Does God require a creator?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a handy catch phrase that one can use when pointing out that the other side does not have all of the answer, so therefore they must be wrong. Never mind that that is not any sort of answer itself.

I agree. It just seems like an incoherent mishmash of concepts. They might as well be saying that God is to the left of the tallest colour.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think that a serious person goes "eeny meeni mini mo" and picks a creed?

No, faith is usually, and I would say over 90% of the time from the statistic that I just made up, an accident of birth.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you think that a serious person goes "eeny meeni mini mo" and picks a creed?

No. Most go with the religion they were born into.

 

[nPeace]

Whose understanding, exactly?

Everyone who depends on science.

That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science.

Which science exactly... real science, or pseudo science.
If you mean the pseudo, which is the only one you could possibly mean, I expect that.

Spoiler: What We Know

____________________________________________
As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang models. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. Proposed solutions to some of the problems in the Big Bang model have revealed new mysteries of their own. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflation theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven. What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang concept still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists.

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Given current understanding, scientific extrapolations about the future of the universe are only possible for finite durations, albeit for much longer periods than the current age of the universe. Anything beyond that becomes increasingly speculative. Likewise, at present, a proper understanding of the origin of the universe can only be subject to conjecture.
____________________________________________

If however, you have what no one can find by using www, then please post it here that everyone can have access to to that sought after information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone who depends on science.


Which science exactly... real science, or pseudo science.
If you mean the pseudo, which is the only one you could possibly mean, I expect that.

Spoiler: What We Know

____________________________________________
As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang models. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. Proposed solutions to some of the problems in the Big Bang model have revealed new mysteries of their own. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflation theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven. What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang concept still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists.

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Given current understanding, scientific extrapolations about the future of the universe are only possible for finite durations, albeit for much longer periods than the current age of the universe. Anything beyond that becomes increasingly speculative. Likewise, at present, a proper understanding of the origin of the universe can only be subject to conjecture.
____________________________________________

If however, you have what no one can find by using www, then please post it here that everyone can have access to to that sought after information.

No one has claimed that the Big Bang explains everything. There are as the Wiki article that you quoted from tell us quite a few unanswered problems. But none of those unanswered problems point towards a God as a solution.

You would think that if a God did make everything that sooner or later one would find some evidence pointing towards his existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everyone who depends on science.


Which science exactly... real science, or pseudo science.
If you mean the pseudo, which is the only one you could possibly mean, I expect that.

Spoiler: What We Know

____________________________________________
As with any theory, a number of mysteries and problems have arisen as a result of the development of the Big Bang models. Some of these mysteries and problems have been resolved while others are still outstanding. Proposed solutions to some of the problems in the Big Bang model have revealed new mysteries of their own. For example, the horizon problem, the magnetic monopole problem, and the flatness problem are most commonly resolved with inflation theory, but the details of the inflationary universe are still left unresolved and many, including some founders of the theory, say it has been disproven. What follows are a list of the mysterious aspects of the Big Bang concept still under intense investigation by cosmologists and astrophysicists.

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Given current understanding, scientific extrapolations about the future of the universe are only possible for finite durations, albeit for much longer periods than the current age of the universe. Anything beyond that becomes increasingly speculative. Likewise, at present, a proper understanding of the origin of the universe can only be subject to conjecture.
____________________________________________

If however, you have what no one can find by using www, then please post it here that everyone can have access to to that sought after information.

None of this actually conflicts with what I said.

There are many unanswered questions but if we take the view of space-time from general relativity (the best theory we have to date) then we can regard the whole space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold that doesn't necessarily require anything else.

 

[Zwing]

Something can come out of nothing.

This is not the correct understanding of the universe. The physical “stuff” composing our universe did not come from nothing, it can rather be viewed as having changed state, from quantum energy to matter: m=E/c^2

...but the universe has evolved, and is NOT eternal.

Yes, right; it began and it will eventually end with the dispersal or “evaporation” of the final black hole in our sector of space. Then, all that remains will once again be pure energy. That’s a long time from now, though, so don’t worry.

 

[nPeace]

The part I am questioning is, who can prove a negative claim of anything based on what is or is not imagined? No one.

In other words, premise #2 doesn't hold. It's a bucket full of holes. There are so many counter-examples.

this isn't logic, it's ignorance.

And this seems typical for you. And many atheists here to be honest. They draw a conclusion, pretend it's "critical-thinking" and don't go back to make sure their conclusion is actually sound. In other words, it's critical of others, but never themself. Typical hypocrisy.

Sounds like you are explaining Psalms 10:4.

 

[PureX]

a leap of faith: an act of believing something that is not easily believed.
Leap of faith: A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something not on the basis of reason.

Those are vague, biased, and silly definitions and I think you know it.

You're trying to insist that faith is unreasonable by definition, and that is just a silly bias. Because reasoning covers a huge array of thought processes and criteria regardless of your or anyone else's approval. Just as evidence refers to a huge array of relative information regardless of your or anyone else's acceptance.

You seem to want to keep setting yourself up as the decider of what is evidence and what is reasonable according to your own biased ideology. But that's just not how an honest discussion or debate or even investigation works. For obvious reasons.

You are blatantly trying to conflate two entirely different senses of the word 'faith'. You cannot compare an assumption adopted without evidence (which is what I was countering at the start of this) or faith without reasoning or evidence, with faith in the sense of trust on the basis of solid evidence. That's is just a silly game with words.

Again, you don't get to define what is and isn't evidence, or what is and isn't reasonable for everyone else. And neither does anyone else. There is always going to be some evidence, and there is always going to be some thought process (reasoning) for gathering that evidence, assembling it, and choosing how to respond to it.

And that response will inevitably require some degree of faith because we cannot logically have certainty of the outcome.

 

[nPeace]

None of this actually conflicts with what I said.

There are many unanswered questions but if we take the view of space-time from general relativity (the best theory we have to date) then we can regard the whole space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold that doesn't necessarily require anything else.

What you or anyone else speculate, is not science.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

Any ideas that you or anyone else has, is not science.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used interchangeably, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research in a process beginning with an educated guess or thought.

What is the Big Bang?
The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!

The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are most likely an uncountably infinite number of universes. It is one of a number of multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy.

You do know there is a difference between what we think, and what we know, right?
Are we going to see a paper... data... anything? Or just your ideas... which isn't science?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, faith is usually, and I would say over 90% of the time from the statistic that I just made up, an accident of birth.

That is another meaning..
..as in "what faith are you?"
..and many people answer with "i am Protestant" or what have you.

In other words, many people do not choose a creed .. they inherit it.
A serious person will look into religion, and employ reason to decide on a creed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Those are vague, biased, and silly definitions and I think you know it.

They seem perfectly consistent with the way people use the terms, as far as I can see. I didn't go looking for definitions that suited, they were literally the first I found.

Again, you don't get to define what is and isn't evidence, or what is and isn't reasonable for everyone else. And neither does anyone else. There is always going to be some evidence, and there is always going to be some thought process (reasoning) for gathering that evidence, assembling it, and choosing how to respond to it.

And that response will inevitably require some degree of faith because we cannot logically have certainty of the outcome.

Pointless, defensive desperation. There is simply no comparison between the way science deals with objective evidence and theories like quantum mechanics, that is, quite literally, being tested billions of times a day in everybody's electronic devices and religious faith. Trying to link the two together is bizarre and reeks of insecurity.

 

[ratiocinator]

What you or anyone else speculate, is not science.

I wasn't speculating.

Really not quite sure what your rather random looking series of links is supposed to be for.

What I suggested is standard general relativity, there's a pop intro to it here:

What is a block universe?

Has the future already already been written? Is time just an illusion? Take a step outside of spacetime with cosmologist Marina Cortês to discover the block universe.

plus.maths.org

Of course this might not be the correct picture because we can't yet combine general relativity with quantum field theory, but you can't just dismiss the idea that the space-time, the "block universe", might just be without anything else.

 

[nPeace]

@ratiocinator I am going through the thread, and came across this conversation.

The universe has always been as it is now? Unchanged?

No. That's not what you said, you said we know that it came from something. There is no evidence that that is the case.

That is precisely what I meant - if the universe hasn't always been as it is now, then it came from some prior conditions in the past that lead to the conditions we see today.

I looked for your response to that. Nothing.
Yet, later, you tell me this... That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science.

Not very consistent, are you?

 

[ratiocinator]

The physical “stuff” composing our universe did not come from nothing, it can rather be viewed as having changed state, from quantum energy to matter: m=E/c^2

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here but on the surface it seems entirely wrong. Energy isn't "stuff" at all. There has to be stuff that has energy, so the universe cannot possibly have changed state from energy (also not sure what the 'quantum' qualifier is supposed to add) to matter. The 'm' in E=mc^2 (not E=m/c^2, that's just wrong) refers to mass, not matter.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…

profmattstrassler.com

 

[Zwing]

refers to mass, not matter.

Without matter, there can be no mass, right? Mass presumes matter.

 

[nPeace]

I wasn't speculating.

Really not quite sure what your rather random looking series of links is supposed to be for.

What I suggested is standard general relativity, there's a pop intro to it here:

What is a block universe?

Has the future already already been written? Is time just an illusion? Take a step outside of spacetime with cosmologist Marina Cortês to discover the block universe.

plus.maths.org

Of course this might not be the correct picture because we can't yet combine general relativity with quantum field theory, but you can't just dismiss the idea that the space-time, the "block universe", might just be without anything else.

So now you are agreeing with me.
What might be, is not what we know. It's speculative. That's all the links we find on www.
Hence why you have nothing but... Of course this might not be the correct picture because we can't yet combine general relativity with quantum field theory, but you can't just dismiss the idea that the space-time, the "block universe", might just be without anything else.

 

[ratiocinator]

I looked for your response to that. Nothing.

The conversation moved on but I did come back to it.

Not very consistent, are you?

Here is where I said pretty much what I just said to you:

Does God require a creator?

Does something necessary exist? I don't know but I doubt it. It doesn't seem to be a logically self-consistent concept (from the definitions I have so far seem). You talk about what people can imagine, well I can't imagine anything at all whose non-existence would be impossible or cause a...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[ratiocinator]

So now you are agreeing with me.

Jeez, this is hard work! What I said was: "That the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself, is perfectly consistent with what we know from science."

I didn't say that this is what we know from science, I said it is consistent with what we know. That is, there is no contradiction between what we know and the view that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself.

ETA: This was in response to your claim that: "What that would mean, is that the universe exists as is, with nothing outside itself. That's not our understanding of the universe."

 

[ratiocinator]

Without matter, there can be no mass, right? Mass presumes matter.

If you look at the link you'll find that 'matter' (unlike energy and mass) is not a term that has a fixed definition in science. It can refer to different things in different contexts. However, W and Z bosons have mass and I can't think of a view of matter that would include them as they are force carrier particles.