The Universe: Lets Debate its Origin.

[lugia p]

This is how i see it...

Spoiler: WALL OF TEXT - its kinda small :D

The universe was always here. there was never a before or after, Universe has always been here, with all sorts of galaxies and planets. There are other Planets out there with life on them. Just because we have not discovered them does not mean they dont exsist. Earth is just another one of those planets with Life on it. Whether we are super advanced or super behind in technology is a mystery, because we've never seen or been to another planet with life on it. As far as we go, Humans are extreme animals. Not only do we dominant this planet, but we also have feelings, emotions, and morality towards each other. Rather than kill each other to survive we've turned into something else. Something that could be normal or bizare to alien planets. As far as religions go... I for one am not religious, and I do not mean to offend anyone by saying this, but to me there is no true religion. I say this because I personally dont see any proof. Theres a lot more evidence that suggests that earth was created through the universe rather than thourgh religion. People are religious because its a part of life. No one just picks it up, My neighbor is jewish, not because he wanted to be, but because he was born into a jewish family, and was taught to live by his jewish faith. Religions have been around forever, and to me, it seems like they all just started out as stories, and from stories it turned into something bigger. Anyways, as far as the Universe gose, it was just here, it always has been here. How do i know that? i dont, its just what I beilive. No one here has a purpose, we all are just here, and we all just need to accept that and live our lives the way we were made too.

you said we dont kill to survive what about war or slauter houses where they kill animals that counts as killing what about the pestacides besides that i agree we should live like we want to thats why we have free will

 

[Shuckle]

What has this statement got to do with anything that I said? Sorry, I just don't see the relevance here, at least not with the argument that you quoted above this. :/

I did not mean to imply that because there are imperfections that it must be down to natural selection. What I meant was that it cannot be an argument against natural selection -that it allows for imperfections- because imperfections do certainly exist. Maybe you were simply stating that you dislike the implications of the theory and not actually making an argument. Maybe, but that seems awfully like wishful thinking to me.

Remove them from the discussion? What nonsense. No, you happen to have a made a challenge about a subject that I am well versed in, probably (though not necessarily) more well versed than either ebilly or Megaton, and so I decided to weigh in. This is a public forum and I have ever right to do so. I was not trying to remove them, I was trying to help them.

Well I'm certainly no expert on bats so much of that was guesswork, but I fail to see how your conclusion that separate systems converging for mutual benefit is asinine. Why is that the case? The evolution of echolocation would obviously have been a gradual thing, just like all evolution. Slight increases in perception through such a medium would have eventually selected for it. It's not even that hard to use, and does not require much specialist 'equipment' since some humans can 'see' through echolocation.

I do not understand what you mean here. Please elaborate.

What strawmen? How am I possibly making strawmen out of your comments? I have addressed what you posted, that's about it. Maybe you did have something witty to post, not sure what that's got to do with me beating on religion. I have yet to do so in my debate with you at all, perhaps you could highlight where you're getting this idea from.

I can't see what gives you the idea that it isn't gradual. You've just dismissed it for some arbitrary reason. Some mothers did have large birth canals. That is the point. Those mothers who did not, and who gave birth to young with large heads did not survive. Their large headed offspring also did not survive. Those women with large birth canals who gave birth to offspring with small heads did survive, but their offspring had a less-than-adequate survival mechanism, because they were not as intelligent as their competitors. Who were those competitors? They were the lucky offspring of those mothers with slightly larger birth canals and who also possessed slightly larger heads. The differences might have been rather small, but over millions of years, in a system of gradual change these differences added up and all those humans with small birth canals or small heads did not survive. So yes, yes it was gradual, your foot notwithstanding.

Alright, you got me. I'm laughing now.

As a Roman Catholic, I call upon all of my knowledge of other religions to answer those questions. It's like debating in another language. I was playing devil's advocate the whole time, heehee You see, my church, as was made clear to me by my priest, believes in natural selection because it happens. It's provable, it's physical, and it does not contradict Catholicism at all.

Old religious prejudices are old and prejudiced. Contrary to popular 1800's belief, God did make everything in its perfect form, but that does not mean that it cannot adapt and change based on the environment. I tend to shy away from talking about human evolution because I'm not really sure of myself in that area, and thus am not prepared to go into a lengthy discussion on exactly why I believe humans did not come from space worms or monkeys because I'd lose.

If you'd like to point to the Big Bang as the way the Universe was created, however, I'm going to have to oppose you there. Genesis cannot possibly have been the correct account, because nobody was there at that point. Certainly the Garden of Eden bit was true, which should be obvious, but the Christian creation myth is just that. But, so is Big Bang theory.

As we delve into the creation of the universe, we see that it is impossible to create something out of nothing because there is only matter and energy, neither of which could exist before the creation of the universe. Thus, something impossible happened, and energy and matter both were created in their perfect forms. From nothing came something. Ispo facto, God exists.

 

[Tim the turtle]

and thus am not prepared to go into a lengthy discussion on exactly why I believe humans did not come from space worms or monkeys because I'd lose.

Clearly.

If you'd like to point to the Big Bang as the way the Universe was created, however, I'm going to have to oppose you there. Genesis cannot possibly have been the correct account, because nobody was there at that point. Certainly the Garden of Eden bit was true, which should be obvious, but the Christian creation myth is just that. But, so is Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory is not a myth, it is a theory. Rather obvious distinction, that. There is a vast amount of evidence for the big bang as a cosmological event, what is not certain is why such an event occurred, what caused it, if it even had a cause etc. etc.
As to the Garden of Eden, Stavrakopoulou certainly agrees that it is true, except that by true what she means is that it was a literal Garden, one of many, believed to house a single diety in a vast pantheon that was worshiped at the time.

As we delve into the creation of the universe, we see that it is impossible to create something out of nothing because there is only matter and energy, neither of which could exist before the creation of the universe.

We've been through this in this thread already. Krauss, Stenger and Zhao say this is not the case, others disagree. It's the sort of debate that few are qualified to have, as Pokejustice and I found out. The point is, your statement is not the truism you believe it to be.

 

[Jak2551]

you said we dont kill to survive what about war or slauter houses where they kill animals that counts as killing what about the pestacides besides that i agree we should live like we want to thats why we have free will

Well, I meant we dont kill each other to survive, true we kill animals but not each other.

 

[lugia p]

Well, I meant we dont kill each other to survive, true we kill animals but not each other.

what about war or are you saying that people in other contries are animals =( and i count animals as people because they to have emotions, and morality towards each other and scientific studies show that animals feel remorse unlike most humans

 

[The Director]

Starstruck: You didn't actually mention any other religions in that post. Besides there are all kind of loopholes and arguments to the problem of nothing to something.

1: There wasn't nothing before the big bang.

2: Causality loop, the universe caused itself.

3: The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, just the beginning of this current universe which will cycle back to big crunch and big bang again.

4: The laws of the universe, e.g. gravity, conservation of energy and mass etc., didn't exist before the universe so it wouldn't be impossible for something to come from nothing.

And so on.

Jak2551: What planet are you living on? Can you send me the coordinates cause it sounds much better than where we live.

Seriously though a bit of an overly optimistic and self important view on humanity for my own tastes. Personally humanity (and everything it does) is as natural as a rock, and to the gigantic universe we are a speck on a speck. Something so small that, unless you were really interested in the subject for some reason, you wouldn't notice.

Actually on topic though, what is their to discuss really?

All these arguments and more have been argued by other people with more evidence and logic, and it still comes down to the stalemate.

WE DON'T KNOW.

And if we don't know then no belief/theory is going to win in a debate because they can think of counter arguments to the limit of the human imagination. That's a large parameter.

 

[red fish]

theres alot of atheist on this website!duh god created the hevens and the earth.

 

[TheWatersGreatGuardian]

Wow, I am not going to get into this argument, because neither side was there when it happened, and there will be no end to it.

As a christian I have my beliefs and I believe that the universe was created by God.

 

[TerraWolf]

I win

/thread

 

[TheWatersGreatGuardian]

I win

/thread

Wikipedia....we know thats ALWAYS right...

for the big bang believers...how do you know that God did not CAUSE the big bang?

This is my point, no one can really have a foolproof argument.

the only foolproof argument is.... 42.

Whoever gets this gets a cookie.

 

[ebilly99]

Wikipedia....we know thats ALWAYS right...

for the big bang believers...how do you know that God did not CAUSE the big bang?

This is my point, no one can really have a foolproof argument.

the only foolproof argument is.... 42. Ok But whats the question?

Whoever gets this gets a cookie.

Do I gitz cookie

 

[Alleviate]

a fictional god did nothing
edit: why the **** is the big bang lumped with the big crush

 

[AzureCharizard]

As everyone knows the universe was created by arceus. its all in pokemon mithiology.
XD

 

[Abstinence Pistols]

There is no right or wrong answer. As humans, we will never be able to discover the answer anyway; what is the point of arguing over something if no side can ever be correct? Man searches for his answers, let him pick the one that satisfies him.

 

[Alleviate]

Considering there is no Pokedeity of light Game Freak doesn't get it. That and you're an idiot.

 

[Abstinence Pistols]

^Me or Azure?

 

[John13wb]

No one was at the beginning.

No one can really say for sure exactly how it happened.

Personally, the FSM makes a lot of sense, but, yeah...

 

[Zuzu14]

God had an orgy.

 

[Malanu]

Wikipedia....we know thats ALWAYS right...

for the big bang believers...how do you know that God did not CAUSE the big bang?

This is my point, no one can really have a foolproof argument.

the only foolproof argument is.... 42.

Whoever gets this gets a cookie.

What is 6 times 7 I do believe (or was it 6x8 been a long time since I read the Guide), now do you have a really hot cup of tea? I have this Improbability Drive and it needs a charge!

On topic... Why do we need to know how it began? The Universe 'is', we live in it. Ain't that enough?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Well, I stated “You and Pokejustice seem to believe”. I didn’t ‘put words into your mouths’. The point was rebuttal to quoting scientists as though it were quoting science. Notice the word “seem”, I was assuming that you were of the belief that such quotes vindicate your belief set, never said you were.

But quoting scientists, especially modern experts like Stephen Hawking, is greatly preferable to making claims with no kind of source whatsoever. I'm going to go out on a limb because I haven't searched every post of yours, but I don't see you using any kind of source (perhaps I missed it). Instead, you claim that "the scientific method shows this," and "the scientific consensus agrees with me." You have shown no evidence for any of these claims.

I say this in the most respectful way I can, but you really don’t get what science is, if this is what you spew: “you aren't interested in actually debating”. Because I refuse to accept all the numerous (marginal) opinions of scientists who don’t reflect the scientific consensus the debate can’t progress. Your opinion seems to be “in order to actually debate” I must abandon the scientific method. I must accept this one view that stands alone in a sea of alternative explanations many of which have more scientific backing. The only reasoning I can see for you having such an opinion is Pokejustice choose this interpretation. I’m more than happy to debate science, I’ll debate mathematics, I’ll debate scientific evidence. But please, I won’t abandon the scientific consensus because you can find a couple scientists in senior positions who disagree with the consensus. Pokejustice had already mentioned Smolin’s interpretation wasn’t mainstream and that it doesn’t reflect the consensus.

Just to clarify, you don't see me quoting Smolin, do you? I would apprciate if you would pay enough attention to the actual claims being made and avoid putting words in my mouth. Let PokeJustice talk about Smolin.

And you call Stephen Hawking's position marginal? Thanks for proving my point about your lack of willingness to debate.

Really? PokeJustice has repeatedly stated he doesn’t believe that God is independent of time. Although we share this belief, we disagree on the reasoning for it. But, to be honest who cares? The point stands either way, irrespective of time, God still suffers from the theory of statistical improbability. Probability describes states independently of the time variable, the state of God ‘being’ is an improbable one irrespective of time. It is a statistical impossibility if he is omnipotent, omni etc…but again he needs not be any of the aforementioned for the point to stand. That he is complex enough to knowingly create the universe in its entirety vindicates my assertion that he is complex. As such, he is significantly more improbable than a whole host of explanations. So it’s not that I“ refuse to acknowledge” anything. You just missed the point…

There are a lot of good responses to this. I can think of three:

1. Do you realize you've changed your claim?
   The probability of something existing is different from the probability of something coming into existence. I would agree that the probability of an "omni" God coming into existence is...well, more than just improbable; I'd say it is impossible. However, to calculate the probability of something like the existence of Bigfoot, you would have to analyze the available evidence. And even Richard Dawkins states he's only 97% sure God doesn't exist.
   
2. This could be stated of anything proposed as the cause of our universe.
   Do you realize that I could say "any set of laws complex enough to start our universe are not likely to exist"? I don't make that argument because something complex enough to start the universe...did. Whether it be God, branes, another universe, or laws, our universe was started by something complex enough to start the universe.
   
3. Probabilities employ numerical calculations....You didn't.

And on a side note, your question "Where did the mass-energy of the Big Bang come from?" it’s already been answered, gravity is a negative energy. No energy is needed to create a universe. Although, as I’ve stated I don’t wholeheartedly support this view. Your comparison between energy and time defeats me. Energy is, well energy. A thermodynamic variable dependent upon universal constraints. Time is merely the manifestation of entropy. Order is not subject to universal constraints. Time exists before the universe, whereas observable energy doesn’t. That is, the energy in our universe alone, didn’t need to exist before the Big Bang.

I wasn't asking a question. I was stating why I don't ask such a question. However, it looks like you've opened up a whole new can of worms here. It seems almost like the above paragraph indicates that you believe the mass-energy of our universe...came from somewhere else. But that impression is mistaken, isn't it? I request clarification.

And more importantly, if there's no mass-energy upon which entropy can operate, how can there be time?

Yes, but time is merely the product of physical laws. And you accept him to be subject to time. So, presumably you should accept he is subject to physical laws. For this to not be true, you’ll have to explain how time may exist without thermodynamic laws.

I don't think I would state that time is the mere product of natural laws, but I understand the idea of time being altered by things like gravity. As such, the whole foundation of my counterargument is the idea God is not a part of this universe and, as such, is not subject to the laws of this universe. The assertion that God must be subject to the laws of this universe would need proof that God is a part of this universe,

Hmm, but an omniscient God knows what a being will do whether it is “free” or not. Omniscience is defined as a knowledge of everything which would include the actions of a free being. Whilst, debating such terms is fun, it’s not productive and apparently, you and TFP don’t believe in the ‘omni’ prefix being.

Just to clarify, I do believe God has those "omni" attributes. I'm just not attempting to logically infer them from the beginning of the universe. (I'm not arguing for them in this debate.)

Compassionate? Really? have you read the bible, there's no compassion. God is pure evil, if anyone ever manages to prove to me that he exists, I'd become a Satanist on the spot.

I think you already are.

This raises a causal problem. If God is outside the universe, looking in, as you put it, then how can he possibly cause things to happen in the phenomenal realm? Further more... how can we possibly know whether or not God exists if he is outside the universe, the very fabric of experience, possibly even logic, cannot be used to ascertain the existence of God because does not reside in it or influence it. You talk so much of philosophy, I wonder how much of it you have actually studied. Kant suggests that God can exist, but that knowledge of such is impossible, metaphysics cannot provide us with knowledge because God is out of our remit. We are observers, and place our own suggestive prejudices into our experiences, from which all knowledge is ultimately derived (even analytic statements begin with the experience of terms and how such terms interact). Because of this we cannot receive knowledge of the world 'as it is in itself', a world which God may or not be a part of. Kant 'denied knowledge in order to make room for faith', and that is all that can be asserted. Faith.

I know the above paragraph wasn't addressed to me, but..did you actually say that? The idea that the universe cannot be effected by anything outside of itself is something that even a brief look at Flatland would instantly disprove. And I don't see you making the above claim in response to advocates of "the universe started because of an event in another universe."

Existence is not a predicate. It cannot be added to a concept in order to derive existence, because that is circular from the very original concept. the ontological argument only sets up a necessary condition if the concept has existence. If God exists, then He is the greatest thing that exists, but that is not a guarantor of existence. The statement God exists is synthetic, it is not analytic and is not contained within the terms of the concept.

Correct. Honestly, I don't mean this as any kind of insult, but I didn't need any atheist to refute that argument for me. I recall expressly recognizing the fallacy inherent in it years ago.

2: Causality loop, the universe caused itself.

3: The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, just the beginning of this current universe which will cycle back to big crunch and big bang again.

4: The laws of the universe, e.g. gravity, conservation of energy and mass etc., didn't exist before the universe so it wouldn't be impossible for something to come from nothing.

Causality loops (or self-causing events; it isn't clear what you mean) are things for which one would need evidence in order to propose.

The cyclic theory involves the non-scientific idea of entropy reduction for the whole universe if it continually restarts with maximum possible order each time in a highly-ordered Big Bang. It also runs into a problem from Occam's Razor; proposing many cycles of unobservable universes is not a good explanation of our own universe because of the enormous amount of unobservables invoked.

For point 4, there's someone here who'd disagree with you on that one.



Of the possible causes of the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe, I am convinced some form of God is the most logical explanation. Invoking cyclical universes, events in other universes, branes, or unobservable events inside black holes are poor explanations.