what is more likely?

[Jeremiah]

Question of origin.

Are we the result of a long drawn out process(non-intelligent evolution) caused by an event(big bang) in eternal cosmos,(the space surrounding our observable universe) or are we the result of intelligent design by one or multiple eternal beings?



To me it is more likely that a non intelligent space surrounding our observable universe is the final frontier of existence.



I base my belief on complexity. In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.


What makes more sense to you? What do you think is more likely, and why?

If I could have one request. Please refrain from saying "I believe this, because such and such holy book says design, or such and such science book says big bang and evolution", and then end up sidetracking the thread arguing about the merits of said books.

I am asking you to leave your beliefs, bias and convictions out of this decision and simply choose with a clear open mind what makes most sense and what you think is more likely rather than what you hope and wish to be true.

THANK YOU.

I find it far more likely that it was all the cows.

 

[Blackdog22]

Yeah, I had a feeling this would be the answer. The reason I pulled this into the topic is because you seem to be framing 'cults' as though they must have even less credibility than a mainstream religion, which I can't seem to wrap my head around from an atheistic point of view. Should not both religions and cults be equally wrong regardless of relative size and 'strangeness' when considering these topics? Or are we saying that consensus has some bearing on truth?

Yeah, I didn't mean it in a way that dismissed a cults beliefs, since you are right from my POV they are all the same, but that their beliefs are dismissed by most believers because of how bizarre they may appear to them. I could of probably phrased my sentence better.

Here is the thing, in my first response I talked about the probabilities in relation to 'likely'. I then went on to discuss what I felt 'made sense' as a separate answer and answered directly that I did not feel that an intelligent designer made the universe. I think if the OP had bothered to read my response in its entirety we could have avoided a lot of this mess. Instead, since I dared to leave the possibility of God open, I was met with flippant dismissal and incredulous posturing. This confirmed for me what I suspected when I first read the OP. This is nothing more than a hackneyed attempt to bait and ridicule anyone who believes in god. The bets... they be off. Now, a lack of respect from the OP has directly transferred itself to me and is now being reflected in kind. I will continue to exploit every crack into a chasm. The OP will just have to stop including cracks, or will have to start responding with reasonable arguments instead of blustering self-superiority.

I figured this is what was happening. I agree with it on some level, that being respect is met with respect and vice versa. It can be bad for honest argument though.

For example: Hitchens may of never gotten a serious answer if his debaters took this approach.

Complexity being a subjective distinction, I don't find it has much bearing on what may or may not exist. Consider this, is a piece of wood more or less complex than the same piece of wood on fire? We can say it is more complex because now it is wood with fire. More components, more complexity. But then again the fire is converting what was an incredibly complex combination of elements (wood) into a very simple combination of elements (charcoal). So which is it definitively? Each to our own subjective interpretations of complexity and simplicity. One could even say that no change in complexity is happening at all. There are no wrong answers.

Ive been thinking on this and I think I need to do more reading before I come to a conclusion on whether God "needs" to be complex. My initial reasoning was complex things must come from something as complex or more complex than that which he created, but that may not be the case. I think the idea of a omnipotent creator would lend itself to being beyond us on all levels, including complexity, at least in some form, but I suppose omnipotence lends itself to any possibility.

I honestly don't think virtual particles have been definitively demonstrated (though this is probably due to gaps of information on my part as opposed to anything else), and what's more, I do not believe that they are just 'popping into existence' so much as we just aren't aware of what is making them 'pop'. I can see how this would lend weight to a spontaneous universe as opposed to a created one, however. There is no direct correlation to be had, though so it can't inform the probabilities in any way and remains merely a distinction of human perception as opposed to objective evidence of a non-created universe.

As far as I know, from what I have read on Lawrence Krauss, they only know these particles exist because of their effects on atoms, but they aren't measurable. Its not a definitive in anyway because like you said, what is making them pop in and out? Its a possibility and even the idea of those little, unmeasurable particles having always existed or simply coming from nothing is really hard for me to grasp. Which puts the idea that God is replacing them so much more difficult for me to grasp that I find it hard to entertain it. However, that doesn't mean God didn't do this. It could just mean my imagination is limited.



To your last point I agree. I agree with most of what you said actually and appreciate the response.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

if a thousand flips results in a thousand heads clearly the coin is rigged to come up heads

Not necessarily so.
the chances for A run of heads is the same as for any other combination.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not necessarily so.
the chances for A run of heads is the same as for any other combination.

True but irrelevant. If you flip a fair coin a thousand times, any particular sequence is equally probable. However, if you flip a a fair coin athousand times, there are 999 different ways you can get all heads and one tails. How many ways are there to get some mixture of heads and tails?

Meanwhile, there is only one way to get all heads. The probability is only the same if I compare exact sequences.

 

[ChristineES]

I've returned to this discussion after quite a while. I'd like to make clear that I don't use my faith at all to 1. Explain the origin of the universe,2. Solar System,3. life on our planet, or 4.the origin of humans.

I might be mistaken about the point of this thread, but please bear with me if I am. I use faith for the basic reason to worship God, to explore my spiritual side (which I do believe exists). Conversely, I have been told by many people that I have a scientific mind- which is good because I seriously looked into becoming a scientist but I decided it wasn't very practical- that I needed a more stable career. I feel as though I've missed out- I love science, especially astronomy. It is kind of dismaying to me when I see people thinking that you need to choose between science and religion- they are not the same thing but they won't clash with each other (Unless a person really does use religion to explain the origins of what I mentioned earlier and more, but that's rare)- I, personally, see no need to have to choose one over the other- both are important to me.

 

[Thief]

I've returned to this discussion after quite a while. I'd like to make clear that I don't use my faith at all to 1. Explain the origin of the universe,2. Solar System,3. life on our planet, or 4.the origin of humans.

I might be mistaken about the point of this thread, but please bear with me if I am. I use faith for the basic reason to worship God, to explore my spiritual side (which I do believe exists). Conversely, I have been told by many people that I have a scientific mind- which is good because I seriously looked into becoming a scientist but I decided it wasn't very practical- that I needed a more stable career. I feel as though I've missed out- I love science, especially astronomy. It is kind of dismaying to me when I see people thinking that you need to choose between science and religion- they are not the same thing but they won't clash with each other (Unless a person really does use religion to explain the origins of what I mentioned earlier and more, but that's rare)- I, personally, see no need to have to choose one over the other- both are important to me.

But can you decide?...which came first?......Spirit?....or substance?

 

[Blackdog22]

I've returned to this discussion after quite a while. I'd like to make clear that I don't use my faith at all to 1. Explain the origin of the universe,2. Solar System,3. life on our planet, or 4.the origin of humans.

I might be mistaken about the point of this thread, but please bear with me if I am. I use faith for the basic reason to worship God, to explore my spiritual side (which I do believe exists). Conversely, I have been told by many people that I have a scientific mind- which is good because I seriously looked into becoming a scientist but I decided it wasn't very practical- that I needed a more stable career. I feel as though I've missed out- I love science, especially astronomy. It is kind of dismaying to me when I see people thinking that you need to choose between science and religion- they are not the same thing but they won't clash with each other (Unless a person really does use religion to explain the origins of what I mentioned earlier and more, but that's rare)- I, personally, see no need to have to choose one over the other- both are important to me.

The majority of Christians believe God is the creator of the Universe. The minority rest here in Religious Forums. :rainbow1:

 

[ChristineES]

But can you decide?...which can first?......Spirit?....or substance?

Once Klinger on M*A*S*H said "If I had all the answers, I'd run for God". I'd like to use that answer.

 

[ChristineES]

The majority of Christians believe God is the creator of the Universe. The minority rest here in Religious Forums. :rainbow1:

I am not going say whether I am a Creationist or not- Let's just suffice it to say that the universe is here and I live in it. There are just some things I'd rather just keep in the realm of supposition.

 

[The Wizard]

Question of origin.

Are we the result of a long drawn out process(non-intelligent evolution) caused by an event(big bang) in eternal cosmos,(the space surrounding our observable universe) or are we the result of intelligent design by one or multiple eternal beings?



To me it is more likely that a non intelligent space surrounding our observable universe is the final frontier of existence.



I base my belief on complexity. In my mind one or multiple highly complex and sophisticated beings (gods/creators) are far less likely or reasonable to have come from nothing or always existed, than space.


What makes more sense to you? What do you think is more likely, and why?

If I could have one request. Please refrain from saying "I believe this, because such and such holy book says design, or such and such science book says big bang and evolution", and then end up sidetracking the thread arguing about the merits of said books.

I am asking you to leave your beliefs, bias and convictions out of this decision and simply choose with a clear open mind what makes most sense and what you think is more likely rather than what you hope and wish to be true.

THANK YOU.

Maybe Earth is attempting to spawn the Universe. Birds didn't work...

 

[Thief]

Once Klinger on M*A*S*H said "If I had all the answers, I'd run for God". I'd like to use that answer.

Nice.....and I did like the series.

Substance first places all spirit, all mind and heart dependent on chemistry.
Including God.
And God with a physical beginning makes Him mortal.....and maybe dead.

Don't 'see' Him.....do we?

I say Spirit first.
Spirit first makes better sense.
And it allows for the possibility of continuance....after this chemistry fails.