dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 These are my beliefs, and i'm not claiming to know everything. I myself don't believe in christianity, I believe in the hindu religion. IMO there HAS to be something, somewhere controlling this stuff, and that is how religions came about. I asked if you were really agnostic because the two statements above don't really jive with agnosticism. I just wanted to make sure you understood the term, because I know some people who mistakenly use it to mean they believe in a supernatural presence, but not one of the major organized faiths. It seems you know what you're talking about, and that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I can think of a more plausible one.Something can not come from nothing. Yes, but that doesn't mean that whatever the something is is God. It means we don't know what the something is yet. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 It's science and nature... Surely you don't believe that the notion that a god created the universe in six days and then rested to be the "most plausible, coherent hypothesis to creation" do you? Science and nature did not exist forever. The universe had a beginning. Do you dispute this? It has already been mathematically proven that the universe had a beginning, that it has not existed forever. Well, what is the alternative? I'm still waiting to hear even ONE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 For a moment, let's grant that there IS a "creator" of some kind, some agent or 'prime mover.' I could debate you about this and maybe will at some point. But I'm still waiting for even ONE atheistic hypothesis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I could debate you about this and maybe will at some point. But I'm still waiting for even ONE atheistic hypothesis! You've already listed the Big Bang in your opening post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I gave you one. We don't know where it came from or what happened at the outset. See, what happens all the time is people who believe demand all the answers from those who do not. And when they don't get all the answers to questions no one on earth knows, they say, "See? It has to be something" Maybe, but you believe it's God, I don't necessarily think that is so. I think whatever the reason is we haven't found yet. I can accept that we don't know, whereas you cannot, so you continue to demand answers to impossible questions, and when you don't get them to your satisfaction, you claim that as proof of God. You claim to have the answer, I say we don't. I think aside from being short-sighted, I think that to believe we DO have all the answers, and have had them for several thousand years is overall pretty arrogant. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 No. It's a legimate question. A reasonable explation with supporting scientific evidence of creation has been presented.Now, let's see the alternatives to creation. What is the atheistic hypothesis? Ahhh...sorry to burst your bubble, but this: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1a) Cause and Effect 1b) Self-evident common sense 2) The universe began to exist. 2a) The General Theory of Relativity 2b) The Big Bang Theory 2c) The Impossibility of Traversing Infinity 2d) Mathematical Proof the Universe Cannot be Past-Eternal 3) therefore, the universe has a cause. Does not have "supporting scientific evidence of creation." Not even close. With part '1)' of your argument, you are supporting your case with your case, which does not make for a valid argument. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 You've already listed the Big Bang in your opening post. dfitzo, this is another case of: I'm not really trying to argue, I'm just stating my opinion and waiting to shoot down anything anyone else has to say. There is no discussion here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 When you're speaking of something as nutty as multi-cellular universes and multiple dimensions, why do you need a Prime Mover?A Prime Mover great enough to create such things---surely that would be complex enough to warrant there having to be a Creator of that Prime Mover, as well? Why is a Prime Mover (i.e. God) needed? because whatever begins to exist has a cause. Cause and Effect, a universally accepted scientific principle. Woiuld a "prime Mover" need to another "Prime Mover" to create it? No. Okkam's razor theorem says that the simplest explanation is ussually the correct one. Why have multiple "Prime Movers" when just one will suffice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 What created the creator? Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. One "Prime Mover" will suffice, there is no need for more than one. But there could be, I personally doubt it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Some present the Kalam Cosmological Argument and it's supporting evidence as proof of creation. I find it a very reasonable hypothesis, here it is for your consideration:1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1a) Cause and Effect 1b) Self-evident common sense 2) The universe began to exist. 2a) The General Theory of Relativity 2b) The Big Bang Theory 2c) The Impossibility of Traversing Infinity 2d) Mathematical Proof the Universe Cannot be Past-Eternal 3) therefore, the universe has a cause. I'm just curious, could an atheist here please postulate the most plausible, coherent alternative hypothesis to creation? Thanks. Science deals with "how" Religion deals with "why" Cause and effect then becomes how A caused B for science why A caused B for religion now back to "1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause." how everything started - we do not know - but science has theories why everything started - we do not know - but religion has theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.One "Prime Mover" will suffice, there is no need for more than one. But there could be, I personally doubt it, though. Why is there no need for more than one? If there is one 'god,' wouldn't he get power hungry and to full of himself? There needs to be other gods to keep this god in check, right? I mean...there clearly needs to be a system of checks and balances among the omnipotent, or else they would just get carried away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1a) Cause and Effect 1b) Self-evident common sense Does your Creator fall within this rule? If so, what created It? If not, how does the spontaneous generation of the universe bother you and the eternal nature of a deity does not? I don't know whether there is one creator or more. But Occam's razor points to only one. There is no need for more, so the simplest explanation is ussually correct. The spontaneous generation of the universe does not bother me. that is what creation claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Why is there no need for more than one? If there is one 'god,' wouldn't he get power hungry and to full of himself? There needs to be other gods to keep this god in check, right? I mean...there clearly needs to be a system of checks and balances among the omnipotent, or else they would just get carried away. Not really, an omnipotent being by definition don't get "power hungry"... But that is another subject. So, I'm still waiting for an alternative hypothesis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Not really, an omnipotent being by definition don't get "power hungry"...But that is another subject. So, I'm still waiting for an alternative hypothesis... My guess is you'll be waiting quite a while. This thread turned out far less interesting than it could have been and far less interesting than I'd hoped it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 My guess is you'll be waiting quite a while. This thread turned out far less interesting than it could have been and far less interesting than I'd hoped it would be. Yeah, I agree. Soo... do you dispute the universe began to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Not really, an omnipotent being by definition don't get "power hungry"...But that is another subject. So, I'm still waiting for an alternative hypothesis... You provided the alternative hypothesis in your original post. Its called "The Big-Bang Theory." You just precluded it with your ridiculous cause and effect statement, claiming that to be a valid argument. Its not. So there you go...an alternative theory to creationism: the big-bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Why does everyone believe the universe had to begin? Why can it not have always existed? Everyone is assuming there has to be a beginning because of the human interpratation of time and the way it flows. What if time is more complicated than we think it is? Have any of you seen the 2 dimensinal flatlander example? It shows a 2 dimensional world interacting with a 3 dimensional world and how the flatlanders misinterpret what they are seeing because they have no concept of the 3rd dimension. http://www.geocities.com/jsfhome/Think4d/Hyprsphr/per3surf.html M Theory now is postulating we live in a mutidimensional universe that we can only glimpse through mathmatics. The BigBang is where 2 branes touch and cause inialation of all matter in the universe. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 You provided the alternative hypothesis in your original post. Its called "The Big-Bang Theory." You just precluded it with your ridiculous cause and effect statement, claiming that to be a valid argument.Its not. So there you go...an alternative theory to creationism: the big-bang. Dude, the Big Bang theory supports creation. Why? because that means the universe began to exist, thus it has a cause. Also, it's not just my dumbass making the ridiculous Kalam argument, both theists and atheists had been banging heads over this for thousands of years. It has survived so far. So correct me if I'm wrong, but you have no better hypothesis? don't feel bad, nobody does yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Dude, the Big Bang theory supports creation. Why? because that means the universe began to exist, thus it has a cause. Also, it's not just my dumbass making the ridiculous Kalam argument, both theists and atheists had been banging heads over this for thousands of years. It has survived so far. So correct me if I'm wrong, but you have no better hypothesis? don't feel bad, nobody does yet... :doh: The Big-Bang Theory supports creationism?? Why, because you say so? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Because the universe "began to exist," it had a cause? Why? You haven't disproven anything with that statement, you've only made your opinion clear. Why couldn't the big-bang be the beginning? When you can scientifically prove that, then you'll have a convert. And no, this: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1a) Cause and Effect 1b) Self-evident common sense Is not a scientific argument. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Why does everyone believe the universe had to begin? Why can it not have always existed? String theory has not been proven, hell, they don't even have the formulas completed yet. So it is NOT fact. Alan Guth of MIT has mathematically proven that the universe cannot be past-eternal, it cannot have been around forever. He has already toured the Us, been peer reviewed and everything. Here is the abstract from one of his seminars: Alan Guth Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT Eternal Inflation and Past Incompleteness Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of many singularity theorems. In this talk I will describe a recent theorem by Vilenkin, Borde, and me which uses a simple kinematical argument, independent of any energy conditions, to show that a cosmological model that is inflating-- or just expanding sufficiently fast-- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtained a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Also, there is the little problem of the impossibility of traversing infinity. Can you count to infinity? No. So if the universe has been around forever, it means that in order to get to today (call it 0), then it must have gone from negative infinity to 0. Clearly impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Because the universe "began to exist," it had a cause? Why? Are you saying that things can begin to exist without a cause? Think about that carefully... If you reject this idea, then you are rejecting all of science. Cause and Effect is the foundation for science. Why couldn't the big-bang be the beginning? I see you're confused... that is what Kalam says, that the big Bang was the beginning, proof of creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Zero is a simpler number than one in this case. As for the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory--there does seem to be physical evidence suggesting that that theory is false, but none of this evidence has anything to do with "infinite energy" or "going from negative infinity to zero." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Are you saying that things can begin to exist without a cause? Think about that carefully... If you reject this idea, then you are rejecting all of science. Cause and Effect is the foundation for science. Well seeing as how many scientists have formulated the big-bang theory over the last decade or two, I guess it isn't really the foundation of science, now is it? The foundation of science is the scientific method, and questioning everything. Cause and effect are not. I see you're confused... that is what Kalam says, that the big Bang was the beginning, proof of creation. Okay...how does that prove creation?? It doesn't prove something just because you or some wack-job Kalam says it does...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Cause and Effect is the foundation for science. Actually, cause and effect are philosophical concepts. Scientific foundations include observation and correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.