• 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
reefedjib said:
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



That would be cool. I posted a link earlier to Creation Myths and my dream class is to hash out some of the implications and physical interpretations of some of these myths. For instance,



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.
Click to expand...

I just wish everyone wasnt so damned afraid to have intelligent conversations about the stuff without having to feel the need to ram their version of the truth down other peoples throats...

And totally joking about the gendered God thing...
 
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...

sonova...motherf...

How did I screw that up? What part of that gave ANY indication that it was a philosophical debate? Im talking the SCIENCE and PHYSICS of what makes the world go round...and what got us here.

Good God....are people so AFRAID of the discussion of anything remotely God related that they cant see beyond their OWN fears and insecurities???
 
The Big Bang really isn't supported by science, rather it seems it is propagated by science because it is currently the "best" naturalistic explanation for the universe. This scientific site lists many reasons why the Big Bang is flawed Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers (scroll down to What are some of the problems with the ‘big bang’ hypothesis?). I believe in the intelligent design of the universe by the Intelligent Designer (God).
 
scourge99 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.
Click to expand...

"Religious promotional material"!! :rofl I suppose that that is one way of putting it.

To me, it is a very interesting, complete speculation on the structure and function of creation (to include the universe - matter and energy - and the other planes of reality). It is a stretch, no doubt about it.

We have thoughts, but the idea that they are superior to energy is unproven and probably untestable. The closest you can come is the idea of "mind over body". The idea that energy emanated from the world of thought is speculative. The next level is even more unproven since we don't have evidence for spirits and souls.

However, within that framework, it is easy to see the assertion that God is omniscient and that this is required to create the universe.

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?
Click to expand...

My claims are clearly not testable or provable truth. They are a conceptualization of God and creation. I do NOT claim supernatural revelation or guidance.

However, I do believe there have been others who can claim such - namely the divine incarnations (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc)
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

God has no form. God is no entity that is separate from creation. Creation is from his own spiritual substance.

Everything created is created from God. God is conscious. Even the turd is a part of God and God's consciousness.
 
VanceMack said:
Since 'science' defines all these natural laws that cause the universe to function
Click to expand...
science doesn't define anything. Scientists perform experiments that generate empirical data. Scientists formulate theories to explain the patterns in that data.

If you disagree with a theory then you are urged to explain and demonstrate why other data does not fit with the currently accepeted theories. If all goes well others will reproduce your data to confirm your claims.

VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...
oh, how quaint. The implicit "fine tuner" argument.

While we are at it, let's have kids try to make a human skeleton by molding and shaping the bones of monkeys. Then let's ask them how they think man evolved from a chimpanzee!!
:roll:

How many defeated and broken christian apologetics arguments can we shoe-horn into our science classrooms?

VanceMack said:
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...
Click to expand...
Yea. Its not creationism, its intelligent design. :lol:
They tried this in pennsylvania. Go watch the Nova documentary on the dover trial.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that learning biology is no place for learning about religion and religious creation myths.

I will say again I don't know very much about ID, other than they are trying to ram Christian creationism down the throat of scientists and teach it as science. I find that completely ridiculous.

I will also say again that the study of religions, not just Christianity, ought to be a part of school. A focus on creation myth is valuable.
 
scourge99 said:
science doesn't define anything. Scientists perform experiments that generate empirical data. Scientists formulate theories to explain the patterns in that data.

If you disagree with a theory then you are urged to explain and demonstrate why other data does not fit with the currently accepeted theories. If all goes well others will reproduce your data to confirm your claims.

oh, how quaint. The implicit "fine tuner" argument.

While we are at it, let's have kids try to make a human skeleton by molding and shaping the bones of monkeys. Then let's ask them how they think man evolved from a chimpanzee!!
:roll:

How many defeated and broken christian apologetics arguments can we shoe-horn into our science classrooms?


Yea. Its not creationism, its intelligent design. :lol:
They tried this in pennsylvania. Go watch the Nova documentary on the dover trial.
Click to expand...

You know...I debated in my mind which word to use that wouldnt have some dingus playing stupid f-ing wordgames...ooops....should have known better.

You simply arent worth the energy required to hit keys. I had you down for 'deliberate'...now...I'm not so sure...
 
VanceMack said:
sonova...motherf...

How did I screw that up? What part of that gave ANY indication that it was a philosophical debate? Im talking the SCIENCE and PHYSICS of what makes the world go round...and what got us here.

Good God....are people so AFRAID of the discussion of anything remotely God related that they cant see beyond their OWN fears and insecurities???
Click to expand...

If you're discussing science and physics, then ID has no place in the discussion. What next, young earth theories?
 
VanceMack said:
I just wish everyone wasnt so damned afraid to have intelligent conversations about the stuff without having to feel the need to ram their version of the truth down other peoples throats...

And totally joking about the gendered God thing...
Click to expand...

I have intelligent conversations about ID.

The first step in having one is that all parties agree that ID is hogwash.
 
reefedjib said:
God has no form. God is no entity that is separate from creation. Creation is from his own spiritual substance.

Everything created is created from God. God is conscious. Even the turd is a part of God and God's consciousness.
Click to expand...

Your evidence for this hypothesis is what? Be precise.

Since you claim that God is conscious, describe the environmental pressures compelled his consciousness. Note that one's awareness of self is the awareness of the existence of "not-self".
 
VanceMack said:
You know...I debated in my mind which word to use that wouldnt have some dingus playing stupid f-ing wordgames...ooops....should have known better.

You simply arent worth the energy required to hit keys. I had you down for 'deliberate'...now...I'm not so sure...
Click to expand...

Hollow assertions and tough talking may convince your friends and family, but here its understood as an admission of defeat.

If you'd like to explain where I was playing word games then I'd be more than happy to address your concerns. But huffing and puffing is simply ignored.
 
It came from Uranus.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I have intelligent conversations about ID.

The first step in having one is that all parties agree that ID is hogwash.
Click to expand...

Fine. I didnt pose it as a gateway into a religous discussion. I dont have religous discussions...and certainly not online. Personally I find it boring.
 
VanceMack said:
Fine. I didnt pose it as a gateway into a religous discussion. I dont have religous discussions...and certainly not online. Personally I find it boring.
Click to expand...

Oh, religious discussions can be a real hoot.

I see someone argued that their God is omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient.

That means he either doesn't believe in free will or he doesn't understand the meaning of the words "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "perfect".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, religious discussions can be a real hoot.

I see someone argued that their God is omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient.

That means he either doesn't believe in free will or he doesn't understand the meaning of the words "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "perfect".
Click to expand...

Why would God being omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient (and omnipresent) imply that one doesn't believe in freewill?
 
Then God's actions are not his own, he's just a machine, and saying "God created the universe" is nonsensical, since involuntary acts are devoid of meaning, and the only questions remaining are those of mechanics. Thus to claim that a sentient God does things without any control over them is no different than to claim that the things happen of their own accord, but with the added complexity of "why the hell is this God guy sentient but incapable of action, and who wrote that program, anyway?"
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then God's actions are not his own, he's just a machine, and saying "God created the universe" is nonsensical, since involuntary acts are devoid of meaning, and the only questions remaining are those of mechanics. Thus to claim that a sentient God does things without any control over them is no different than to claim that the things happen of their own accord, but with the added complexity of "why the hell is this God guy sentient but incapable of action, and who wrote that program, anyway?"
Click to expand...

Well, now, see, I believe God is omniscient AND has freewill and so consciously chooses to create the universe. Is there a problem with this?
 
reefedjib said:
Why would God being omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient (and omnipresent) imply that one doesn't believe in freewill?
Click to expand...

Because one can't create a universe knowing everything about it, and make choices knowing about every option that choice implies, and doing the thing perfectly right without making a single mistake...and not knowing exactly what it going to happen. And if the critter that made the gadget knows exactly what it is going to do, with perfect knowledge, the gadget doesn't have any choice, even when the gadget is made to believe it has choice.

A perfect omniscient and omnipotent god can create a perfectly deterministic universe. She can't create anything else but, if He expects to have knowledge of what Her creation does. From our viewpoint as the Created Things That Think, our only knowledge, from this non-deterministic universe we inhabit, is that any postulated God cannot possess foreknowledge of events in this universe, hence It cannot be omniscient. And if She has a volume of deliberate ignorance in her space, as is required for the known non-deterministic universe She is postulated to have created, then, by definition, she not omniscient at all.

Working with absolute terms is so much fun. The religious types are so proud of themselves when the come up with these absolute ideas and so angry when your local wiseass points out the inconsistencies in adding them together.
 
reefedjib said:
Well, now, see, I believe God is omniscient AND has freewill and so consciously chooses to create the universe. Is there a problem with this?
Click to expand...

Your GOD can have freewill and omniscience and omnipotence and not make any mistakes. But when She does, you do not have freewill.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your GOD can have freewill and omniscience and omnipotence and not make any mistakes. But when She does, you do not have freewill.
Click to expand...

She will make it with freewill for the people. It is still the people's choice and not determined by God, but God knows what will happen because She is omniscient.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because one can't create a universe knowing everything about it, and make choices knowing about every option that choice implies, and doing the thing perfectly right without making a single mistake...and not knowing exactly what it going to happen. And if the critter that made the gadget knows exactly what it is going to do, with perfect knowledge, the gadget doesn't have any choice, even when the gadget is made to believe it has choice.

A perfect omniscient and omnipotent god can create a perfectly deterministic universe. She can't create anything else but, if He expects to have knowledge of what Her creation does. From our viewpoint as the Created Things That Think, our only knowledge, from this non-deterministic universe we inhabit, is that any postulated God cannot possess foreknowledge of events in this universe, hence It cannot be omniscient. And if She has a volume of deliberate ignorance in her space, as is required for the known non-deterministic universe She is postulated to have created, then, by definition, she not omniscient at all.

Working with absolute terms is so much fun. The religious types are so proud of themselves when the come up with these absolute ideas and so angry when your local wiseass points out the inconsistencies in adding them together.
Click to expand...

I think it is possible for Her to be omniscient and to create a non-deterministic universe.
 
reefedjib said:
She will make it with freewill for the people. It is still the people's choice and not determined by God, but God knows what will happen because She is omniscient.
Click to expand...

See what I mean about how the introduction of freewill in the creation requires the True Believer to abandon the standard definitions of words to make up their own uses?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
See what I mean about how the introduction of freewill in the creation requires the True Believer to abandon the standard definitions of words to make up their own uses?
Click to expand...

No, where have I done this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom