Only one God created this Universe!!!!!!

[Sarkus]

... whereas description of God is universal, despite your belief status.

What is it about Gods description, that leads to the assumption that He is a created being?

Please give the universal description of God, so that I may try and answer your question.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Please give the universal description of God, so that I may try and answer your question.

Read the bible, qur'an, vedas or puranas, and most of all Bhagavad Gita.

Jan.

 

[Zappa]

How can the universe be eternal if nothing physical can be eternal?

 

[Lerxst]

What is it about Gods description, that leads to the assumption that He is a created being?

What is it about the universe's description, that leads to the assumption that it was created?

Question 1 - Personally I don't know. I don't even know if there is a god or gods, or what they might be, so how can I say one way or the other?

Question 2 - I don't know if the universe was created or not.

But I do know that pointing out that the universe has order and complexity, and therefore concluding that it must have been created by some kind of intelligence, is not a very compelling argument at all.

 

[spidergoat]

What is it about Gods description, that leads to the assumption that He is a created being?

OK, I'll try again.

The basic assumption is that complex things, be they beings or universes, are created, rather than emerging from less complex systems in a naturalistic process. That is why when you suggest a complex (God) origin for the universe (which started simple, and complexified), I am compelled to question the origin of God's complexity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But I do know that pointing out that the universe has order and complexity, and therefore concluding that it must have been created by some kind of intelligence, is not a very compelling argument at all.

So what kind of argument would you regard as compelling in favour of a created universe?

What is it about Gods description, that leads to the assumption that He is a created being?

OK, I'll try again.

The basic assumption is that complex things, be they beings or universes, are created, rather than emerging from less complex systems in a naturalistic process. That is why when you suggest a complex (God) origin for the universe (which started simple, and complexified), I am compelled to question the origin of God's complexity.

Based on that logic, there has to be a supreme creator, one above all creations, one that is not affected by its works, one that is the ultimate reality. To argue that creations go on ad-infinitum is unreasonable.

Complexity is relative, wouldn’t you agree?
Because something is complex to us, doesn’t mean it would be complex to God.

You still haven’t my question, which was;

“What is it about Gods description, that leads to the assumption that He is a created being?”

How can the universe be eternal if nothing physical can be eternal?

Excellent point.

Jan.

 

[Godless]

How can the universe be eternal if nothing physical can be eternal?

How do you know? That nothing physical can be eternal, have you been here an eternity to observe such phenomenon?. No! so in essence you don't know shit, wether our universe has been eternally existent without the presumption of some diety creating it. Right?.

Godless

 

[superluminal]

Why do god people always sidestep the question of the first cause?

 

[Mythbuster]

Cummon guys. why not just say that space it self was the first cause and nothing cause it hun ?

 

[KennyJC]

Jan:

My assumption is that 'due to the complexity and order' found within the universe, it is likely that it could well have been the product of intlligence.

Still being a hypocrite then, Jan? Funny that you don't apply the same logic to the fossil record in support of evolution. Except evolution of course has a wealth of information supporting it besides the first glance common sense.

Again Jan, you show signs of just believing what you find is pretty.

 

[Godless]

I have to at least give credit to Jan. At least she's consistant in her rhetorical bull shit!.

Many theist don't have that quality, they change with time, but this one, has kept up the same rhetorical BS since she first graced her precence here at Sciforums. Good going Jan, keep up the appearance of being sane

Godless

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do god people always sidestep the question of the first cause?

What do you mean?
This is what we are discussing - is it not?

Still being a hypocrite then, Jan?

Please explain yourself.

Except evolution of course has a wealth of information supporting it besides the first glance common sense.

Firstly I don’t believe “the theory of evolution” is based in common sense, although the idea is based on common sense, i.e. mircoevol.
Why don’t you put forward your understanding of how this wealth of supporting information supports this idea, instead of continuously stating there is a wealth of supporting information.

Again Jan, you show signs of just believing what you find is pretty.

I’m afraid you are way of the mark – again.
Why don’t you get involved with the discussion and prove your analysis?

I have to at least give credit to Jan. At least she's consistant in her rhetorical bull shit!.

Many theist don't have that quality, they change with time, but this one, has kept up the same rhetorical BS since she first graced her precence here at Sciforums. Good going Jan, keep up the appearance of being sane

Godless

You really are this foolish aren’t you?
Look back over this thread and take a look at your input. In fact – look back over any current thread where you have graced us with your presence, and take a look at your inputs. You add nothing of value.

By the way BS means bull-shit, right?
Bull-shit has some excellent properties, you should do some research.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

Please explain yourself.

I already did... "Still being a hypocrite then, Jan? Funny that you don't apply the same logic to the fossil record in support of evolution.

Firstly I don’t believe “the theory of evolution” is based in common sense, although the idea is based on common sense, i.e. mircoevol.
Why don’t you put forward your understanding of how this wealth of supporting information supports this idea, instead of continuously stating there is a wealth of supporting information.

The tree of life? The Fossil Record? And I can not provide you with the wealth of knowledge in a post, especially since you won't understand it or willfully ignore it. If you wan't the information go to college or read books... Just educate yourself.

I’m afraid you are way of the mark – again.
Why don’t you get involved with the discussion and prove your analysis?

You have given credability to reincarnation, creationism and an intelligent creator. Now tell me, why do you give respect to these inherently flawed theories despite the fact they have less information backing them up than what evolution does.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Kenny,

I already did... "Still being a hypocrite then, Jan? Funny that you don't apply the same logic to the fossil record in support of evolution.

Something like;

My assumption is that 'due to the complexity and order' found within the fossil record, it is likely that it could well have been the product of.......?

The tree of life? The Fossil Record?
And I can not provide you with the wealth of knowledge in a post,

That appears to be the problem, period. Nobody can give any kind of understanding as to why the theory of evolution is an unequivocal fact, because nobody has the time or the space to document everything. So it has to be believed it is a fact. How convenient.

If it is so obvious, then why can't you give sound reasonable arguments which are able to defeat all other ideas? Why is it that atheists resort to insults, all the time, when their beliefs are being questioned?

...especially since you won't understand it or willfully ignore it. If you wan't the information go to college or read books... Just educate yourself.

Well...its not easy reading, I admit to that, and the bits that I can understand offers no compelling argument to give reason. What does come across loud and clear to me is that there is a desperate attempt to ram these ideas down peoples throats, much in the same way as the christian institution had done.
I apologies if what I say offends you, but I am being honest. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but I have seen no evidence which support the idea of one species changing into an entirely different species, as being an unequivocal fact. And nobody here can give a reasonable argument as to why it is so. The similarity argument is understandable, but it is not a clincher.

You have given credability to reincarnation, creationism and an intelligent creator. Now tell me, why do you give respect to these inherently flawed theories despite the fact they have less information backing them up than what evolution does.

You believe that the theory of evolution is backed up by shed loads of information, but when I ask you or anyone else to divulge some of that information from your understanding, you can't. All you do is throw subtitles around, give talk origins urls, or hurl insults.
This shows that either you don't understand it, or you have nothing to say on the matter, so you leave it to someone that does. Either way, it renders your claim vacuous.

The trouble with you Kenny, is that you don't converse with people who are not in agreement with your worldview. You believe you are right and they are wrong, and when they disagree, you insult them and their worldview.
This is no different to fundamentalism IMO.
Learn to respect your fellow human being.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Question 1 - Personally I don't know. I don't even know if there is a god or gods, or what they might be, so how can I say one way or the other?

Question 2 - I don't know if the universe was created or not.

But I do know that pointing out that the universe has order and complexity, and therefore concluding that it must have been created by some kind of intelligence, is not a very compelling argument at all.

How do you know that is not a very compelling argument when you have no real idea of the subject matter it pertains to?
And what kind of argument would you find compelling?

JAN.

 

[Lerxst]

How do you know that is not a very compelling argument when you have no real idea of the subject matter it pertains to?
And what kind of argument would you find compelling?

Sometimes theists argue as follows:

"Look at an object like a clock - it has order and complexity. It exists because some intelligence created it. It would not have occured by happenstance. Since the universe has order and complexity, it too must have been the product of intelligent design."

I say it is not a compelling argument because the universe is a unique object - and making an inductive argument about it - saying that it is "like a watch" is simply not warranted. They might be apples and oranges. Also I don't know that agree that the order and complexity of the universe is really of the same variety of that seen in a clock or any other manmade device. Most devices are clearly intended to serve a particular purpose. What is the "purpose" of the universe? I'd say 99.999999999999999999% of it seems pretty to be just a wasteland of inanimate matter and radiation.

For all I know the universe was created by intelligence, I do not claim to know it was or was not. I just don't think a comparison to man-made objects is very compelling.

As for you final question, I honestly have not seen a compelling logical argument for a designer, creator, or sentient first cause to the universe. I'd only be compelled into a postive belief if there was incontrovertable evidence.

 

[KennyJC]

Jan, I will keep this simple.

Using purely common sense assumptions based on superficial evidence (by that I mean not studying evolution extensively, which is something scientists do and there is no controversey), it is obvious because simple animals were around long before complex animals. Invertebrate animals were around before vertibrates, and not the other way round, for example (fossil record). The earliest fossil remains are of very simple life and as the layers of rock containing fossils becomes more and more recent, the complexity of living things becomes more complex. Of all excavations there has not been a single fossil which goes against the theory of evolution, and it would only take one such finding to disprove the whole theory of evolution (such as a modern human fossil being found dating before hominids). Nowhere is evolution more clearly demonstrated than on islands.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Lerxst,

I say it is not a compelling argument because the universe is a unique object - and making an inductive argument about it - saying that it is "like a watch" is simply not warranted.

I wouldn't say I was making an argument, it was an assumption.

For all I know the universe was created by intelligence, I do not claim to know it was or was not. I just don't think a comparison to man-made objects is very compelling.

Unless you or I were there at its beginings, we cannot know for sure, but it doesn't mean we cannot speculate, believe scientists explanations, believe it was a product of intelligence, or reserve judgement. When all is said and done, we have to use our powers of discrimination to come to some conclusion.
No one is saying the universe is like a watch, end of story. But in the same way we can infer that a watch is a product of intelligence, we can infer that protiens and DNA is a product of intelligence. What's wrong with that?

As for you final question, I honestly have not seen a compelling logical argument for a designer, creator, or sentient first cause to the universe. I'd only be compelled into a postive belief if there was incontrovertable evidence.

Which begs the question;
What would you regard as "incontrovertable evidence"?

Jan.

 

[Lerxst]

Unless you or I were there at its beginings, we cannot know for sure, but it doesn't mean we cannot speculate.

Well, I'd say the first thing we should do is ask science to give us every answer it can. Any additional speculations must springboard form there, if they are to merit any serious consideration. Once you get to the edge of what science tells you, then, speculation is fine, as long as you remember that is all it is. You have to be able to look at your ideas and assign relative levels of certainty - or at least try to give some estimates.

No one is saying the universe is like a watch, end of story. But in the same way we can infer that a watch is a product of intelligence, we can infer that protiens and DNA is a product of intelligence. What's wrong with that?

Personally I don't see any significant resemblance between protien molecules and the gears, springs, and other mechanics of a clock.

Which begs the question;
What would you regard as "incontrovertable evidence"?

Anything that scientists could independently verify such that it would be perverse not to give provisional assent that it was true. A message spelled out on the surface of the moon saying "I am God and I will cause the earth to stop rotating for 20 minutes at 12 noon EST tomorrow" and then follows through. I'd call that some pretty solid evidence.

 

[superluminal]

It's really interesting to watch the rational pitted against the irrational. Sometimes I wonder who is who...