Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you think God or Gods are the answer? Isn't that just giving up on finding an actual answer?
And you can accept that God or Gods just exists, but you can't accept that something a step down from that just exists? Not much logic there.
Occam's razor. For the universe to be explained as existing in the imaginations of gods, we only have to stipulate the existence of imagination. For it to be explained by physics, we have to stipulate a lot more, such as where the matter, energy, and laws of nature, came from. Gods don't need physical existence, because they can exist in the imaginations of other gods. It would actually be a simpler universe, limited only by the amount of imagination in an infinite number of gods, none of which would have real physical existence.
As soon as you decide something is unknowable, your inquiry is dead. What you are really saying is that there is a lot of stuff beyond the limits of our instrumentation. It's hard to build a theory with no data. That may not always be the case. Experimentalists have done a great job of giving theorists something to chew on, and there is no indication they are done.
We already know that we can't detect 90% of the universe, so we are looking hard for ways to do that. Obviously our understanding of "the physical laws of our universe" is incomplete. It is premature to state that something is beyond those laws when we don't even know what they are.
Well, I'm not saying that we should give up, or anything. However, it's possible the universe beyond our own obeys different physical laws. It's possible that there is no information transmitted from before the big bang, or from other universes. I don't think we've reached the limits of experimentation yet, but there's a very scientifically-real possibility that limits exist.
Occam's razor. For the universe to be explained as existing in the imaginations of gods, we only have to stipulate the existence of imagination.
Occam's razor does not admit of of such fantastic claims as gods or any of their imaginations. Fantastic claims may not always require fantastic evidence, but they always do require at least SOME evidence, and there isn't any at all on the table for claims of gods or their imaginations.
Every scientific theory (even the bad ones) about the origins of the universe is a better stab at things than that some mysterious Sky God began waving his hands around.
That's simply not true. Any of it.
First, we have the fact that the bad ones often feature a "causeless-effect" theory. That is, we have the theory in play effectively comparing creation to a water faucet spewing out water spontaneously. The only way it will ever happen is if you have the faucet leaking, which is itself a cause. Otherwise, even the good one has a massive glaring flaw, that the so-called logical theory flies in the face of basic science.
That is, in order to be a good theory of atheist creation, it necessarily must understand the basic laws of cause and effect.
Second, there is no consensus that all those who believe in God, have a consistent vision of what this looks like. In the Three Conceptions Of God, it states that contrary to the notion of some universal depiction of God being some old guy in the sky (airplanes would have found him by now) or something that space probes can look for, God can very much be a reflection of us.
There are a few different understandings of what God is:
God is a single immortal person (similar to the Sky God) theory. Unfortunately, this holds up extremely poorly. Why? Well, first off, it overlooks the concept of omnipresence. If God is everywhere, why be in a single place? As I say, we would have found some creepy dude floating in the sky waving his hands about and chanting by now. It also defies the idea that God is omnipotent. This is very traditional monotheism, and it sucks.
There is the concept that the universe has a number of different aspects, each of which has a source or god. This is called polytheism.
We have the idea that God is loosely the universe. This idea is actually compatible with both the idea of omnipotence and omnipresence, and is actually surprisingly compatible with atheism, since it doesn't demand that we define anything as God, so much as accept that there is some cause behind the effect that was the Big Bang. This is called pantheism.
Next, we have loose idea that God is the concept of Soul, and that there is a soul in everything, even apparently inanimate objects such as rocks or trees. This is typically shrugged off by the western world, but is a sort of compromise between a personal God and an impersonal universe, since all life is effectively part of this whole.
And finally, we have biocentrism. This is actually weirder than most theism, but it does provide a good theory without the need for a belief in a traditional God. Who created the universe? We did! Existence is part of our consciousness, and life creates the universe. I seriously doubt that will gain a ton of followers though.
Ideally, I would say, we take monotheism, and one of these other theories, and we have a better deal than either atheism or monotheism.
It is entirely true. Any scientific hypothesis, no matter how ultimately wrong or scatter-brained, is a far better and more honest attempt at explanation than any amount of absurd faith-based supernatural myth and superstition.
You of course have a right to personal beliefs of your own choosing, but the rest of us retain a right to laugh uncontrollably when you express those beliefs in public.
Honestly, OP, as an atheist, I don't really care. If some scientists work it out, that would be great and I'd be fascinated to hear the theory, but it's not something I dwell on. Let's assume for a second that there was a supernatural being involved in it. Ok, great. But if there was, it was nothing like the nitpicky, morally inconsistent god of the bible, who seems like he has several personality disorders all at once.
There could very well be a higher being out there, but I have yet to see empirical proof, and the god of the bible is a highly improbable figure.
As he sought endlessly to point out, Georges Lemaitre was a scientist who happened to be a priest as well. He himself saw no connection between the two and was infuriated by the Vatican's having commented on the Big Bang theory at all. That theory of course has been the cumulative product of ever larger and more sensitive instruments plus the minds of many hundreds of individuals over now nearly a century's worth of investigation. To point to one man as the origin of all this is to misunderstand the process of science itself.
Was't connected? The are virtually the same precepts.
BIBLE INTERPRETATION: In the beginning,
BIG BANG: in the beginning
BIBLE INTERPRETATION: God instantly made the heaven and earth
BIG BANG: Primordial atom rapidly expanded from a highly condensed state to form the universe.
BIBLE INTERPRETATION: The creation occurred before time began.
BIG BANG: Space, matter, energy and time all existed before the the formation of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
By the way, "evolutionists" are more associated with the theory of natural selection than that of the Big Bang.
Was't connected? The are virtually the same precepts.
He's dead now, but you should have told it to Lemaitre. He was the scientist who saw no role for religion in these matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadwood
BIBLE INTERPRETATION: God instantly made the heaven and earth.
Hmmm. My copy says it took a week. Though it isn't clear how "days" were measured prior to the creation of the sun. Which an actual Creator would have known to be a nondescript, planet-less, and completely insignificant little star tucked away in a remote and entirely uninteresting corner of the new universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadwood
Wasn't referring to the Big Bang.
LOL! Lemaitre didn't do Darwinism. He was a mathematician and physicist.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Then again, the heaven might be interpreted as space, and the earth as matter. Add energy and time and you got the primordial atom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
Though it isn't clear how "days" were measured prior to the creation of the sun.
Probably the same way that time was measured before the Big Bang, since the primordial atom is said to have contained all the space, matter, energy and time that exists in this world, then did the universe really actually have a beginning or did it simply change forms....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
Which an actual Creator would have known to be a nondescript, planet-less, and completely insignificant little star tucked away in a remote and entirely uninteresting corner of the new universe.
That is definitely an inspiring description of our solar system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard32
LOL! Lemaitre didn't do Darwinism. He was a mathematician and physicist.
Never said he did, that your assumption of what you think was mean by my statement.
That is definitely an inspiring description of our solar system.
It wasn't meant to be inspiring. Merely accurate. As all the mythology in the world is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
