View Poll Results: Where did the Universe come from?

Voters
102. You may not vote on this poll
  • From the Big Bang, not sure what was before. God does not exist and was not involved.

    39 38.24%
  • Not the Big Bang, but some other physical event. God does not exist and was not involved.

    2 1.96%
  • God created the Universe without a Big Bang. Earth was especially created.

    2 1.96%
  • God created the Universe with a Big Bang and then the universe evolved.

    37 36.27%
  • Some other mechanism created the Universe, without God...

    13 12.75%
  • God created the Universe in some other fashion...

    9 8.82%
Page 35 of 39 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 385

Thread: Where did the Universe come from?

  1. #341
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

    It was a Big Bang.

    God spoke and *BANG*, it happened.

    Details of time scale and biological specifics are left open-ended as an exercise for the student.
    (as I've mentioned before, I don't get in a tizzy over it. I'll know one day.)

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #342
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I believe I said faith provides knowledge, not imagination.
    what knowledge does faith not provide?
    can't it be argued that faith provides knowledge for anything, cincluding bigfoot, fairyies, gods, and string theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Love also provides knowledge.
    such as?
    You claimed before that love provides knowledge of mutual love. This is demonstrably false. We can show plenty examples of people who believe they are in love and the other person loves them back when in fact it is only one-sided.


    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    There is no way to confirm it.
    what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed? Is it for the placebo effect?
    You can't even claim that the "knowledge" is true. All you can claim is that you "believe" its true.


    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    verified confirmed theories and facts are testable. Knowledge from faith is not.
    And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
    Last edited by scourge99; 03-29-10 at 08:58 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  3. #343
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    what knowledge does faith not provide?
    can't it be argued that faith provides knowledge for anything, cincluding bigfoot, fairyies, gods, and string theory?
    Yes.

    such as?
    You claimed before that love provides knowledge of mutual love. This is demonstrably false. We can show plenty examples of people who believe they are in love and the other person loves them back when in fact it is only one-sided.
    True. I suppose love doesn't actually give one knowledge of another. Still.


    what use is knowledge that can't be confirmed?
    You can reason with it. You can find comfort in it. You can evolve spiritually with it.

    You can't even claim that the "knowledge" is true. All you can claim is that you "believe" its true.
    True.

    And is therefore indistinguishable from fiction.
    There is a world of difference between faith and fiction.

  4. #344
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Yes.



    True. I suppose love doesn't actually give one knowledge of another. Still.




    You can reason with it. You can find comfort in it. You can evolve spiritually with it.



    True.



    There is a world of difference between faith and fiction.
    I rest my case.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: I am so sick of people pretending to know things they don't or can't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    I rest my case.
    And I rest mine.

  6. #346
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    And I rest mine.
    You don't have a case to rest.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  7. #347
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    You don't have a case to rest.
    Sure I do. God exists. Silly atheists.

  8. #348
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Care to explain WHY you believe what you do?

    1) What reason or evidence makes you believe God created the universe?
    I'd be glad to explain my beliefs, and I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.
    The evidence I base my beliefs on is the fact that the universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws. Order does not arise from chaos. Not only this, but the odds for a life supporting planet are astronomical/impossible. We know through science that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This states, it would require a power beyond science to speak into existence all that we know. By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
    2) What makes you believe the universe isn't billions of years old? Have you read why geologists and scientists claim this?
    Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed. I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law
    Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

    My view is also based on evidence from earth that the world itself is not billions of years old such as finding soft tissue in fossils, the earth's magnetic field, the record of human history that we have, geology, and many other things.
    3) how has science been "hijacked by the naturalist's philosophy"? What reason or evidence do you have for this or are you merely parroting your preacher's/Sunday_school_teacher's sermon?
    The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical. It is the belief that all we can know/all that exists is nature, and that there is a natural, non-supernatural explanation for everything. Everything has come into being through a natural process devoid of the guidance or creation of a higher power. My evidence is that modern day science is very corrupt towards naturalism and old universe ideals because they must be true in order for naturalists theories like evolution and the big bang to be plausible. Objective science has been put to death so that the naturalist philosophy may rule. Also, I think it's evident when scientists refuse to be open minded about other things and state things as "fact" when they haven't been proven. Consensus doesn't equal being correct. Hypothetically, if science without a doubt proved that all existence was created by a higher power that the fact would be accepted? Or would it be "explained away" and rejected because it holds to the point that there is existence beyond our natural and that there are things beyond science and our physical world, things above the physical world that created it?

  9. #349
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
    The principle of energy conservation is based on experiments performed in the contemporary universe. Its existence cannot be divorced from its historical context. It is possible beings that existed in an early phase of the galaxy experienced fundamentally different principles of physics, although the principle of energy conservation probably wasn't one of them and such beings would not resemble humans.

    The principles of physics, from Copernicus to Einstein to the string theorists, can not be removed from their historical context except for purposes of further empirical investigation.

    To make it clear, that means the principle of energy conservation can only be taken to mean "matter cannot be created or destroyed" only to the extent data collected from light streaming across the universe suggests that is the case. For practical purposes, that is "all the time", but sound science cannot make a descriptive statement based on limited experential evidence into an Newtowian style absolute like the one you are advancing. Even if such order exists behind the chaos of the quantum physics and the mysteriousness of cosmic history, the investigations of contemporary theoretical physics implies we will never be able to apprehend it for certain.

    The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.
    That's only if you conflate a "higher power" with biblical literalism. Biblical literalism is not the only spiritual viewpoint which includes a higher power, or even the only Christian one. Contemporary physics is passively hostile to biblical literalism. It is not actively hostile toward the concept of a higher power, but neither is it particularly favorable.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 03-30-10 at 01:26 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #350
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Where did the Universe come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm sorry for the late reply. I have been in school all day.
    No problem. I've been particularly busy lately so I haven't had the time to respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    the universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws. Order does not arise from chaos.
    The flaws of arguments from design are well known:

    Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki
    The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even wilful ignorance in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially paramount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God done it!

    This has led to the formulation of such theories as Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, which was laughed out of court during the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case, who when presented with counterpoints, "Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))”.


    You may also want to look into the Argument from Poor Design:
    Argument from poor design - Iron Chariots Wiki


    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Not only this, but the odds for a life supporting planet are astronomical/impossible.
    Even if we are the ONLY life forms in the entire universe, I don't see how that supports the argument for a intelligent creator being, let alone the god of the bible. perhaps you can connect the dots where no theists has done so before?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We know through science that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This states, it would require a power beyond science to speak into existence all that we know.
    We don't know how everything came into existence or whether its always been there. Not knowing does not mean you get to make up any answer to fill in the gaps of knowledge, I.E., God of the gaps argument: God of the gaps - Iron Chariots Wiki

    Theories, including God theories, must stand on their own merit. No theory is de facto truth because other theories are eliminated or seen as unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    By scientific definition all of what comprises the physical universe could not have spontaneously generated itself or was self created, especially for no reason.
    We don't know how the big bang was caused or what caused it or even if discussing causality "before" the Big bang is sensible. We simply don't know at this time. Theoretical Physicists have some great theories that work out mathematically but they are working on supporting them with evidence and experiments to CONFIRM and VERIFY them.

    Do you have anything to provide to CONFIRM and VERIFY your God claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Scientists base their belief that the universe is billions of years old on many factors such as starlight (billions of light-years away) and the Hubble constant (a rate for the expansion of the universe). I know there are several other things, but these two are major. My belief is that both means are false/flawed.
    I'm not very familiar with why scientists believe the earth and universe is as old as it is. its not really a major concern of mine except for the instances it comes up debating religion creation stories. In such cases I often refer to a site that heavily references scientific papers and is often focused on countering Creationist claims. This site is very well known and has been for quite sometime. Its talkorigins.org.
    I'm neither an astrophysicist, a physicist, biologists, geologist, astronomer, or the like so I'll have to defer criticism of the details to those with much grater understanding of the subjects.
    CH200: Age of the Universe
    CH210: Age of the Earth

    I'd like you to note that these pages cite their sources.
    "NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc.

    HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

    However, if a large number of researchers from different organizations – perhaps worldwide (including some who are competitors or doubters) duplicate the experiment and report similar results, I regard that as much more credible and probably worthy of acceptance. "


    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I can't summarize everything here, but here are two links that disprove/show problems for the Hubble expansion constant. Hubble, hubble, big bang in trouble? The Hubble Law
    Also, being able to see stars billions of light years away also poses a problem for the big bang. Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang
    Once again, I'm not qualified to dispute these issues and I would guess that neither are you.

    I can however ask if you believe humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Do you believe what this Ph.D and other creationists do Digsbe? Do you believe man lived with dinosaurs?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    My view is also based on evidence from earth that the world itself is not billions of years old such as finding soft tissue in fossils, the earth's magnetic field, the record of human history that we have, geology, and many other things.
    Do any of these theories have evidence and support? Have they been peer reviewed and accepted by scientists in their respective fields? have their claims been reproduced and tested by other independently?

    The truth has nothing to hide from investigation.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The naturalists philosophy has hijacked science
    Science is theories that best explain the evidence. When new evidence contradicts or discredits previous theories then those theories must be revised or discarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    in that it has pretty much removed the concept of a higher power and has deemed it as unscientific or illogical.
    What evidence do we have that is scientific and logical to conclude that there is a higher power ?

    "I do NOT accept bible stories as evidence that bible stories are true. I have considered the topic at some length, asked for evidence... invited “gods” to contact me directly – and NOTHING – no evidence, no word from “gods”, no reason to accept the tales as true.

    I ask that bible believers show something IN ADDITION to the stories to show that the stories are true.

    For instance, a major Christian claim (and foundation of the religion) is that Jesus came back from the dead. I AGREE that there are stories in the bible (religious promotional material) that make that claim. I ASK what evidence (besides the story itself) can be presented to show that the story of “resurrection” is true.

    “faith and assumption” is what religion offers as reason to believe its tales and claims. Some may be swayed by the emotionalism and by threats and promises; however, others are not.

    If a single source, the bible, reports a “resurrection” and NO other sources can be cited to verify the claim, I reserve judgment and ask for further evidence. When claims have been challenged for a thousand years with no evidence provided, I am inclined to think the source is biased (only reported by religious believers / followers / proponents) and possibly dishonest)."



    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It is the belief that all we can know/all that exists is nature
    Science has never supported such a claim. To my knowledge there is no theory that states "everything can be and will be explained by science". Do you know of such a theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    and that there is a natural, non-supernatural explanation for everything.
    Once again, you are wrong. Science has not claimed that supernaturalism cannot exist. There simply hasn't been any evidence or support for claims of the supernatural. If you have evidence or ANY means to verify and support supernaturalism then please contact the James Randi foundation and collect your $1,000,000 prize.
    Challenge Info
    JREF Challenge FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Everything has come into being through a natural process devoid of the guidance or creation of a higher power.
    The evidence points to the fact that life evolves through natural processes and that that natural processes continuously work throughout the universe without any divine intervention.

    Where "everything" came from "in the beginning" (if there is a beginning) has not yet been resolved by scientists and may never be. Only the religious claim to know such things.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    My evidence is that modern day science is very corrupt towards naturalism and old universe ideals because they must be true in order for naturalists theories like evolution and the big bang to be plausible. Objective science has been put to death so that the naturalist philosophy may rule.
    This is backwards. You believe science is wrong because you think science presumes naturalism in order to support evolution and the big bang. In fact its the other way around. The evolution and the big bang are supported by evidence and have natural causes. Thus these theories that are independently confirmed and verified, collectively point toward naturalism. But that doesn't mean science must be naturalistic. it merely means that so far all the theories appear to support naturalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Also, I think it's evident when scientists refuse to be open minded about other things and state things as "fact" when they haven't been proven.
    Scientists usually state things as fact when their is so much evidence for them it seems highly unlikely that they would be wrong. But scientists have been wrong in the past and probably will be in the future. SCIENCE IS ALWAYS TENTATIVE. A theory is only as strong as the evidence. When new evidence is presented that contradicts or discredits previous theories then they must be discarded or revised.


    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Consensus doesn't equal being correct.
    Of course not. But evidence doesn't lie, or make mistakes, or become delusional. People do.
    NO, I do not consider ANY source to be unbiased because humans tend to be biased – including bible writers, scientists, senators, presidents, etc, etc.

    HOWEVER, when information comes from a wide variety of sources representing different viewpoints, the effect of bias is at least somewhat neutralized. For instance, if a physicist or small group of researchers claim to have achieved “cold fusion”, I would reserve judgment (not accept what they say as truthful and accurate without verification) because they could well be biased (or downright dishonest).

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Hypothetically, if science without a doubt proved that all existence was created by a higher power that the fact would be accepted?
    It is beyond the power of science or philosophy, at this time, to prove with absolute certainty ANYTHING. Science can only SUPPORT theories, it does not PROVE any of them. It is very important to remember this.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Or would it be "explained away" and rejected because it holds to the point that there is existence beyond our natural and that there are things beyond science and our physical world, things above the physical world that created it?
    If religionists could present evidence or some means of verifying or confirming their claims of a higher power then I would believe it.

    However, we have been waiting since the dawn of man for religions to present evidence for their claims. All we get are excuses, hearsay, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims. Why do you suppose that is?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 35 of 39 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •