Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 442,149 views

Stephen Hawking's Universe series. I suggest watching all 6 episodes. All 6 episodes are freely available on youtube. Alot of the math etc that I posted can be found in the 6 episodes.

Lately I've been watching everything I can about Dr. Michio Kaku on youtube. He has a great speaking voice and makes things quite clear for those not familiar with theoretical physics.

As for this thread, I don't know what to say.

100+ years of darwinism has still not solved the problem of how life got here. There is still incomplete math, missing links and so on.

Yet when I enter this thread I constantly have to be on the defensive. Whenever I have the rare chance to be on the offense the usual answer is 'it took millions of years' or something similiar. That's not too different from using the crutch 'God works in mysterious ways'.

Darwinists have more to prove than creationists do.

I'll give an example. If someone found a computer, would it be easier to say an engineer made it by putting together the necessary parts, or would it be easier to say chance built the computer?

So far darwinism has failed to prove conslusively the theory of evolution, and in my opinion its not long before the theory collapses. It should have collapsed by now, but due to the pressures in the classroom and the education system evolution must not be challenged despite large holes in the basic fundamentals of the theory.

True, alot of so called "new age" creationists and even the Pope have accepted the theory of evolution.

However, as Ben Stein said we have the right to challenge the theory of evolution, especially the moment of creation. Until evolution is proven to be a fact it should be debated. Why shouldn't it be debated? Isn't every scientific theory debated?

No one debates the existance of gravity or the rotation of the earth around the sun.

There are many reasons to doubt the evolution theory. Darwinists will tell you that the holes in the theory will soon be filled, or the holes are forever lost to time.

Scientists are brought up and force fed evolution through the education system, the same way you may say parents forcefeed God into their children.

By the time a scientist gets into the classroom he KNOWS evolution is THE theory and it his his job to prove it as fact. So all scientists go into the field searching for signs of evolution. Any signs of ID or anything else thrown to the wayside because there is only evolution. Because of this monopoly the average Joe says "Scientists are proving evolution, so it must be right." So therefore they accept it because of the monopoly darwinism has.

And how can you challenge them? You are a nobody. They are the scientists, the ones trained in the field of biology. They know what they are talking about, not you. It's not fair to the average Joe scientists are not allowed to have an open mind and are being forced to try and prove darwinism.

The Bible has been proven time and time again a reliable source for history. Many times the Bible said this ruler ruled at this time or this city was here and scientists later found it out to be true.

Yet all the shows on the discovery channel and everywhere else only try and discredit the Bible, despite it's accurate description of the past. This is bias at work. These scientists do not go into the field keeping an open mind. They go into the field trying to disprove the Bible, not find out whether it is wrong or right.

Scientists are not even sure what makes up 80% of the universe. It's about time they stop pretending they know everything about the universe, it's alot bigger then they are
 
Stephen Hawking's Universe series. I suggest watching all 6 episodes. All 6 episodes are freely available on youtube. Alot of the math etc that I posted can be found in the 6 episodes.

While it's all massively interesting, how can something without a design specification meet a tolerance?

I'll also help you out with a massive clue. Popular science isn't the same as science. Popular science is scientific concepts explained in simple terms, often at the expense of significant details many of us can't grasp.

In Stephen Hawking's "own" words, if you can understand the universe, you probably don't know enough about it yet.


As for this thread, I don't know what to say.

A thought - read all 5,700+ posts. This will stop you having to revisit old ground over and over and over again.

The original topic is whether Creation theory should be taught in science classes. Creation theory has no scientific basis, so the answer is no.


100+ years of darwinism has still not solved the problem of how life got here. There is still incomplete math, missing links and so on.

And so the solution is to throw it all away in favour of something with absolutely no scientific merit or evidence?

Dreadful.


Darwinists have more to prove than creationists do.

Quite so. We actually have to prove the truth. We can't just point at a book and say "Here's the answer. Okay, so it has no basis in reality, but some bloke a few hundred years back said an invisible sky pixie told him, and then some other blokes translated it into a variety of other languages, and then some other bloke put a few of the books together and threw out some other ones he didn't like the look of, and then some other blokes translated that into other languages and came up with several versions with major differences, but you had me at Invisible Sky Pixie. Thank cheese for that."

Scientists are brought up and force fed evolution through the education system, the same way you may say parents forcefeed God into their children.

My stars... :rolleyes:

Scientists are not even sure what makes up 80% of the universe. It's about time they stop pretending they know everything about the universe, it's alot bigger then they are

You've managed to contradict yourself in two sentences. Firstly we say we don't know what 4 out of 5 things in the universe are, but then we say we know everything.

The most important, underlying sentence in all of science - that which drives science itself - is "I do not know".
 
3 points that I'd like you to consider carefully Earth. I'll call them out for you as I make them.

If someone found a computer, would it be easier to say an engineer made it by putting together the necessary parts, or would it be easier to say chance built the computer?

1) TM already refuted this (and it's not the first time it has been thoroughly debunked in this thread).

No one debates the existance of gravity or the rotation of the earth around the sun.

You do not understand the word "theory" in regards to evolution. The above is case in point. The THEORY of gravitation IS actually hotly debated. And the Law of gravity has actually been corrected (and will likely be corrected again). Here's a brief description of the difference between theory and law:

Some website
  • Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
  • Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
2) There is a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity (I'm simplifying a bit). There is also a law of evolution and a theory of evolution. The law of evolution is called "natural selection". Evolution and natural selection are related the way theory and law are related for gravity - see the above quote for details. No amount of evidence or proof will ever change the "Theory" of evolution into anything else. It will always be a theory. If we could go back in time and observe evolution in high definition time-lapse video it would still be a theory.

The amazing thing is, that you seem to think the scientific community has rested on gravity but not evolution - when in fact the opposite is closer to true. If you came into the opinions forum and said "I don't believe in the scientific explanation of gravity" (theory or law), dissenters would have a more difficult time.

God
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:1[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:2[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:3[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:4[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:5[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:6[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:7[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:8[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:9[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:10[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1:11[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [/FONT]

Am I reading the wrong Genesis or something?

3) You seem to think that Genesis says that life began in the sea, but it really doesn't. So quit claiming that Genesis is scientifically supported!

Famine
Enormous mathematical odds are irrelevant given a big enough sample space. Oh look! The universe.

:lol:
 
Scientists are brought up and force fed evolution through the education system, the same way you may say parents forcefeed God into their children.
No offense, but that is complete garbage and totally untrue. I am a professional research scientist and have never been taught evolution in my whole life.

By the time a scientist gets into the classroom he KNOWS evolution is THE theory and it his his job to prove it as fact. So all scientists go into the field searching for signs of evolution. Any signs of ID or anything else thrown to the wayside because there is only evolution. Because of this monopoly the average Joe says "Scientists are proving evolution, so it must be right." So therefore they accept it because of the monopoly darwinism has.

And how can you challenge them? You are a nobody. They are the scientists, the ones trained in the field of biology. They know what they are talking about, not you. It's not fair to the average Joe scientists are not allowed to have an open mind and are being forced to try and prove darwinism.
Simple answer is that if you watch to challenge a theory which has been built on the solid foundations of evidence, the only way to challenge it in a credible way is by producing evidence to contradict the theory. This happens in science constantly, and evolution theory is no exception.

Has it occured to you that the reason that mainstream science accepts Darwinism is not because of some almighty anti-religious conspiracy, but simply because Darwin happened to be right?
 
The whole process seems too guided, however, to be self realized. With nothing to back my claim, these comments are the ones we ponder late at night in front of a good fire with good friends, enjoying good conversation. What is that primal instinct to survive, where does it come from? Is it so embedded in our DNA memory? What was the driving force behind a singular celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism? Will you tell me that the first evolution from single to mulit-cell was actually a mutation? *curious*
 
The whole process seems too guided, however, to be self realized.

What makes you think it seems guided?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/health/main4001152.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4001152

What is that primal instinct to survive, where does it come from? Is it so embedded in our DNA memory?

Without the drive to survive we'd probably let ourselves get killed and then never reproduce.... removing our genes from the gene pool. Almost as if we were naturally selected right out of the genetic tree.

Will you tell me that the first evolution from single to mulit-cell was actually a mutation? *curious*

I don't think it happened quite that simply but yes, all variations come from copying errors, unexpected results from genetic mixing, etc.
 
This is why we should all date outside of our own village.

Without the drive to survive we'd probably let ourselves get killed and then never reproduce.... removing our genes from the gene pool. Almost as if we were naturally selected right out of the genetic tree.



I don't think it happened quite that simply but yes, all variations come from copying errors, unexpected results from genetic mixing, etc.

So evolution really didn't occur until the organisms were mutated far enough along until a drive of survival was possible? It was there that evolution took over so to speak?
 
To add to what Dan has just said, I'd also say that despite our conscious desire to survive (which is no doubt shared by many animals) and despite our inate desire to survive, there is also the (hugely) significant factor that the environment dictates what can possibly survive at any given time - it is the essence of life itself to propagate and survive. Everything alive today is descended from a survivor of some description, and we rarely mourn those species that didn't make it. In other words, you don't need an urge or even a primal instinct to survive - life is and always will be symbiotic with the Earth, and despite many mass extinction events, life has always found a way to survive...

Also, although mutations are the basic driving force for variation, the opposite also 'happens' (or doesn't happen!), such that nature is clearly a great believer in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doctrine... some animals/lifeforms have remained largely unchanged genetically for millions of years (crocodiles, for example)... not to mention the basic apparatus of energy conversion in every living thing, which has remained largely unchanged across the whole animal kingdom for billions of years. The reason for that is that while evolution is the perfect way to exploit a new niche in a changing environment, it doesn't happen unless it has to... many bacteria, deep-sea creatures etc. haven't experienced any significant environmental changes since the dawn of time, and hence they are effectively living fossils. Land-creatures, on the other hand, have had no choice but to adapt constantly, and drastically, in order to live with the environment as it changes around us...

Pako
What was the driving force behind a singular celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism?
Increased survivability! Safety in numbers etc.

So evolution really didn't occur until the organisms were mutated far enough along until a drive of survival was possible? It was there that evolution took over so to speak?
I don't think that's the case - as I suggest above, the "drive" or conscious effort toward survival is something enjoyed by higher animals, but natural selection happens to all living things (in different way and at different rates) regardless. It's my view that life on Earth began on a simple molecular level, but so long as the inate ability to replicate was present, then the force of natural selection would be able to act upon it. As we can see from simple bench chemistry experiments, even the most basic chemicals can show remarkable abilities in replicating themselves... the best example I can think of right now is DNA.
 
The whole process seems too guided, however, to be self realized. With nothing to back my claim, these comments are the ones we ponder late at night in front of a good fire with good friends, enjoying good conversation. What is that primal instinct to survive, where does it come from? Is it so embedded in our DNA memory? What was the driving force behind a singular celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism? Will you tell me that the first evolution from single to mulit-cell was actually a mutation? *curious*
One word: electromagnetism.

Okay, take a molecule, say, water. Water molecules are slightly bent, because the electrons on the oxygen molecule repel the electrons on the hydrogen molecules. Thus, the bent shape is magnetically stable. Or, let’s take bromoethane and react it with a hydroxide ion: the hydroxide will come in the back of the molecule, the bromine will pop off, and the other atoms will move opposite of the hydroxide*. Again, this happens because it’s magnetically stable.

Now, let’s say that a molecule has assembled itself that looks like this:

|—
|—
|—

You have a chain backbone molecule, with little groups hanging off one side. There are many, many molecules that look like this. (Pretend that the horizontal (—) lines are slightly different chemically, while the vertical (|) lines are identical chemically.)

Now, because of electromagnetism, you have what’s called hydrogen bonding, which means that hydrogens on different molecules can bond together (not just any hydrogen, but I won’t get into details). So, this large molecule can start hydrogen-bonding to other molecules:

|——
|—
|—

And it’s very easy to get something that looks like this:

|——|
|——|
|——|

(Starting to look familiar?)

Now, hydrogen bonds are relatively weak, so it’s easy for this macromolecule to break apart:

|— —|
|— —|
|— —|

Now you have two of these molecules. However, they are still magnetically charged on their ends such that they will readily hydrogen bond, so the next time they bump into similar molecules, they will bond. Then, again, they will break apart, bump into new similar molecules, and re-bond. Thus, just because of magnetic interactions, you have something that will self-replicate with no outside intervention whatsoever.

As time goes on, you’ll have many of these self-replicators, but there’ll be slight differences due to simple chance. As more and more form, they’ll start competing for chemical building blocks – more electromagnetically stable replicators will win out, while less stable replicators won’t be able to replicate as often.

As more time goes on, they might start acquiring certain features that help them stay stable or attack others. For example, they might acquire chemical groups that cause other replicators to break up (look at the SN2 picture again – you can easily imagine how simple chemical groups can be used in such attacks), and once they’ve broken up, the replicator can use those building blocks to build more of itself. These would be the first carnivores, in a sense.

Other replicators could acquire protective chemical groups that keep them from being “eaten” or “attacked”. Eventually, the molecules within the replicator could be used as an electromagnetic template to build new protective barriers. This is how your first viruses and bacteria form.

From there, everything’s easy. What if instead of replicating normally, a bacteria accidentally sticks to its child? That’s your first multi-celled organism. Maybe that’s an advantage, because now it can attack other cells easier.

But behind all of this is molecular stability (i.e, electromagnetic stability). A bacteria doesn’t exist for its own sake – bacteria exists because it allows DNA to survive better than if the DNA were just floating around naked. Naked DNA can split apart quite easily, and the replicator is destroyed – but a bacteria provides a protective shell for the DNA to sit, to replicate, and to repair itself.

Everything is driven by the ability for this replicator to survive and perpetuate. If a replicator gets eaten by a bird, too bad, the replicator is broken up. If a replicator survives, then it replicates itself, and lives on with the features that allowed its parent to survive.
 
Danoff
"Nothing" is actually what the answer has to be - even if you're religious. The only way that any of these notions about the existence of reality make any sense is if they can be tied back to nothing. Somehow you have to cope with the question of where God came from - and your answer has to be "nothing".
The answer has to be nothing?
So if a human is born, raised, and dies in the alaskan wilderness, and the only dogs they see are wolves, then they must logically conclude that they are the only type of dog? Or are you suggesting that humans have discovered everything neccessary to determine all ways possible for creatures to exist? (without even setting foot on another planet, mind you)


EDIT: just a random thought here, i've heard in this thread very recently (think it was Famine) that new species keep showing up.... there is only one small problem with that - where is the proof that they havent simply just been discovered? I believe you're confusing new species with hybrid species. You see, a new species would not be the offspring off two different species, nor would it be the offspring of mutated species, but rather something, well, new.
 
EDIT: just a random thought here, i've heard in this thread very recently (think it was Famine) that new species keep showing up.... there is only one small problem with that - where is the proof that they havent simply just been discovered? I believe you're confusing new species with hybrid species. You see, a new species would not be the offspring off two different species, nor would it be the offspring of mutated species, but rather something, well, new.

New species have arisen since mankind got his final Achievement - though Homo sapiens sapiens is certainly amongst the younger species on the planet, he certainly isn't the youngest. And all species have been discovered since then (kinda self-referential - we're the ones doing the discovering and cataloguing, so prior to us there wasn't any discovery). There's a difference between discovering a new species and a new species arising. Quite a big difference, as it happens.

Like... New species are discovered every 26 minutes, on average. But the newest species to have arisen on the Earth that I'm aware of is about 12,000 years old.

The proof? That lies in Ribosomal RNA - dating speciation amongst living species is relatively simple.


You can believe I'm confusing things all you like, but, luckily, belief is not a defining factor in truth.
 
New species have arisen since mankind got his final Achievement - though Homo sapiens sapiens is certainly amongst the younger species on the planet, he certainly isn't the youngest. And all species have been discovered since then (kinda self-referential - we're the ones doing the discovering and cataloguing, so prior to us there wasn't any discovery). There's a difference between discovering a new species and a new species arising. Quite a big difference, as it happens.

Like... New species are discovered every 26 minutes, on average. But the newest species to have arisen on the Earth that I'm aware of is about 12,000 years old.

The proof? That lies in Ribosomal RNA - dating speciation amongst living species is relatively simple.


You can believe I'm confusing things all you like, but, luckily, belief is not a defining factor in truth.

I'm sure dating speciation is very simple. except there is no possible way to confirm that it is sound process in any way whatsoever.
 
I'm sure dating speciation is very simple. except there is no possible way to confirm that it is sound process in any way whatsoever.

Yup... it's about as completely inaccurate as counting tree-rings... oh... wait... you can tell how old a tree is by counting tree rings... scratch that... :lol:

Maybe it's as unsound a process as DNA fingerprinting? I mean, there's no way to prove that works, either, right? :dopey:

The answer has to be nothing?
So if a human is born, raised, and dies in the alaskan wilderness, and the only dogs they see are wolves, then they must logically conclude that they are the only type of dog? Or are you suggesting that humans have discovered everything neccessary to determine all ways possible for creatures to exist? (without even setting foot on another planet, mind you)

While I wasn't following Danoff's argument... the actual scientific statement we can make from this situation is: "Wolves are the only form of dog that we know to exist."

The religious viewpoint would be: "Wolves are the only form of dog that CAN and EVER will exist."

Taking religion from a fundamentalist viewpoint, you state, categorically, that : "This is the only way things can be, can have developed and will ever be." Religion, unlike science, preaches the utter exclusion of foreign principles, ideas, and ideologies, whether they are proven to be truth or not.

Thank God it isn't always the fundies who control religion. Revisionists and Modernists have, at times, been at the forefront of the major religions, and have done the intelligent thing... adapting the religion to the modern world.

That's why the Catholic Church absolved Galileo (although Papa Ratzi seems more fundamentalist than PJP, and seems to be turning back to the bad old secluded and backwards thinking ways of the medieval Church)... and why most of us in this thread are various sects of Christian but not all Catholic... in fact... why we're Catholic and not Jewish (thanks to the master revisionist... Jesus). Religion must evolve, or die as it becomes disconnected from the human world. But at the core of most religions is, of course, the dogmatic belief in the utter correctness of the religion and the frivolity of change.

Many scientists are religious, but don't subscribe to the fundamentalist viewpoint. They accept the paradox that religion cannot be taken as 1:1 with the physical world and they understand that science does not disprove the existence of the spiritual one. It's non-scientists who provoke the debate, by claiming that science disproves religion. Hogwash. Science disproves dogmatic beliefs that may be held by certain religious sects, but it, in no way, can disprove the existence of God.

Simply put... if he is unknowable and unseeable... how can we disprove his existence?

Of course, there is the problem for religious leaders there... if God is unknowable and unseeable... how can you claim to know him? How can you claim that your version of God is more accurate than the 9,999,999 other versions of him? :D :D :D
 
I'm sure dating speciation is very simple. except there is no possible way to confirm that it is sound process in any way whatsoever.

To your mind, maybe.

How fortunate that science isn't ever based upon the untested opinion of just one person.
 
The answer has to be nothing?

Yes, it has to be nothing. As in... in the beginning, there was nothing, not even God. If that is not the premise, then it begs the question "why was there anything to begin with?". And the answer must be, because that naturally follows from nothingness (via some physical law we haven't discovered yet).

So if you say, in the beginning, there was a big ball of matter - well that's not the beginning then is it? Because how did the big ball of matter get there? You might say, it got there as the previous instance of the universe collapsed in on itself folding time and space and matter into a point. I'd say, how did the previous instance of the universe get there. You might say, from a big ball of matter, on and on for all time. At which point I'd say, why does anything exist at all? And you'd be forced to come up with an explanation that says that if you start from nothing - the universe happens naturally. It exists because it must exist for some as yet undiscovered reason.

Some thing holds for religion. If you say, in the beginning, there was God, I say, where did God come from? You say, nowhere, he has always been there on and on for all time. At which point I'd say, why does god exist at all? And you'd be forced to come up with an explanation that says that if you start from nothing - God happens naturally. He exists because he must exist for some yet undiscovered reason.

The answer, in either case, is nothing.
 
Danoff: I think that there is no beginning of time. I think everything before the universe does go on into infinity, and "nothing" is not the beginning. I believe that there is no beginning, but everything came from something else.
 
Danoff: I think that there is no beginning of time. I think everything before the universe does go on into infinity, and "nothing" is not the beginning. I believe that there is no beginning, but everything came from something else.


me
You might say, from a big ball of matter, on and on for all time. At which point I'd say, why does anything exist at all?

So... why does anything exist at all? Keep in mind that your response will have to be in the following form...

me
from nothing - the universe happens naturally. It exists because it must exist for some as yet undiscovered reason.
 
The answer, in either case, is nothing.

This would of course be assuming that God is a physical entity of some form and experiences time as we do, correct?

Not saying I know what plane God is one or however you want to put it, but my understanding would be that he is not a physical entity and is not subject to the physical laws as we understand them, thus making his existence before time beyond our physical ability to understand.

I mean, assuming God created the universe it would mean that he also created time itself, and was thus before time and does not have a beginning as we know it.
 
As much as it strains my brain, I think of it as the universe was always here and the Big Bang just brought about our galaxy and various solar systems.
 
So... why does anything exist at all?
Thinking the universe has always existed makes the same, or more, sense then thinking it somehow magically appeared out of nowhere. That said, I don't think anyone will really know.
 
How the universe came to be (or God for that matter) is the greatest riddle we are facing. I don't think we will ever know/understand. But then again, someone might come up with a brilliant theory and during an experiment create a new universe in a perfect vacuum chamber. (Did I just say create?!?)
 
To your mind, maybe.

How fortunate that science isn't ever based upon the untested opinion of just one person.

You're right. It's based on three major functions, one of which is replicating the action. But I guess for arguments sake we should throw that one away.

If you weren't around to see when anything originated, to know and have proof of when it came about, then your calculations could be completely wrong without your ever knowing, no?
I think 4+4 is 9.
I never saw the answer, so I can also know 44+44 is ... um... oops
You do realize your talking about when a creature first came into existence, and not how old a particular creature or peice has been around, right?
 
You do realize your talking about when a creature first came into existence, and not how old a particular creature or peice has been around, right?

You do realise I'm a molecular biologist, right?

When I posted:


Famine
But the newest species to have arisen on the Earth that I'm aware of is about 12,000 years old.

did you think I was in some way confused as to what we were talking about and had simultaneously forgotten the meaning of the words "newest" and "arisen"?
 
This would of course be assuming that God is a physical entity of some form and experiences time as we do, correct?

No.

Not saying I know what plane God is one or however you want to put it, but my understanding would be that he is not a physical entity and is not subject to the physical laws as we understand them, thus making his existence before time beyond our physical ability to understand.

I don't care what plane or dimension or whatever he exists in. Why does he exist AT ALL in ANY dimension?

I mean, assuming God created the universe it would mean that he also created time itself, and was thus before time and does not have a beginning as we know it.

Why did he exist at the beginning of OUR universe then? Where did he come from? At some point, the answer must be of the form "he had to exist because if you assume nothing - god can be derived".

Again, it comes back to nothing.

As much as it strains my brain, I think of it as the universe was always here and the Big Bang just brought about our galaxy and various solar systems.

Where did the matter, space, and time in our universe come from? Why does any of it exist at all? The only possible answer to that question is that if you assume nothing existed, you could derive our universe from it. Again, it comes back to nothing.

Thinking the universe has always existed makes the same, or more, sense then thinking it somehow magically appeared out of nowhere. That said, I don't think anyone will really know.

Why would you think nobody will know? What possible reason do you have for that given that mankind as only acquired additional insight into the origins of our universe over time? Thinking that the universe has always existed dodges the question of WHY it exists. The answer must be that it is the natural result of nothing.

How the universe came to be (or God for that matter) is the greatest riddle we are facing. I don't think we will ever know/understand.

I'll ask you the same question I asked mini - what possible reason do you have to come to this conclusion?


Look, if you guys don't think that at some point this has to be derived from nothing, someone give me another even plausible explanation. Any plausible explanation. I'm willing to entertain religious mythology, made up stuff, or legitimate astrophysics theory.
 
Sorry to just pop in and interject:

If everything came from God, then God is everything. There has never been nothing, there has always been something, that being God.

Since everything cannot come from nothing, there had to be something. The most popular belief is that the something from which all was derived is God.
 
If everything came from God, then God is everything. There has never been nothing, there has always been something, that being God.

Then why does god exist? Why not nothing at all? What causes God to exist?

Since everything cannot come from nothing, there had to be something.

How do you know this?

The most popular belief is that the something from which all was derived is God.

Who cares about popularity? I'm talking about plausibility. This doesn't answer my question at all. What I want to know is why does anything exist at all? (God included)
 

Latest Posts

Back