Shopping & Style0 min ago
The Cause Of Creation.
45 Answers
Just as it is possible to affirm a belief in God, so it is equally possible to deny the existence of God. Proofs for either position are amazingly difficult to convince those holding the opposite viewpoints. It has been stated in these threads, that the atheistic, secular, scientific position on the origin of the universe, i.e. "Something from nothing in the big bang," is quite simply, "We don't know." Does not knowing therefore present a neutral observer with the anticipation of any and every possible answer, in other words, a blank sheet, or is the sheet not blank, and written across the top is, "There is no God."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The scientific position is not that something came from nothing in the Big Bang.
"Not knowing the answer" means - and I hope I can explain this clearly enough for you - "we don't know the answer".
It means you can't just say "X is responsible", no matter what X might be, because there is insufficient evidence to support such a view, whether that view be scientific or some religious notion or some other scenario that encompasses neither.
You attempt to characterise this scenario as being a straightforward dichotomy, when there is no reason it should be, and in any case, it is highly improbable that anyone would approach the issue without having some view on the matter one way or t'other.
"Not knowing the answer" means - and I hope I can explain this clearly enough for you - "we don't know the answer".
It means you can't just say "X is responsible", no matter what X might be, because there is insufficient evidence to support such a view, whether that view be scientific or some religious notion or some other scenario that encompasses neither.
You attempt to characterise this scenario as being a straightforward dichotomy, when there is no reason it should be, and in any case, it is highly improbable that anyone would approach the issue without having some view on the matter one way or t'other.
If I answer that it is my fundamental belief that the universe is in fact 78 years old, and was created on a tuesday by the fart of Argos, the Great God of Shopping, who is, was and ever will be, will you accept it?
If not, why on earth would I believe that it was created by Yahweh, Allah, Mbombo, Brahma or the Great Spaghetti Monster?
If not, why on earth would I believe that it was created by Yahweh, Allah, Mbombo, Brahma or the Great Spaghetti Monster?
So Waldo, am I right in perceiving the fact that as far as you are concerned, the answer sheet remains blank?
If my assumption is correct, then does that not leave the possibility of a Creator God, even if sometime in the future, this assumption is disproven?
But for now, you accept at least the possibility unless proved otherwise?
If my assumption is correct, then does that not leave the possibility of a Creator God, even if sometime in the future, this assumption is disproven?
But for now, you accept at least the possibility unless proved otherwise?
Hello Whicker.
Yes, if we have a blank sheet of paper, just waiting to have written on it the ultimate cause of the universe, then your Argos god remains a potential candidate, just waiting for a proof, independently of your unfounded beliefs.
But ..... are we to assume that, as written n the question, "There Is No God?"
This presumption must also demand a prroof surely?
If what I understand to be the atheist position is correct, then, "Don't know," must encompass ALL possibilities until convincing evidence is forthcoming.
Correction - until convincing evidence, "as far as the individual is concerned ........ "
Yes, if we have a blank sheet of paper, just waiting to have written on it the ultimate cause of the universe, then your Argos god remains a potential candidate, just waiting for a proof, independently of your unfounded beliefs.
But ..... are we to assume that, as written n the question, "There Is No God?"
This presumption must also demand a prroof surely?
If what I understand to be the atheist position is correct, then, "Don't know," must encompass ALL possibilities until convincing evidence is forthcoming.
Correction - until convincing evidence, "as far as the individual is concerned ........ "
....... for example, the milkman, the wheelie bin man, the butcher, the baker, and the thongmaker, can happily live out their lives in the belief, if ever they think of it, that all matter is composed of fundamental particles called atoms, like tiny billiard balls.
But we know that the fundamental particles are only partially understood, and are quite a zoo of inhabitants that remain tantalisingly beyond our ken.
We don't understand. We do not know. Therfore, if all possibilities are potential answers, is not God counted amongst the possibilities?
Even, the chocolate teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster?
Surely, God has a right to begin on the same starting line as the others? At least?
But we know that the fundamental particles are only partially understood, and are quite a zoo of inhabitants that remain tantalisingly beyond our ken.
We don't understand. We do not know. Therfore, if all possibilities are potential answers, is not God counted amongst the possibilities?
Even, the chocolate teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster?
Surely, God has a right to begin on the same starting line as the others? At least?
Yes Theland, but absolutely no more than that, and that's the problem that people have with religion.
I've yet to encounter a mainstream religion that starts with the basis you mention.
Without exception it's a case of "I'm right, you're wrong, and I may deign to accept that you're entitled to your wrong view (but I probably won't)."
I've yet to encounter a mainstream religion that starts with the basis you mention.
Without exception it's a case of "I'm right, you're wrong, and I may deign to accept that you're entitled to your wrong view (but I probably won't)."
Waldo - You have certainly made clear the difference between not knowing, and speculating on a narrowed list of possibilities.
So, given your implied wider list of all possibilities, is it not reasonable for me to assume that God as Creator remains at least a possibility in your mind, along with spontaneous creation, circular existentialism, and, "this is all a dream," along with, of course, family favourites such as choccy teapots, infinite turtles, pasta deities, and such like?
So, given your implied wider list of all possibilities, is it not reasonable for me to assume that God as Creator remains at least a possibility in your mind, along with spontaneous creation, circular existentialism, and, "this is all a dream," along with, of course, family favourites such as choccy teapots, infinite turtles, pasta deities, and such like?
Taking your last post, Theland1.
If we are now to assume a level playing -field, where is it possible that all Gods and/or no Gods may co-exist simultaneously (Schrodingers Cat-esque theory) and have a right to be crowned 'Creator', are you willing to accept that is a little unfair that we live in a society whose laws have been formed because of/with the assistance of/ at the behest of 'Religionists' ? Is it not also unfair that punitive measures have been taken against those who are at variance with whoever is currently 'top-dog' God-wise ?
Especially when equal significance ought to be given to all........
If we are now to assume a level playing -field, where is it possible that all Gods and/or no Gods may co-exist simultaneously (Schrodingers Cat-esque theory) and have a right to be crowned 'Creator', are you willing to accept that is a little unfair that we live in a society whose laws have been formed because of/with the assistance of/ at the behest of 'Religionists' ? Is it not also unfair that punitive measures have been taken against those who are at variance with whoever is currently 'top-dog' God-wise ?
Especially when equal significance ought to be given to all........
That's a very interesting point, Monk.
The new universal tolerance, that manifests itself in human rights legislation etc, giving protection to minorities, is in face extrememely intolerant of Christianity, and recent cases have seen the criminalisation of Christianity in the face ofr this new so called universal tolerance.
The new universal tolerance, that manifests itself in human rights legislation etc, giving protection to minorities, is in face extrememely intolerant of Christianity, and recent cases have seen the criminalisation of Christianity in the face ofr this new so called universal tolerance.
There is neither need to deny nor reason to assert the existence of something that does not exist. Nor is it reasonable to presuppose the universe was created as this thread implies at the top of this page.
That the universe exists is self-evident and undeniable, as any attempt to deny it presupposes the existence of both a universe as well as the existence of an entity within it possessing the capacity to make (right or wrong) such a determination. Creation, however, does imply the preexistence of such an entity with such a capacity, the existence of which, the evidence suggests, evolved within a preexisting universe which itself over time evolved to provide such a capability. The assertion that such a universe was created is not simply a denial of but a reversal of the chain of causality.
The evidence further suggests that the universe was once largely devoid of space and was too hot and dense to allow for the most basic building blocks of matter to acquire stable forms. It has taken thirteen plus billion years for us to realise the capacity to pose such questions as how the universe first arose. The quality of the answers we will eventually arrive at remains to be seen, but as always, God remains silent, leaving us with only the evidence of things seen, our own potential to reason and our thirst for understanding to solve this riddle.
The quality of the answers we do assimilate rests largely on our ability to properly phrase the question in a meaningful way that promotes the cause of a greater understanding.
That the universe exists is self-evident and undeniable, as any attempt to deny it presupposes the existence of both a universe as well as the existence of an entity within it possessing the capacity to make (right or wrong) such a determination. Creation, however, does imply the preexistence of such an entity with such a capacity, the existence of which, the evidence suggests, evolved within a preexisting universe which itself over time evolved to provide such a capability. The assertion that such a universe was created is not simply a denial of but a reversal of the chain of causality.
The evidence further suggests that the universe was once largely devoid of space and was too hot and dense to allow for the most basic building blocks of matter to acquire stable forms. It has taken thirteen plus billion years for us to realise the capacity to pose such questions as how the universe first arose. The quality of the answers we will eventually arrive at remains to be seen, but as always, God remains silent, leaving us with only the evidence of things seen, our own potential to reason and our thirst for understanding to solve this riddle.
The quality of the answers we do assimilate rests largely on our ability to properly phrase the question in a meaningful way that promotes the cause of a greater understanding.
Mibs, given our daily experience of beginnings and endings, of cause and effect, is it not unreasonable to assume a beginning for the universe? This would after all fit into our way of thinking based upon our experiences?
Then, to take this one step further, is not not unreasonable to presume a cause for such a beginning?
Then, to take this one step further, is not not unreasonable to presume a cause for such a beginning?
We have a more fundamental problem Theland.
We can't agree on how you know something at all.
In the "rational" School we require evidence that is repeatable, or at the very least fits in with observations that are repeatable, before we start to say that we "know" something.
The "Faith" school does not require this - It takes something as read, commonly a holy book and builds it's knowledge on that, anything that points to errors in that tenet is dismissed as hieretical and wrong.
So I fear we cannot even agree on what we don't know - because from where I stand the religious school doesn't "know" anything.
However perhaps a better area of compromise is in areas of expertise. Science has nothing to say in areas like moral philosophy. Rationalism has a little but only if built on axioms like striving to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or treating others as you would yourself.
In these areas there is a lot of common ground.
It only gets sticky when we start to talk about objective reality and "truth"
We can't agree on how you know something at all.
In the "rational" School we require evidence that is repeatable, or at the very least fits in with observations that are repeatable, before we start to say that we "know" something.
The "Faith" school does not require this - It takes something as read, commonly a holy book and builds it's knowledge on that, anything that points to errors in that tenet is dismissed as hieretical and wrong.
So I fear we cannot even agree on what we don't know - because from where I stand the religious school doesn't "know" anything.
However perhaps a better area of compromise is in areas of expertise. Science has nothing to say in areas like moral philosophy. Rationalism has a little but only if built on axioms like striving to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, or treating others as you would yourself.
In these areas there is a lot of common ground.
It only gets sticky when we start to talk about objective reality and "truth"
It's a question of probabilities, Theland. Look at it this way:
I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden, so all I can say is "There are probably no fairies at the bottom of my garden" (echoing that bus advertisement).
But does that mean that I should consider it as a real possibility? No, of course not. Why? Because fairies are supernatural creatures who do magical things and for whose existence there is not a shred of evidence. Therefore of all the creatures that might live down there, fairies come very much down the list.
No-one knows how the universe came about and therefore, as you say, God must be one possibility. Other possibilities from the world's creation myths are: a bull spilled his sperm which turned into the universe; a mother-god laid an egg; mud was brought from the bottom of the sea to make the earth, and so on. All are possibiities but just as improbable as the idea of a minor god of southern Israel saying "Let there be...".
A possibility, yes, but with a probability so vanishingly small that we needn't take it seriously.
Yet people do! They found whole religions on it and preach it constantly from pulpits (and AB R&S!) as truth. They even believe that there is some sort of virtue in believing it.
That's where it all goes wrong: elevating the possible but extremely improbable into a life-style certainty.
I cannot prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden, so all I can say is "There are probably no fairies at the bottom of my garden" (echoing that bus advertisement).
But does that mean that I should consider it as a real possibility? No, of course not. Why? Because fairies are supernatural creatures who do magical things and for whose existence there is not a shred of evidence. Therefore of all the creatures that might live down there, fairies come very much down the list.
No-one knows how the universe came about and therefore, as you say, God must be one possibility. Other possibilities from the world's creation myths are: a bull spilled his sperm which turned into the universe; a mother-god laid an egg; mud was brought from the bottom of the sea to make the earth, and so on. All are possibiities but just as improbable as the idea of a minor god of southern Israel saying "Let there be...".
A possibility, yes, but with a probability so vanishingly small that we needn't take it seriously.
Yet people do! They found whole religions on it and preach it constantly from pulpits (and AB R&S!) as truth. They even believe that there is some sort of virtue in believing it.
That's where it all goes wrong: elevating the possible but extremely improbable into a life-style certainty.
So you mention lifestyle.
Examine the lifestyle of some religionist, who are slaves to their earhly gurus, pope, J.W. Elders, muslim imams, priests and frocked clergymen etc etc.
They give belief a bad name because of the human agenda they follow.
Now examine the lifestyle of any true born again Christian, and tell me what is offensive about it?
Is true Jesus following Christianity a threat to society?
Rather it is a boon, as look how philanthropic Christians have contributed to our civilisation and society over the last few hundred years.
The aboloition of slavery, Barnardos, Salvation Army for the homeless, to name but a few.
.
Examine the lifestyle of some religionist, who are slaves to their earhly gurus, pope, J.W. Elders, muslim imams, priests and frocked clergymen etc etc.
They give belief a bad name because of the human agenda they follow.
Now examine the lifestyle of any true born again Christian, and tell me what is offensive about it?
Is true Jesus following Christianity a threat to society?
Rather it is a boon, as look how philanthropic Christians have contributed to our civilisation and society over the last few hundred years.
The aboloition of slavery, Barnardos, Salvation Army for the homeless, to name but a few.
.
Theland, What are you getting at?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News6 mins ago
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News7 mins ago
