctive is unequivocally the best reasoning. I'm not saying that definitely demands a divine creator for an answer, just the recognition that we're not here 'just because'. It's either denial or ignorance.

But the omnipotent creator is practically the equivalent of energy just appearing out of nowhere without a cause. What was the cause of the creator? And the cause of that?

I guess that's just a matter of how you define your idea of an omnipotent creator. My idea is that 'it's' above and beyond energy. It's beyond a cause as it created energy and created the action of 'cause'. It created the idea of 'creation'. I don't have an answer to "what was the cause of the creator?" because there was nothing before the creator, as it always just was. Unexplainable and requiring a huge leap of blind faith, I know.

Where do you draw the line and why do you choose to draw it there?

I guess I chose to believe in only one creator (as opposed to a creator's creator, etc...) in part because Occam's razor makes sense: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". I mean, I was brought up to believe in one God so that is obviously a huge part of it, but I think I STILL think that way because I have no reason to think otherwise.

Simply put, a divine omnipotent creator who required a creator isn't much of an omnipotent creator to believe in.

 

[Sarkus]

For one, the odds alone speak for themselves.

Yes - they do - but not in the way you think.

Just what do you think the odds are?

Let me put it another way (and I've used this analogy many times before as a rebuttal to the "odds of life")...

Shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out - face up
By the time you got to the last card (the 52nd) - what were the odds that you laid them out in that order?

From your thinking it would be more or less 1 in 10^68.
Yet you did it.
Wow!

When you work out what actually went on with this card "trick" - you'll realise the flaw in your current thinking of "odds of life".

Therefore, I think that recognizing the fact that our Universe and world is incredibly distinctive is unequivocally the best reasoning.

And your reasoning for thinking it the best reasoning is flawed.

Maybe it still is the best reasoning - which doesn't say much for there actually being much reasoning for it.

I'm not saying that definitely demands a divine creator for an answer,

I should hope not!

... just the recognition that we're not here 'just because'.

To not be "just because" implies a purpose. Please support this statement with something other than flawed logic.
And you won't get that recognition from me - nor many others on this site.

It's either denial or ignorance.

Or it's arrogance on your part that you are correct.
Ever considered that it is YOU who are in denial or ignorance over the "just because" possibility?
And the strength of your feeling on the subject is irrelevant.

 

[mybreathyourlung]

Let me put it another way (and I've used this analogy many times before as a rebuttal to the "odds of life")...

Shuffle a deck of cards and lay them out - face up
By the time you got to the last card (the 52nd) - what were the odds that you laid them out in that order?

From your thinking it would be more or less 1 in 10^68.
Yet you did it.
Wow!

When you work out what actually went on with this card "trick" - you'll realise the flaw in your current thinking of "odds of life".

Like I said before, thinking otherwise is either out of denial, or ignorance.

To begin, your math is correct, randomly dealing all the cards face up results in what would be merely 1 combination out of 10^68. But it is absolutely stupid to think this results in some explanation that 'you CAN get the 1 out of 10^68, see? You just did it! It IS possible!' The "odds" are 1 in 10^68, but because you displayed no purpose or order to laying out the cards, the probability that they came out in that order is 1/1. Every time you did this, you would ALWAYS get the 1 in 10^68 because you have no set expectancy. The probability will always be 1/1.

Now, to make this card analogy really apply to the issue, let's say that you deal the cards randomly, but this time, you want them to come dealt in numerical and a suit order. The "odds" are still 1 in 10^68 but now the "probability" is also 1 in 10^68. Now the odds are in much more perspective.

Mathematically impossible? No. Logically improbable? God yes.

What you need to learn to do is separate between the two differences. Just because something is mathematically possible (there will always be that '1 out of ______' chance) does not mean that it is probable.

To add, comparing the odds in a deck of 52 playing cards PALES in comparison to not only our Universe coming into existence, but also a planet forming with the eventual capability to create life, life actually forming on this planet and not only that but it being lucky enough to sustain this life form for such a length of time that you and I are possible.

And your reasoning for thinking it the best reasoning is flawed.

No, you sir are the one with the flawed reasoning. Example, above.

Or it's arrogance on your part that you are correct.
Ever considered that it is YOU who are in denial or ignorance over the "just because" possibility?
And the strength of your feeling on the subject is irrelevant.

Again, ignorance or denial. This time you were viewing your math incorrectly, out of perspective, hence ignorance. Don't let it get to denial.

 

[Sarkus]

Like I said before, thinking otherwise is either out of denial, or ignorance.

This should be fun...

To begin, your math is correct...

I know.

To begin, your math is correct, randomly dealing all the cards face up results in what would be merely 1 combination out of 10^68. But it is absolutely stupid to think this results in some explanation that 'you CAN get the 1 out of 10^68, see? You just did it! It IS possible!' The "odds" are 1 in 10^68, but because you displayed no purpose or order to laying out the cards, the probability that they came out in that order is 1/1. Every time you did this, you would ALWAYS get the 1 in 10^68 because you have no set expectancy. The probability will always be 1/1.

Well done on realising that much.

Now, to make this card analogy really apply to the issue, let's say that you deal the cards randomly, but this time, you want them to come dealt in numerical and a suit order. The "odds" are still 1 in 10^68 but now the "probability" is also 1 in 10^68. Now the odds are in much more perspective.

And this is the flaw in your argument (bolded for emphasis).

This is an unfounded assumption - which unfortunately begs the very question you are asking.

There is no reason / rationale to assume that we are here on purpose - that someone WANTED us.

If you start without a "want" - your odds are 1/1 - and there is no remarkable odds.
If you start with a "God", and a "want" - your odds are 1 in 10^68 (card analogy) and you see this as evidence for "God".

You can not thus NOT use the "odds of life" as evidence for a God - simply because you are already assuming the existence of God, and the "want" of a certain order of cards.

Mathematically impossible? No. Logically improbable? God yes.

Not necessarily.
there is also the matter of imagining that there are an infinite number of universes.
Thus every possibility becomes a certainty.
And our existence is thus a certainty.
So you can either have an infinite universes (no evidence other than the existence of our own universe) or God (no evidence at all).

What you need to learn to do is separate between the two differences. Just because something is mathematically possible (there will always be that '1 out of ______' chance) does not mean that it is probable.

And you need to learn to actually understand what it means.

To add, comparing the odds in a deck of 52 playing cards PALES in comparison to not only our Universe coming into existence, but also a planet forming with the eventual capability to create life, life actually forming on this planet and not only that but it being lucky enough to sustain this life form for such a length of time that you and I are possible.

Please - tell me what you think those odds are?
You have yet to do so.
Or why you think they are astronomically vast?

Again, ignorance or denial. This time you were viewing your math incorrectly, out of perspective, hence ignorance. Don't let it get to denial.

Lol!
I suggest you take another look at your assumptions and how they lead you into the trap that you have wonderfully fallen into.

I also suggest you take a look at this:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html
Especially:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

 

[mybreathyourlung]

This is an unfounded assumption - which unfortunately begs the very question you are asking.

There is no reason / rationale to assume that we are here on purpose - that someone WANTED us.

If you start without a "want" - your odds are 1/1 - and there is no remarkable odds.
If you start with a "God", and a "want" - your odds are 1 in 10^68 (card analogy) and you see this as evidence for "God".

You can not thus NOT use the "odds of life" as evidence for a God - simply because you are already assuming the existence of God, and the "want" of a certain order of cards.

Fair enough, agreed. But, instead of my using the word "want" or purpose, or reason, change it to "organization". I think we can agree that our world is organized (don't think in the 'organized by God' sense), but mathematically, scientifically, ecologically, phycially, etc... there is an organized and mechanical way about the world. Most things in our world work together with many other variables and factors in order to work correctly. Even evolution and 'survival of the fittest' is organized and streamlined to produce the most effective and efficient outcome. It's all certainly not un-organized.

To apply this to the card analogy, instead of the cards being dealt randomly, as the world is not random, deal them organized, in numerical and suit order. Still, the final result are incredible odds against this organization occuring.

So I'm taking out the hypothetical God suggestion that I had written earlier that you pointed out to me, and instead replacing it with something we know to be true that can be observed today, and even applies to the beginning of life, as life certainly couldn't have come about by unorganization.

Please - tell me what you think those odds are?
You have yet to do so.
Or why you think they are astronomically vast?

I was tempted to write the hypothetical odds of the creation of life happening on our earth but I decided it would be a moot point as there is no true way of calculating those odds as there is nothing to begin with, or compare it to. There is no way of knowing what, or how, or why life began so it would be impossible to decide what the odds would be without a physical example.

I understand this concept applies with God as well, and I understand that when it comes down to it, your entire point is that why completely believe in something that can NEVER ever be proven to be true? If it can't be proven to be true, then why waste your time? In the same respect, science cannot prove otherwise. No side will ever be able to. So on both sides of the fence, each of us is left only with as much evidence as we can acquire and make the most sense of it.

Some people can be proven otherwise, others choose a side and stick to it. I'm totally available to be proven otherwise, but as of today, I have not been convinced so. I understand the arguments and I can see why it would make sense, I do. I just have yet to agree. I don't rule out the possibility that at some point in the future I could read enough material and have enough discussions that I will then change my mind. Just not yet.

I also suggest you take a look at this:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html
Especially:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

I began reading it, and as it's a bit long and I'm at work I'm only about 1/4 of the way through, but it does look interesting and I'll finish it during lunch.

 

[Sarkus]

Fair enough, agreed. But, instead of my using the word "want" or purpose, or reason, change it to "organization". I think we can agree that our world is organized (don't think in the 'organized by God' sense), but mathematically, scientifically, ecologically, phycially, etc... there is an organized and mechanical way about the world. Most things in our world work together with many other variables and factors in order to work correctly. Even evolution and 'survival of the fittest' is organized and streamlined to produce the most effective and efficient outcome. It's all certainly not un-organized.

I most certainly do not agree that it is "organised".
I would agree that order appears to have resulted from the chaos through a few "laws" - but "organisation"? No.

If you start with a ball of chaos - and throw in some laws - either the laws will result in an unstable situation (ball collapses or dissipates) or it remains stable.
If it remains stable, perhaps order starts to result from those "laws".

But "organisation" still implies thought BEFORE creation - so is still begging the question.

As said before - we can only look back and see the cards in their specific order - and some, like you, think "Wow - what odds! Must have been God."

I was tempted to write the hypothetical odds of the creation of life happening on our earth but I decided it would be a moot point as there is no true way of calculating those odds as there is nothing to begin with, or compare it to. There is no way of knowing what, or how, or why life began so it would be impossible to decide what the odds would be without a physical example.

You say "there is know way of knowing" yet you seem positive that "God did it"?

In the same respect, science cannot prove otherwise.

But you choose to believe in just ONE thing that science can not disprove - and not the infinite other things that science can not disprove.

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No? Why not?
Do you believe there is a planet, circling a star a billion-light-years away that is made of cheese?

No side will ever be able to. So on both sides of the fence, each of us is left only with as much evidence as we can acquire and make the most sense of it.

And on one side they are still waiting for their first piece of evidence.

I began reading it, and as it's a bit long and I'm at work I'm only about 1/4 of the way through, but it does look interesting and I'll finish it during lunch.

Do - it's a good read.
I'm sure it won't change your position (and that was not the intent of asking you to read) - but it offers an interesting perspective on it all.

 

[mybreathyourlung]

I would agree that order appears to have resulted from the chaos through a few "laws" - but "organisation"? No.

If you start with a ball of chaos - and throw in some laws - either the laws will result in an unstable situation (ball collapses or dissipates) or it remains stable.
If it remains stable, perhaps order starts to result from those "laws".

But "organisation" still implies thought BEFORE creation - so is still begging the question.

So you do agree that order has resulted from the physical laws that govern our universe? I think this is obvious because we're here. But order is simply another word for organized, I mean, c'mon, are we going to split hairs here? When something is in order, it's structured, and with structure comes organization.

So in line still with the card analogy, begining with random cards (initial universe chaos), having them dealt and arranged in numerical order (current organization, or, order), implies to you, that out of that 10^68 chance, it was luck that on that single try, it worked out. Correct? I say it that way because as far as I'm aware, it's agreed that our universe is not cyclical.

Again, mathematically that is possible but it's just not plausible. I don't deny that one chance may have happened and we're all lucky, but I seriously don't buy it.

You say "there is know way of knowing" yet you seem positive that "God did it"?

As I said in my last post, I acknowledge that. That is simply the side of the fence I'm on. Call it 'faith' but that's what it is.

But you choose to believe in just ONE thing that science can not disprove - and not the infinite other things that science can not disprove

Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No? Why not?
Do you believe there is a planet, circling a star a billion-light-years away that is made of cheese?

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I've never seen a single shred of reasonable or suggestive evidence that one exists. On the other hand, I personally find things that suggest that there was a purposeful cause for our Universe, not just accident. Not blatantly explicit things, just more like nudges.

Now I can really sense this road is leading us down creationism, which I'm unsure about as I'm not exactly positive as to what defines creationism. I guess to make it clear, I do not think we're here by accident. I agree with everything modern science and cosmology says about where our Universe came from and where it's going. As to the parts that are currently unexplainable, for example, as to how the Big Bang was caused and what exactly came from it, I personally choose to side with my faith and say that something beyond our Universe caused it. And as far as I know, there is only one thing that fits that description and it's what I define as 'God'. If that is creationism, then well, it is what it is.

I have a faith in God, I can't really help that as it is a part of who I am. As for the unexplainable in life, an athiest is fine with saying "I don't understand it, I'll probably never know the answers so I chalk it down to luck, happenstance and currently unexplainable". But for me, logically, God fills those gaps, until science and explain differently, partly or in full. If science one day shows an explanation for the Big Bang, I will then believe it. But until then, I fall back on the God explanation because it's the next thing that makes sense.

 

[Sarkus]

So you do agree that order has resulted from the physical laws that govern our universe? I think this is obvious because we're here. But order is simply another word for organized, I mean, c'mon, are we going to split hairs here? When something is in order, it's structured, and with structure comes organization.

"Organisation" still implies someone behind the organising.
It is thus not a word I can agree on.
It is ordered, to a degree - but not necessarily organised.

So in line still with the card analogy, begining with random cards (initial universe chaos), having them dealt and arranged in numerical order (current organization, or, order), implies to you, that out of that 10^68 chance, it was luck that on that single try, it worked out. Correct? I say it that way because as far as I'm aware, it's agreed that our universe is not cyclical.

Who said there was a "single try"?
Again - you are making assumptions.
How do you know there isn't an infinite universes?

Imagine the cards laid out in order - and every possible order is laid out side by side...
From the viewpoint of one particular order it looks so improbable that their particular order was chosen.
But from the outside...?

 

[mybreathyourlung]

"Organisation" still implies someone behind the organising...It is ordered, to a degree.

The word 'organization' has implications to you but 'ordered' doesn't? That's just cherry-picking.

Who said there was a "single try"?

Because at this point in time, we can only hypothosize on a single Big Bang event, the one that we came from. And as far as I'm aware, no evidence shows that Big Bang events are cyclic. It's only hypothosized. Space is currently still traveling "outward" in space so there's nothing to suggest that we'll implode then explode again. That brings up whole other issues of odds.

How do you know there isn't an infinite universes

What do you mean? Like the Bubble Universe theory or whatever? That outside of our percieveable universe there aren't an infinite amount of other universes with their own Big Bangs happening? And we may be result of just one of those many Big Bangs? I guess I don't. Yet another mystery. But if that were so, then then those odds of being created go way up as more universes makes for a higher opportunity. Sadly, we don't know that so I can't bet on that being the case.

Imagine the cards laid out in order - and every possible order is laid out side by side...
From the viewpoint of one particular order it looks so improbable that their particular order was chosen.
But from the outside...?

Sorry, I don't quite follow. From the outside, what? Here you're using a scenario where an order is chosen, and there's an outside viewer. That doesn't really follow your line of thinking.

 

[Jeff 152]

one quick note I don't really understand... People look at this situation:

We are just the right distance from the sun, just the right amount of oxygen in our atmosphere, just the right...everything to suit our particular needs as human beings to live.

Now, most theists interpret this to mean the earth was created perfectly to fit our needs like this, and the tiny possibility of these "perfect" conditions is so small that it proves there must be a god that created it all perfectly.

But how come nobody sees that it as just as likely, and in my view more likely, that life adapted to the situation on eary to fit perfectly. We became perfect for our environment. After all, most people wouln't consider volcanic ocean vents an ideal environment, yet certain creatures thrive there because they have fit the environment. There may be aliens from another planet to whom oxygen is deadly poison and they thrive in a freezing cold wasteland or sulphur-filled volcanic planet.

My point is, when seeing how our environment is perfectly tailored to us, just think that instead of god creating the environemnt perfectly to match us, we evolved with specific needs to fit the environment. Just read up on volcanic ocean vents and you will see that there really is no "ideal" condition that creates life, rather the conditions influence what kind of life will come about.

 

[Bowser]

Jeff,

We have yet to find life elsewhere in our solar system.

But your point does show that we are smaller than the larger environment and subserviant to its power. Is there any doubt why we might worship something so large. If we are creatures of adaptation, then our environment is god.

 

[Jeff 152]

you are misinterpeting what I said.

What I mean is, if there was only one planet, Earth, and it had the perfect conditions for us, and we came about there, yes, that would be pretty convincing.

However, there are billions upon billions of planets in the universe. Most likely, the same process that started life here happened on many of those other planets, but conditions were too harsh for the process to create life. Life came about here because it was a planet that could support it.

It is similar to if you shuffle a deck of cards and then attempt to lay it out in numerical and suit order. If you do it on the first try, that is impressive. But if you try it billions of times, it is completely ordinary for one time it to happen. In a giant department store, finding the exact size and color of some item is not too spectacular, but finding that same item at say a garage sale would be.

Do you understand? The perfection of conditions on Earth is not spectacular becasue there are billions of different conditions in the universe where the same process to create life happened, and it simply happened here becasue we were that crazy one time the cards all lined up in order.

 

[(Q)]

Jeff,

We have yet to find life elsewhere in our solar system.

But your point does show that we are smaller than the larger environment and subserviant to its power. Is there any doubt why we might worship something so large. If we are creatures of adaptation, then our environment is god.

A larger environment does not suggest power, or to be subservient to it. Why do we need to worship anything? What is the point?

What would you think if we found life all over the universe?