Vastness of Space Suggests There Is No Almighty Creator

[blü 2]

Since you have given a lot of thought in coming to the conclusion that a a personal creator of the universe doesn't exist, why don't we start with that and I will give you reasons why I believe the way I do.

If that suits you.

 

[blü 2]

Science says so.............. you do believe in science, I guess?

Thank you. Now I know that when you say 'reason' you mean 'cause'.

real scientists know that there is a reason for every thing, action, interaction, initiation.

Not quite. In quantum physics a range of phenomena occur which have no cause in the classic sense. Their occurrence can be predicted within a statistical range, but that's not the same thing. Examples are the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay; and the spontaneous formation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs such as give rise to the Casimir effect.

You and I don't know how how the Universe and beyond became

I have some familiarity with the Big Bang theory, which looks well-founded to this point. I'm not aware of any relevant 'beyond'.

it happened because of 'something'.

Yes, in Big Bang theory we have no access, not even in theory, to knowledge of any prior state, at least at present.

That reason = Deity. Easy.

Everything we know about the origin of the universe is reasoned from examinable evidence found in the universe and expressed as physics.

Calling the phenomena of physics 'deity' strikes me as odd, but certainly nothing stops you if that's your choice.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, science is a human activity and makes mistakes; but unlike religion, it argues honestly from examinable evidence, expresses its conclusions in falsifiable form, and tests and retests those conclusions looking for errors and then correcting them.

If religion corrected itself according to conclusions honestly drawn from facts about reality, then, for example, there'd be no creationism. But because such religion pretends to be free of errors, it rests inert in the face of them, and stays in error for centuries, sometimes millennia, longer than need be.

Translation: Blah, blah, blah. No facts, just a bunch of sour explanations of how humans come up short of God's word.

Save it for somebody else, don't waste my time, please.

 

[blü 2]

No facts

I gave you a bucket of facts. It's just you have no taste for facts.

But 'no facts' is an extraordinary complaint for a creationist to make, considering they neither have nor may hope to have any facts capable of persuading impartial onlookers; and that they routinely reject well-authenticated facts because someone once told them the bible was inerrant and they swallowed the claim instead of checking it.

just a bunch of sour explanations of how humans come up short of God's word.

Ah, the Christian guilt trip! Enjoy the ride!

Save it for somebody else, don't waste my time, please.

It's just that I can't think of anyone who needs a reasoned view of reality more than creationists do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

the scriptures don't say that God is made in our image, but that we are made in his image).

I find such a notion laughably absurd. To think we are so special that god made us just like him. If there is a god, why should this entity even be limited to just one form?

and that as much as I respect and love animals, we are not the same.

Then why is it everytime we say "this is what makes us different," we find out it's something that actually makes us the same?

I don't agree with the "we grieve because we are social animals" argument.

It's a common trait of social animals. And I never mentioned this "replacement" argument you presented.

To you, saying a man made in God's image seems arrogant and excludes the value of humanity and animals

Saying we not made like god, and that we are like other animals, that's not excluding the value of animals. I'm not even much for using phrases of "humans and animals" because non-human animals share this world with us, we are animals, and all life is connected. This hierarchy that puts humans above other animals, it too is anthropocentric.

It takes true humility to come to this understanding.

No, it takes believing a book that tries to convince you that you are special in ways you are not. If we were so unique and special, I doubt the internal anatomy of a pig would look nearly identical to our own, and we probably couldn't successfully transplant some pig and horse organs into us. It's also extremely unlikely that if we were special and made in the image of god while everything else was made, we wouldn't share such close genetic resemblance with chimps and bonobos, or have the similarities we do with other animals such as cats and dogs.
Humility just does not include saying "we are special" when this claim just doesn't seem very likely. Unlike the claims of the Disney song, we are not the only animal who can think, reason, and read. I also don't buy into the idea that humans are the only animals who know we must one day die.

 

[DavidFirth]

I gave you a bucket of facts. It's just you have no taste for facts.

But 'no facts' is an extraordinary complaint for a creationist to make, considering they neither have nor may hope to have any facts capable of persuading impartial onlookers; and that they routinely reject well-authenticated facts because someone once told them the bible was inerrant and they swallowed the claim instead of checking it.

Ah, the Christian guilt trip! Enjoy the ride!

It's just that I can't think of anyone who needs a reasoned view of reality more than creationists do.

You're only reality is trying to explain something you don't know using assumptions you can't verify to establish a non-truth that you call truth. I think I'll pass on that, but thanks all the same.

 

[william7]

It's hard to believe that the big bang was a chance event and that all life on this planet developed by chance. Some experts have found the DNA code to be so complex that it could've only been designed by an intelligent Creator. https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/lifes-ultimate-question-does-god-exist/the-tiny-miracle-thats-toppling.

 

[oldbadger]

Thank you. Now I know that when you say 'reason' you mean 'cause'.

Reason. Cause. Origin ....... take your pick.

Not quite. In quantum physics a range of phenomena occur which have no cause in the classic sense. Their occurrence can be predicted within a statistical range, but that's not the same thing. Examples are the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay; and the spontaneous formation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs such as give rise to the Casimir effect.

Spontaneous formation and annihilation........ I wonder how such events are caused, or originate?
There's reason, cause, origin for and of everything, we just haven't figured it all out, have we?

I have some familiarity with the Big Bang theory, which looks well-founded to this point. I'm not aware of any relevant 'beyond'.

Astronomical observations have suggested the presence of immense mass beyond our Universe. Remember that once we thought that the Earth was the centre of all..... don't fall into the 'that's it in total' trap again!

Yes, in Big Bang theory we have no access, not even in theory, to knowledge of any prior state, at least at present.

As a Deist I I have no doubt that there was a reason, cause, origin for it, but I don't think that 'all' begins or ends with that.

Everything we know about the origin of the universe is reasoned from examinable evidence found in the universe and expressed as physics.

Reasoned? There might be a reason?
.....

Calling the phenomena of physics 'deity' strikes me as odd, but certainly nothing stops you if that's your choice.

We are all the phenomena of the sciences, but please don't think that the Deity is just some spiritual presence...... that's just so 'back in the day'.

I just call the reason for all, a Deity. How bad is that?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think David was just making the point that many scientists have been wrong and many are in disagreement with eachother.

It's not much of a point considering he places his trust in fallible humans on a daily basis unless he lives in complete & utter isolation, in total self-sufficiency.

Besides, the same can be said of theologians - the fact you're advocating a personal relationship with the Great Maker implies there will be as many differing and conflicting opinions & beliefs as there are people to have them. So ultimately your position is self-defeating.

And is it really worth putting your trust and your life into the hands of humans that are at times wrong, compared to the one who actually created the universe and knows all things?

I see what you mean; I would trust The Great Earth Mother's guidance if I had the time to stop, centre myself and actually listen to Her.

I mean, It's commendable if someone admits that they were wrong about something, but it doesnt help the person that believed the wrong information if it hurt them.

If a person views willingness to admit a mistake and change one's mind based on new information as a flaw then I'd be less inclined to trust that person, frankly.

Viewing the ability to change one's mind based on new information as a weakness or a bad thing is a sign of anti-intellectualism.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You're only reality is trying to explain something you don't know using assumptions you can't verify to establish a non-truth that you call truth. I think I'll pass on that, but thanks all the same.

Did you bounce that off the mirror a few times before posting it?

 

[robocop (actually)]

How do you know for a fact that these universes were not created by the Christian God? You are simply making assumptions. There could be many reasons an intelligent creator of the universe would choose to also create these other galaxies. We simply don't know the reasons. Its ok to hypothesize , but pretty silly to say that an intelligent designer is just not efficient, only because we as humans may not know all of the answers.

If you don't know off-hand that there was a creator to the Universe, the bigger the Universe is the harder it is to imagine one.

 

[SinSaber]

None of what you say disproves god. The Big Bang doesn’t either. God could have done the Big Bang himself cause it says there was nothing and then there was something.

Also, God is ever lasting. When mans time is done, he will start again on another planet. For all we know he already has.

Also, Your take on Christianity is humanist, which is something christians should rightly reject.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You're only reality is trying to explain something you don't know using assumptions you can't verify to establish a non-truth that you call truth. I think I'll pass on that, but thanks all the same.

Sorry, David, but from the discussion so far here, and in other threads, I would say that this is EXACTLY what you are doing, too.

 

[DavidFirth]

Sorry, David, but from the discussion so far here, and in other threads, I would say that this is EXACTLY what you are doing, too.

The difference is that I believe non-Christians aren't sure and can't be sure. Christ shines the light of truth into the Christian so we can be and are sure we can and do know truth since truth lives within us.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The difference is that I believe non-Christians aren't sure and can't be sure. Christ shines the light of truth into the Christian so we can be and are sure we can and do know truth since truth lives within us.

Okay, we'll have to disagree on this, because I believe neither Christians nor Non-Christians can ever be certain, of ANYTHING. If they are, they are going beyond what can be, at best, provisional knowing.

I know I can't comprehend such an omnimax universal deity, especially one that can be everywhere in a sphere roughly 45 billion light-years in radius AND BEYOND, and STILL be concerned with, and able to communicate with, any human/any sentient beings on an individual basis. And I think anyone who thinks they can comprehend such a deity, or discriminate it's communication from other very powerful but non-universal deities, is most probably wrong about it. I also think that anyone who thinks we have ever proved a negative--like the nonexistence of an omnimax diety--is also most-probably wrong.

 

[blü 2]

trying to explain something you don't know

Agreed ─ if it's an hypothesis then it's about something we don't know.

using assumptions you can't verify

No, you misunderstand scientific method. Science goes out of its way to express its hypotheses (assumptions for testing) in falsifiable form precisely so they're capable of verification or falsification.

Creationism, by stark contrast, assumes and asserts that the bible is inerrant without noticing that the bible says the earth is flat, the sun goes round it, fruiting plants existed before the sun did, and the peak of Mt Everest was 25 feet or so underwater at some time in the last 200,000 years (or in 2348 BCE for the Ussherites), all of which are grossly erroneous and baseless statements about reality.

But they underline why other religions go out of their way to avoid making falsifiable statements.

to establish a non-truth that you call truth.

I say that 'truth' means conformity with objective reality.

What do you say 'truth' means?

 

[DavidFirth]

Agreed ─ if it's an hypothesis then it's about something we don't know.

No, you misunderstand scientific method. Science goes out of its way to express its hypotheses (assumptions for testing) in falsifiable form precisely so they're capable of verification or falsification.

Creationism, by stark contrast, assumes and asserts that the bible is inerrant without noticing that the bible says the earth is flat, the sun goes round it, fruiting plants existed before the sun did, and the peak of Mt Everest was 25 feet or so underwater at some time in the last 200,000 years (or in 2348 BCE for the Ussherites), all of which are grossly erroneous and baseless statements about reality.

But they underline why other religions go out of their way to avoid making falsifiable statements.

I say that 'truth' means conformity with objective reality.

What do you say 'truth' means?

I say Jesus is truth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you know for a fact that these universes were not created by the Christian God? You are simply making assumptions. There could be many reasons an intelligent creator of the universe would choose to also create these other galaxies. We simply don't know the reasons. Its ok to hypothesize , but pretty silly to say that an intelligent designer is just not efficient, only because we as humans may not know all of the answers.

I take it you do not perceive that you have done something even more egregious than making assumptions about "what is not," which is making assumptions (and then believing them) about "what is." For example, in your post you do in fact accept the idea of "an intelligent designer." But why? On what basis? Not knowing all the answers does not in any way imply that you get to invent some answers and then assert their truth. Rather, we should be looking for whatever kind of evidence we can find and see where that evidence points us in trying to understand our world and our place in it.

And I really need to point out that a better grasp of what science actually does know (which is lots but certainly not everything) really does mitigate against everything that religion tries to claim. Everything.

 

[blü 2]

Spontaneous formation and annihilation........ I wonder how such events are caused, or originate?

They're a phenomenon down at the quantum energy-of-the-vacuum level, and they complete the cycle of forming and mutually annihilating under the Planck time. There is no way of predicting an individual event, even in principle; the fluctuations of energy at that level occur spontaneously.

Astronomical observations have suggested the presence of immense mass beyond our Universe.

Ya got me there. Googling has turned up nothing; can you give me a link?

Or are you by chance thinking of the Great Attractor, a large mass causing deviations in the paths of galaxies, which was a mystery until we recently worked out how to look through the Milky Way galaxy and out the other side ─ there we found the Great Attractor was a very big but not very unusual formation.
Remember that once we thought that the Earth was the centre of all..... don't fall into the 'that's it in total' trap again!

As a Deist I I have no doubt that there was a reason, cause, origin for it

There you go again, conflating 'reason' and 'cause'. The universe may have had a cause, or it may have been causeless in the classical sense, but we have not the slightest evidence to suggest it was formed to satisfy an intention, a reason in that sense.

I don't think that 'all' begins or ends with that.

There may be more. There may not be more. We don't know, and we don't have useful evidence that might test hypotheses (which presently are from speculative mathematical models, the people who brought you branes, for instance).


We are all the phenomena of the sciences, but please don't think that the Deity is just some spiritual presence...... that's just so 'back in the day'.

I just call the reason for all, a Deity. How bad is that?[/QUOTE]

 

[blü 2]

I say Jesus is truth.

What does that mean?

That it makes sense to say 'That the sun rises in the east is a well-known Jesus'?

Explain yourself.