-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, but how did it all get started in the first place?
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
footprints
Well-Known Member
If a Creator does exist, they would use Nature.
I would suggest that not being able to discern between probability and actuality, would be absurd.
The probability of something being created from nothing, or the probability of something existing without ever having been created or formed are just as infinitesimal, yet there it is at the beginning of Einsteins theory, Hawking's theory, et al. Science actually concludes both these things impossible, you can't create something from nothing, and something cannot exist if it hasn't been created or formed. The probability for this is zilch, zero, doesn't exist.
And do you know without this infinitesimal probability at the beginning of these theories, natural selection wouldn't exist at all. A probability of 1 in a million can be right over a probability of 999,999 in a million. It doesn't matter how infinitesimal a probability is, it still has probability.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Creating something from nothing....well I'm not sure that scientist are thinking of it as straight forward as that.
"But"....if we conclude that the now "something" exist but did not come from "nothing" unless this something was "created" then would this not be illogical....?
Instead of asking who created the creator, even though I see it as a valid question, why don't we ask where did the "creator" get the nothing from in order to create the something.
Was the something always there with the creator? If (yes) then the theory that the universe has always existed is valid right?
Since the creator is outside of space and time (universe) then where did it get the (whatever) from in order to bring space/time into existence? Did it get it from nothingness or did it always exist.
"But"....if we conclude that the now "something" exist but did not come from "nothing" unless this something was "created" then would this not be illogical....?
Instead of asking who created the creator, even though I see it as a valid question, why don't we ask where did the "creator" get the nothing from in order to create the something.
Was the something always there with the creator? If (yes) then the theory that the universe has always existed is valid right?
Since the creator is outside of space and time (universe) then where did it get the (whatever) from in order to bring space/time into existence? Did it get it from nothingness or did it always exist.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Yes we live in a cause and effect, not effect and cause universe. but I would ask why you assume that something can only exist if it is created. Why not have an absolute?
I prefer something to have come from something else even if the something else is itself. It seems more plausible than something from nothing.
It is, therefore it is?
As Maxwell said "What is the go of it?"
and Kepler
"Why things are like they are and not otherwise"
Cheers
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
According to the Big Bang Theory, all potential for the universe, including space and time, are contained within the singularity. All laws of nature are also included within the singularity. Outside of the singularity is unknown. Space and time do not exist outside of the singularity, nor do our laws of physics.
If this is so, our laws of cause and effect do not apply outside of the singularity. We have no idea what caused the singularity, and more than likely never will, as our laws and theories may not even apply outside of our universe(singularity).
So, could the singularity have come randomly from nothing? Yes. Could it have been 'created"? Yes. In fact, the possibilities of what 'could have happened' outside of the singularity are endless.
If this is so, our laws of cause and effect do not apply outside of the singularity. We have no idea what caused the singularity, and more than likely never will, as our laws and theories may not even apply outside of our universe(singularity).
So, could the singularity have come randomly from nothing? Yes. Could it have been 'created"? Yes. In fact, the possibilities of what 'could have happened' outside of the singularity are endless.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Yes you could be right but current evidence from WMAP satellite can offer some new insights. Check out the vid from Dirty Penguins post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE
Having viewed the vid do you still agree with the statement you just made?
Keep your eye open for the results of the Plank Satellite observatory. Coming to you soon.
Cheers
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
How would nature create everything we see?
Just as infinitesimal as what? Each other? Things could have always been there without a need for a creator, or they could have been formed without a need for a creator.
Ummm...What? Where is that in Einstein's theory? What is Hawking's theory that it's in? Science doesn't say things could not have existed forever. Also, Hawking's science says that a singularity started the universe and that talking about "before" the singularity (the big bang) is like talking about north of the north pole; it's useless. Time didn't exist before the big bang, so there's no such thing as "before" it.
It seems to me you're misinformed about science. Maybe you should do some research before making wild claims about it.
What infinitesimal probability? And what does that have to do with natural selection? It doesn't matter how life started. That has nothing to do with natural selection. Even if some god created life, it still evolved through natural selection.
What?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Interesting, I will be keeping an eye on that.
But things do exist. And, it you say a diety created it then you run into the problem of where that diety came from. It is a never ending story. Did things have a beginning or have they always existed. If they always existed, that is beyond my ability to comprehend the vastness of that implication. However, I do think at the present time it is the closest we can come to discerning things. I don't think a diety or creator exists, I think everything has always been, as hard as that is for me to comprehend. Do you believe a diety or creator was involved? Do you think there was a beginning to things?
That was fascinating. Thanks again Tiapan. It is so very exciting all the new things we are learning!
footprints
Well-Known Member
Scientists in general do not deal with the unknown, only the known, even if the unknown may affect their future calculations.
If something exists, but did not come from nothing, would mean If something exists it came from something, then I wouldn't find this illogical at all. Something coming from something I personally find very logical, it is something coming from nothing that I would find illogical at this present time, given mankinds current knowledge and understanding. Albeit, if you believe that something coming from something is illogical, then what can I say, you do.
When one gets the answer of what created the created, or as you like to put it who created the creator, generally speaking the answer soon follows as to where the material came from. From my perspective, the big bang and other subsequent theories provided the path for abiogenesis et al, to be created. Cause and effect. Down your line of thinking of who created the creator, the cause was the creator, the effect is the universe and everything in it, and I might say just as valid a position as any other, given that we are dealing with the unknown.
I have never heard a theory which says the something always existed. I would say the closest to this I have heard is Tiapans theory, where one universe dies to create another in a chain event. Albeit in Tiapans theory there would have had to have been an original universe which created the first, else the only thing which could be concluded from this would be that everything in universe is subject to the natural laws of the universe, except the universe itself, which is really some theists position at it pertains to their deity, that everything in the universe is subject to the laws of the universe except their deity. Which really makes me think sometimes that they are both talking about the same thing.
Now don't get me wrong, I do not deny that something might be able to be created from nothing, or that something could exist without being created or formed, given better knowledge than we have to today it may contain probability. Of course by todays standards, they both boil down to a supernatural effect. Supernatural meaning beyond our current scope of knowledge and understanding.
No use asking me the same question I have been asking others, if I had the answers I wouldn't have needed to ask where the first photon, atom et al came from. Though now I know that nobody who has replied in here knows the answer either.
Isn't that the million dollar question though, that both the scientist and the theist are searching for? Albeit theists aren't really looking for it, they believe they have the answer already, and most scientists play bury the head in the sand and let us just pretend it has always existed and deny the current natural laws of the universe as we know it. Theists and scientists are very much alike aren't they?
Seasons Greetings
Last edited:
footprints
Well-Known Member
To have an absolute would have to mean we have an effect without a cause. Or as I have just said to penguin, it would mean we have a universe which follows all the natural laws of the universe, except the universe itself, which just doesn't compute, considering the universe is all the natural laws so must abide in them and not extraneous to them.
Though don't get me wrong, I can accept by way of imagination, power of suggestion or whatever you like to call it, that absolutes or even something created from nothing can happen, albeit not with our current level of knowledge or understanding and why I say, there has to be another level of physics in the Universe to which we as a species have no knowledge of yet.
Something coming from something makes common sense to our knowledge and understanding today. Albeit as I said to have something which has always existed defies this common sense knowledge.
Seasons Greetings.
footprints
Well-Known Member
You are kidding me right?
Not really sure of the nonsense going around in your head, something can be created without a creator and yes they can be formed with a creator. It is the million dollar question. Intelligence should have already implied to you this is what was meant, glad to see your intelligence is up with mine.
LOL don't you know that the base root of all these equations is formed around the power of suggestion, "what if" scenarios, talking about the unknown that tend to fit the natural laws of the universe as we see it? Define a singularity the cause and effect which created it, then define the cause and effect which created the cause of the elements which created the singularity. Hawking uses the singularity to make way for the unknown. Down many lines his theory on black holes is being questioned as just one example.
Talking about the unknown, can be seen as useless, it is unknown therefore no rationality can really be drawn from it without adding some power of suggestion to it. Science though often dwells into the unknown, it is how the unknown gets to be known.
It seems to me somebody is misinformed. Might as well be me from your perspective.
Natural selection didn't just pop into being though by the sounds of it you seem to think it did, natural selection followed a long path of cause and effect, irrespective of whether the cause was natural cycles or if a deity was involved.
It may not matter to you how life started, but it matters to a lot of other people. It really just shows where your interests lie.
Oh that mball, that is science as it pertains to probability, I am sure you wouldn't understand it.
Seasons greetings.
footprints
Well-Known Member
When discussing the unknown problems are run into from every angle.
As an agnostic I do not believe anything, and therefore rest on probability alone. Probability alone says where the unknown is concerned, a Deity is as good as a guess as any other.
If there wasn't a beginning, it would defy the natural laws of the universe as we know it. We would have an effect without a cause. Now I am not saying that this is impossible, only that given our current knowledge to date, the probability is extremely small. As our knowledge increases further this though may change in either the greater or lesser direction of probability.
Seasons Greetings.
Well, I must admit it's a mystery to me anyway! Season's Greetings to you to Footprints
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes. I know. They deal in the "known". That I do agree with.
Naw, that's not where I was going with the reasoning and that's not what I think.
Wasn't really my line of thinking. I don't really find it important to ask the question of who/what created the creator (i.e. God/gods). I may find the question to be a valid one but I'm not interested in that particular type of discussion.
I think it might be called unified theory or the theory of everything. I'm not sure. I'd have to check on that.
I simply think that there's isn't enough data to conclude the universe being finite or infinite. As Dr. deGrasse points out that the current data let's us know the basic age of the universe. But as with all sciences that adhere to the scientific method, this understanding can and may change when new data is discovered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD1qAEeyets
Yes and Know. Science has no opinion on a "creator" so it doesn't ask the question but you are correct...Theists seem to be pretty sure their god is responsible so non-theist have asked them the question way before the script was flipped. Non-theist who have taken the side of science aren't as straight forward and definitive as some theist on the matter. We, like the scientist in the fields, simply don't know the origin of the universe or that it even has one. This may be the reason why there are a few theories out there (finite universe, infinite universe, multiverse, theory of everything...etc...etc...).
Scientist do no such thing. If they do can you present one that does? It is my view that scientist have answers but hold off being definitive because they lack data that conclusively supports their hypothesis. I don't have a problem with that. Sicentist don't take the position of absolute. This is best left to some theists.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually scientists don't deal with the supernatural and untestable...
If we didn't look into the unknown, then we wouldn't discover anything.
wa:do
footprints
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
I am not good at guessing games, if that is not what you meant or your reasoning why even raise the issue? Something creating something else is very logical to me, not illogical as you suggested.
Each to their own of course, my line of thinking makes me search for the truth of knowledge.
Even the theory of everything when you look closely at still boils down to something coming fom nothing albeit you need to apply that something exists without ever being created or formed to make any sense of it.
Mankind isn't as clever or smart as we would like to think we are.
Science does have an option on a Creator (deity) theory, most scientists don't exercise this option, and all scientists carry an opinion, even if this opinion is "Don't know, not enough data to form a logical and rational opinion."
I would agree, we simply don't know the unknown and even the theist has probability of being correct.
LOL are you kidding me, Einstein, Hawking et al. They build a premise on something always existing, which defy's the natural laws of the universe. Let's pretend it isn't there and we will jump in from here. Then of course when you look closely at their premise, it comes down to something being created from nothing.
You have already taken the postion of an absolute, science has answers but do not release them. You cannot have definitive answers when you lack data, all you have is a power of suggestion.
Seasons Greetings.
footprints
Well-Known Member
Actually scientists don't deal with the supernatural and untestable...
If we didn't look into the unknown, then we wouldn't discover anything.
wa:do
Actually painted wolf, scientists deal with alleged supernatural and previously alleged untestable every day.
And repeating what I have already said pertaining to scientist looking into the unknown and how it then becomes known, only serves to prove I may be on the right track, either that or we are both wrong.
wa:do
Seasons Greetings.
Actually painted wolf, scientists deal with alleged supernatural and previously alleged untestable every day.
And repeating what I have already said pertaining to scientist looking into the unknown and how it then becomes known, only serves to prove I may be on the right track, either that or we are both wrong.
wa:do
Seasons Greetings.
Can you give an example of legitimate scientists who deal with the supernatural?