• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where did the Universe come from?

Where did the Universe come from?

  • From the Big Bang, not sure what was before. God does not exist and was not involved.

    Votes: 33 40.2%

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

    Votes: 2 2.4%

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

    Votes: 2 2.4%

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

    Votes: 29 35.4%

  • Some other mechanism created the Universe, without God...

    Votes: 7 8.5%

  • God created the Universe in some other fashion...

    Votes: 9 11.0%
  • Total voters
    82
spud_meister said:
that question is irrelevant as time and space did not exist so it is indeterminable
Click to expand...

Wow...how unscienitific a response can you offer? Dont know that you can top that.
 
Jerry said:
May his balls be tender and juicy in your mouth.
Click to expand...

it is heresy to discuss what He may or not do with his tender juicy meatballs, what next a reference to slurping on His sacred noodles?

Edit: uggh too late how predictable

spud_meister said:
and his noodly appendage tickle your tonsils
Click to expand...

May you both burn in the fiery inferno of the eternal pizza oven
 
Last edited:
Cilogy said:
There should have been an "other" or a "none of the above."

The truth is we don't know, we will probably never know, but its fun to fantasize about gods and sugarplum fairies.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY agree...just like its fun to fantasize about entire galaxies of matter that just always existed...and the numerous elements...and the mythical big bang that has gone through numerous theoretical incarnations...

And of course...the equally vexxing question for those that support the God only "in the beginning" idea is OK...so where did God come from?

I totally understand agnostics.
 
danarhea said:
With all due respect, there is no evidence that God created the universe. If one can believe that an all powerful God created everything, then we must accept the fact that it is just as likely that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, who, out of thin air, and with his noodly appendage, made everything appear and come to life.
Click to expand...

If the flying spaghetti monster has the attributes and capabilities to create the universe, then he is indistinguishable from God.
 
VanceMack said:
And of course...the equally vexxing question for those that support the God only "in the beginning" idea is OK...so where did God come from?
Click to expand...

I do not think God only did his deal in the beginning and is quiet since. I think he interacts with creation.

He is everywhere and everything and didn't come from anywhere - he is everlasting.
 
reefedjib said:
If the flying spaghetti monster has the attributes and capabilities to create the universe, then he is indistinguishable from God.
Click to expand...

This begs the question in your mind is this term "God" you are tossing around involving sentience, or is "God" just a reference to whatever force(s) that set set the universe in motion?

The FSM could imply a non sentient non organic power that clapped its noodley appendages together creating a big bang, and you are just merely equating this to being "God" when it could be that the noodley appendages were just 2 P-branes colliding, and was not a conscious act of creation, and was instead an accidental.. happenstance occurrence in the multiverse.
 
reefedjib said:
I do not think God only did his deal in the beginning and is quiet since. I think he interacts with creation.

He is everywhere and everything and didn't come from anywhere - he is everlasting.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "He"??? :2razz:

I actually think if we would all (and by 'we' I mean the generic 'we'...not people on this board) put aside the NEED to be right and just allowed for discussion on the subject there is some FASCINATING things that could be learned. I understand the hesitancy of the pro-bang theory group to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in school...but man...can you think of a more cool class than one that taught the science and physics and offered students the opportunity to design a galxy...plug the info into computer models and see which students models didnt get all tore up. (sort of like the scaled bridge exercises).
 
reefedjib said:
If the flying spaghetti monster has the attributes and capabilities to create the universe, then he is indistinguishable from God.
Click to expand...
How do you know what characteristics it would require if you don't even know what it requires to create the universe?

Any talk on such is just arbitrary guessing; just nonsense, literally.
 
marduc said:
This begs the question in your mind is this term "God" you are tossing around involving sentience, or is "God" just a reference to whatever force(s) that set set the universe in motion?

The FSM could imply a non sentient non organic power that clapped its noodley appendages together creating a big bang, and you are just merely equating this to being "God" when it could be that the noodley appendages were just 2 P-branes colliding, and was not a conscious act of creation, and was instead an accidental.. happenstance occurrence in the multiverse.
Click to expand...

I think God is the supreme sentience. God is omniscient, remember.
 
VanceMack said:
What do you mean "He"??? :2razz:

I actually think if we would all (and by 'we' I mean the generic 'we'...not people on this board) put aside the NEED to be right and just allowed for discussion on the subject there is some FASCINATING things that could be learned. I understand the hesitancy of the pro-bang theory group to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in school...but man...can you think of a more cool class than one that taught the science and physics and offered students the opportunity to design a galxy...plug the info into computer models and see which students models didnt get all tore up. (sort of like the scaled bridge exercises).
Click to expand...

When the ID "scientists" present a testable theory for their claims then it will be considered a scientific claim. Until then its just, at best, philosophy, if not blatently theology. None of which are sciences.

If you want to teach ID then go ahead, but put it in a philosophy or religions course, not a science course.
 
reefedjib said:
I think God is the supreme sentience. God is omniscient, remember.
Click to expand...
And why are any of those things required in order to create the universe?

Edit: assuming it was created and hasn't always existed.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
What do you mean "He"??? :2razz:
Click to expand...

Damn! I have been consciously trying my damndest to avoid this pronoun and instead using the proper noun, God, throughout this conversation. I knew I used 'He' and thought about it all the way home and you nailed me! :doh

I actually think if we would all (and by 'we' I mean the generic 'we'...not people on this board) put aside the NEED to be right and just allowed for discussion on the subject there is some FASCINATING things that could be learned. I understand the hesitancy of the pro-bang theory group to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in school...but man...can you think of a more cool class than one that taught the science and physics and offered students the opportunity to design a galxy...plug the info into computer models and see which students models didnt get all tore up. (sort of like the scaled bridge exercises).
Click to expand...

That would be cool. I posted a link earlier to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth"]Creation Myths[/ame] and my dream class is to hash out some of the implications and physical interpretations of some of these myths. For instance,

Many creation myths share broadly similar themes. Common motifs include the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos; the separation of the mother and father gods; land emerging from an infinite and timeless ocean; or creatio ex nihilo (English: creation out of nothing).
Click to expand...

In my mind, these are all equivalent since I think that all creation myths are talking truthfully, although metaphorically, about the same event. The Bible uses land emerging from the water, although it is also creatio ex nihilo.
 
reefedjib said:
I think God is the supreme sentience. God is omniscient, remember.
Click to expand...

Scourge already kind of beat me to the punch, but lets tie this back in to your other statement:

reefedjib said:
If the flying spaghetti monster has the attributes and capabilities to create the universe, then he is indistinguishable from God.
Click to expand...

You are glossing over a huge assumption here, namely that sentience is a required attribute and or capability to create the universe.
 
VanceMack said:
What do you mean "He"??? :2razz:

I actually think if we would all (and by 'we' I mean the generic 'we'...not people on this board) put aside the NEED to be right and just allowed for discussion on the subject there is some FASCINATING things that could be learned. I understand the hesitancy of the pro-bang theory group to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in school...but man...can you think of a more cool class than one that taught the science and physics and offered students the opportunity to design a galxy...plug the info into computer models and see which students models didnt get all tore up. (sort of like the scaled bridge exercises).
Click to expand...

"Pro-bang"? That theory is taught because it, with the Inflation modification, is consistent with observed fact and accepted theory.

The ID theology is not consistent with known fact nor is it testable, hence it is not a science and should not be taught in a science class as any valid approach to reality.

There's no "hesitancy", the ID crap doesn't pass the standards of good science.
 
scourge99 said:
How do you know what characteristics it would require if you don't even know what it requires to create the universe?
Click to expand...

I know it requires God to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. God needs the ability to form Words. God has to be able to separate himself into two.

Any talk on such is just arbitrary guessing; just nonsense, literally.
Click to expand...

I will disagree. Thinking through what is required leads to attributes that most Gods in the world, especially monotheistic Gods, share.

I know of 2 monotheistic Gods:
  1. The Abrahamic God of the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran.
  2. Brahma, the Creator God of the Hindus and the single God of the Vedanta.
 
marduc said:
This begs the question in your mind is this term "God" you are tossing around involving sentience, or is "God" just a reference to whatever force(s) that set set the universe in motion?
Click to expand...

The use of the word "God" is an anthropomorphism indicative of a directed will as opposed to the natural progression of insensate force.

The Universe either was, or was not, created by an intelligent entity. That entity is typically referred to as "God".
 
We don't know...that's why we say "God did it"...we don't now, and we don't care enough to devote our lives to finding out. We put it in the "God did it" box and move on.
 
scourge99 said:
And why are any of those things required in order to create the universe?

Edit: assuming it was created and hasn't always existed.
Click to expand...

God had to perfectly conceptualize the universe to create it, since the universe came from spirit -> thought -> energy -> matter.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Pro-bang"? That theory is taught because it, with the Inflation modification, is consistent with observed fact and accepted theory.

The ID theology is not consistent with known fact nor is it testable, hence it is not a science and should not be taught in a science class as any valid approach to reality.

There's no "hesitancy", the ID crap doesn't pass the standards of good science.
Click to expand...

I just about totally agree with you until you claimed ID, crap. It isn't science, but this does not mean it is not useful to learn about. I would make sure to include creation myths from the whole world and not just Christian ID (which I know very little about - but some proponents are freaky)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The use of the word "God" is an anthropomorphism indicative of a directed will as opposed to the natural progression of insensate force.

The Universe either was, or was not, created by an intelligent entity. That entity is typically referred to as "God".
Click to expand...

God is more than just the creator. God also underlies all energy and matter in the universe. Anything you look at is a part of God. God is everywhere present (omnipresence).
 
reefedjib said:
God had to perfectly conceptualize the universe to create it, since the universe came from spirit -> thought -> energy -> matter.
Click to expand...

What in the world makes you think that universes are created in that way (assuming they are created). It sounds like its pure speculation derived solely from religious promotional material.

Your last few posts are littered with one unsubstantiated assertion after another.
Are we to believe anything that can be conceptualized? Why is your beliefs on the matter truth?

For most beliefs we require evidence or conformance to our knowledge. I don't see how anything you propose is evidenced or conforms to our knowledge of reality. Do you claim to be inspired by supernatural revelation or guidance? Or do you simply believe others who claim such?
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
God is more than just the creator. God also underlies all energy and matter in the universe. Anything you look at is a part of God. God is everywhere present (omnipresence).
Click to expand...

No.

I don't worship friggin' inanimate planets or natural forces. They're THINGS. The word "God" refers to a conscious entity having free will and the ability to act on that will.

If it's just the sum of natural forces, without consciousness or ability, then it's just a thing. Giraffes make turds. They don't think about it, and there's nothing special about it.
 
reefedjib said:
I just about totally agree with you until you claimed ID, crap. It isn't science, but this does not mean it is not useful to learn about. I would make sure to include creation myths from the whole world and not just Christian ID (which I know very little about - but some proponents are freaky)
Click to expand...

It's not science and the only purpose served in learning about it is to learn how charlatans can use pseudo-scientific language to promote a non-scientific religious viewpoint. If the goal is to learn the science of biology, the time spent coverind ID would be better spent using a microscope to check feces for parasitic worms.
 
scourge99 said:
When the ID "scientists" present a testable theory for their claims then it will be considered a scientific claim. Until then its just, at best, philosophy, if not blatently theology. None of which are sciences.

If you want to teach ID then go ahead, but put it in a philosophy or religions course, not a science course.
Click to expand...

Since 'science' defines all these natural laws that cause the universe to function, why dont you think it would be a valid exercise to have people create a universe model? I think it would be EXTREMELY valuable to have students see what would happen if the earth was just another 100 miles away from its normal orbit.

Notice...I am not even going to the religous aspect of intelligent design. Just leave the word out of it...no "Intelligent design"...call it Cosmos Building 101...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom