Back to the beginning

[Ambassadar]

*note: This is not a debate about evolution on the planet Earth. This is a discussion on is there or is there not a higher being(God) and using science what can we define if anything in regards to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone seems to have a lot of strong feelings about God vs. Athiesm and things of that nature. These feelings in the posts I have seen just digress into a pointless little flame war that gets no where. People just spout of opinions like "Anyone that believes in God believes in fairy tales." "Well anyone that believes in Athiesm has their head up their butt."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's have a thread where everyone keeps their cool and we just discuss thoughts on the topic. There is no reason for anyone to dislike another person in here. If we disagree then we disagree. No harm done right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attack ideas in here with facts, not with feelings. Never attack the person, always the idea. Words like stupid, moron, etc have no part in any response. Instead say "I disagree because *insert idea or fact.*"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said I will begin. At the very core of the whole is there a God vs Atheism debate I think we have another issue that gets overlooked. People always focus on the Earth and how life was made in these debates. Let's forget the Earth for now. I am going to list out what I feel would be things that would have to be true for each theory. I would appreciate input from people with what they think about the matter and my ideas. If you think I made a mistake on an assumption let me know and we can try to figure things out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Atheism was true

 

 

 

All matter and energy(which would include the Universe) would be infinitely old because it would never have had a beginning(a creation). The big bang wouldn't be a beginning because according to the theory the matter and energy for the whole universe was already in existence prior to the bang but just in a super compressed black hole sorta way and possibly in some other form before that. In effect the energy in the universe has always been a fixed definable constant. The energy in the universe now is the same as the amount in the universe 10 trillion years ago(or as far back as you want to go with it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a God that created the universe was true

 

 

 

All matter and energy would have had a beginning because there would have been a God that created it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Atheism was true then there is a finite amount of matter and energy in existence(including alternate universes or different dimensions if they exist because there is a set amount of energy in those as well).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a God that created the universe there doesn't have to be a set amount of energy because some type of higher being (that is outside the realm of defining scientifically because he created science and the laws that govern it) could create energy from nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since the God and Creationism argument relies on a being that creates the rules it would be impossible to apply the scientific method to this creator. It would also be impossible to define this creator. In other words there is no way to ever prove scientifically there is a creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The theories that rely on the absence of a God in the development of how the Universe as we know it came about relies on nature taking it's course over billions and billions of years. If the universe was never created from scratch then what this really means is that all matter in existence is infinitely old. It never had a beginning. It was always there in some form or fashion. Of course how the universe came to be as we know it is impossible to duplicate with the scientific method as well because we can't recreate it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why this is such a heated debate. Neither side can ever absolutely prove their side is right. That is why it is the THEORY of creationism(The idea of a higher power) and the other theories that try to define the origins of the universe without a higher power. If neither side can prove they are right then maybe it is possible to prove one side is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To do this we need to use something that can be proven to be right 100% of the time. What we need is some scientific laws to use as a framework

 

 

 

So now we add the Laws of Thermodynamics to the example. Newton's first law says energy is neither created nor destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second law summed up basically states that in a closed system without additional energy added energy can only move from a higher quality to a lower quality over time. This is also called entropy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a MIT website that goes into greater detail of the second law if anyone is interested.

 

 

 

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronau ... part1b.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why stuff degrades over time or why a new car will always get a dent in it eventually or why you burn a piece of wood and make ashes, heat and byproducts but you can't take the heat, byproducts and ashes released from that log and turn them back into a log without adding more energy to it. Hopefully that explains it in basic enough terms. Lemme know if anyone wants me to explain it in further detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I look at the world around me it is vibrant with life. When I look at the night sky I can see thousands of stars burning brightly. I see all kinds of things that are in a high form of energy. Now using this observation I think back on how it was defined what would have to be true for Atheism vs God and Creationism to take place. When I start putting all the pieces of the puzzle together that are on the table it makes me realize one of these theories cannot be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a God didn't create the Universe then all energy has had to be in existence for eternity. That means the energy surrounding us today has been around for an infinite number of years already. It also means no new energy has been created to be added to the existing definable closed system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I look at the second law of thermodynamics I see a glaring problem arise. If this energy has been around for that long and it can only go to a lower energy state with time in a closed system then why can I see stars? Why am I even here? Shouldn't the whole universe have already digressed into some kind of dead burned out shell of itself ? If all energy is infinitely old then it should be impossible that I am here today or that the sun is still burning. Since that isn't the case then it would appear that at some point the Universe had to be created. This means there has to be a God or Creator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way I can get around this in my mind without admitting to myself there is a creator or God of some sort is to say maybe our Universe isn't the only one. Maybe there are other dimensions that somehow transferred their energy to ours. If that was the case and those dimensions or universes weren't created by a God then we run into the same problem again. What created those Universes? And thus we run into a circular argument with no way out. This Universe created this one which created that one on and on and on. The only conclusions that can be reached going this route are either:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. There must be an infinite number of universes that bumped into each other because if there is a set number of universes even if it is billions of them eventually all that energy in all those universes would stabilize at it's lowest form and because of that our universe couldn't exist as it does now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics that can be reproduced 100% of the time in any situation aren't true and we should ditch them in favor of a mere theory that cannot be proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Somewhere, somehow, sometime, there was a God or creator that created everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus we get down to the crux of the issue. Every viewpoint requires a leap of faith. I have three choices that could all seem ridiculous depending on the person you asked. For me personally the answer that seems to make the most sense is that there must be a God out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you made it this far thanks for taking the time to read my post. Hopefully this will be a productive and educational thread where we can all learn from each other. I would appreciate hearing any comments, questions, or arguments raised by this. Also let me know if I missed any points or observances in my line of logic. Just keep it civil. If it gets out of hand I'm just going to ignore it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, we are all on the same team... we all want a party hat... and we all want to beat TzTok-Jad :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*edit* Holy crud... This post is a lot longer than I expected it to be when I started typing it lol

[warri0r45]

Well written, and I understand where you are coming from with the problem with entropy. The disorder eventually subsides to nothing, according the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, correct? (i'm not overly familiar with it) So I suppose the argument that something must have created everything becomes valid. But then, one could ask 'what created the creator.' And there you have another cyclical, paradoxical argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the law of thermodynamics is solid 100% of the time, or perhaps there is an exotic complex of energy transfer in the form of a 'big bang' ending in a 'big crunch' etc that we can't fully comprehend with current knowlege. Either way, science can change and is accountable for what it states, where as religion is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for evolution being 'just a theory,' have a look at my topic 'evolution.' and the site provided. Take from it what you will, and believe what you want, it's up to you.

[How2PK]

Pff, first reply and it already get's complicated. What are thermodynamics. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm keeping it simple. God created a base, and from there on we evolved to where we are now. And I don't want to think about it more.

[Ard_Choille]

EDIT: This thread does not have the same focus as the Evolution topic and will remain open.

[warri0r45]

Pff, first reply and it already get's complicated. What are thermodynamics. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm keeping it simple. God created a base, and from there on we evolved to where we are now. And I don't want to think about it more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were a religios man, I'd agree with you. It's far better than 'we were just created out of nothing.' Evolution is incredibly interesting whether you see it as intelligent design or as a natural, 'random' process.

[Ambassadar]

Thank you Ard_Choille for unlocking this. I would like to remind everyone this is not a debate on evolution. It is using science to analyze the ideas of Atheism vs. Is there a God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we are trying to figure out is where did everything come from? What are the true beginnings of the Universe?

[insane]

Thank you Ard_Choille for unlocking this. I would like to remind everyone this is not a debate on evolution. It is using science to analyze the ideas of Atheism vs. Is there a God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we are trying to figure out is where did everything come from? What are the true beginnings of the Universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As science is the study of natural phenomena, and God is supernatural, I don't think you can use science to analyze God at all.

[Ambassadar]

As science is the study of natural phenomena, and God is supernatural, I don't think you can use science to analyze God at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read my post you would see how I used science to analyze the situation. :wink:

[crimsonking]

I believe anything is possible, seeing as no matter how you put it, scientifically, existance is an impossibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a feeling the flame war from the evolutioon thread will be moving here very quickly...

[insane]

 

As science is the study of natural phenomena, and God is supernatural, I don't think you can use science to analyze God at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read my post you would see how I used science to analyze the situation. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm saying your entire post is irrelevant. You can't use a natural yardstick to measure a supernatural distance. It's like trying to measure the volume of a house with a one-dimensional object.

[Ambassadar]

You can't use a natural yardstick to measure a supernatural distance.

 

 

 

I am not measuring a supernatural distance with a natural yardstick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying I am using X to measure Y.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I am doing is saying X cannot exist unless Y existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the same argument as saying a person walking through the wildnerness found a freshly baked muffin on the ground next to a blazing campfire. The muffin was still warm and smelled great. What can we conclude from this? Another human made it and it was made recently. Does this define anything at all about who that human is? No. It is indirect proof that a human was there and made a muffin and fire nd they are somewhere in the local vicinity even if I can't sense that they are. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The muffin and campfire cannot exist unless the person that made them exists. Does that make it more clear?

[Korla]

 

You can't use a natural yardstick to measure a supernatural distance.

 

 

 

I am not measuring a supernatural distance with a natural yardstick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying I am using X to measure Y.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I am doing is saying X cannot exist unless Y existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the same argument as saying a person walking through the wildnerness found a freshly baked muffin on the ground next to a blazing campfire. The muffin was still warm and smelled great. What can we conclude from this? Another human made it and it was made recently. Does this define anything at all about who that human is? No. It is indirect proof that a human was there and made a muffin and fire nd they are somewhere in the local vicinity even if I can't sense that they are. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The muffin and campfire cannot exist unless the person that made them exists. Does that make it more clear?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

very nice analogy, kudos to you if you made it up, I'd like to meet the guy who did, otherwise ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A fault in Newton's 2nd law does NOT lead me to believe there is a God. His theories are based on what he could perceive, and they work surprisingly well for many instances (simple ones) but already Einstein began proving him wrong with his theory of relativity, and I'm in no doubt that many of Newton's simplification will have to make room for other, more advanced theories, in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem for me lies in how many "more complicated theories" can I accept. Looking back at how humans started looking at this world with our senses, measuring what they saw, and making rules and formulae, it seems to me that we will either never stop making more complicated rules, or find out that science (or our senses, since they are how we perceive science) is not a good enough way to define this world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take the example of how we have to use maths (not our senses, so not science in that sense, in my eyes) to define that there are 7 dimensions (not sure on how many the string theory says there are, but it's something like that), and we cannot see more than 3 of them. So how can we really measure them? Except by saying:

 

 

 

"For this to happen, there has to be 7 dimensions, or my mind doesn't make sense of it."

 

 

 

That's what I feel about that, and maybe somehow that should tell me that I believe in some higher being. Which I don't, I'm probably abit too thick, for that ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(excuse the long post, got me interested)

[Tigra00]

 

 

As science is the study of natural phenomena, and God is supernatural, I don't think you can use science to analyze God at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read my post you would see how I used science to analyze the situation. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I'm saying your entire post is irrelevant. You can't use a natural yardstick to measure a supernatural distance. It's like trying to measure the volume of a house with a one-dimensional object.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you can not over-shadow science merely by saying "God is above science." and having that be the end of it. What are God's motives behind creating evidence against himself, I wonder?

[Agunimon979]

*note: This is not a debate about evolution on the planet Earth. This is a discussion on is there or is there not a higher being(God) and using science what can we define if anything in regards to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't use science to find out if there is god or not. You can only use your religion.

[insane]

 

As science is the study of natural phenomena, and God is supernatural, I don't think you can use science to analyze God at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you had read my post you would see how I used science to analyze the situation. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you can use science to show how science is an inadequate measure of the start of the universe, but you can't use science to analyze God or find something out about him. All you can use science for is to make a negative claim about science - not a positive claim about God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, an interesting note about the argument presented (that you addressed, but indirectly), is that the second law of thermodynamics states that all matter and energy eventually break down in a closed system. Some people get around this by saying that the universe is possibly an open system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which leads to your paradox, what is fueling our open system, and what caused that?

[Satenza]

If we can't use science to understand God what can we use except pure assumption?

[assassin_696]

That's certainly an interesting take on it, using thermodynamics, but sadly it is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may have touched upon this in your argument, but assuming that the universe is a closed system in the conventional sense is an assumption, and quite a big and dangerous one. Scientists don't know a lot about the universe. String theory for example, gives rise to the possibility that gravitational waves are "leaking" over from parallel universes. Don't ask me to explain that fully though, because I couldn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point, however, is that there are so many things in this universe (like black holes) that make it a lot more complex than a simple closed system. Look into vacuum fluctuations and you'll begin to see what I mean, this universe will never entirely become a burnt out shell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong though, I agree with you in so far as that I believe in a creative force behind the universe(s), but your thermodynamics argument needs a little refining :wink:

[Ambassadar]

Thanks for the compliment Korla. I did come up with that analogy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A fault in Newton's 2nd law does NOT lead me to believe there is a God.

 

 

 

Then again it may not be a fault... I don't know of any scientific evidence suggesting there is a flaw in the 2nd law. Let me know if you are aware of any. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you can not over-shadow science merely by saying "God is above science."

 

 

 

If he created the Universe he defines science, science does not define him. If the universe created him then you fall back into the second law trap which I would still like someone to point out a flaw in other than telling me a law of science isn't true and not having any scientific references showing me otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are God's motives behind creating evidence against himself, I wonder?

That is a completely different discussion. The present discussion is only concerned with trying to figure out if there is a God in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agunimon979:

 

 

 

Can't use science to find out if there is god or not. You can only use your religion.

This is just an opinion. Now I am placing the burden of logically proving this opinion on you. That is the point of this thread. To leave opinions at the door and to try to just deal with facts and how they can be applied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insane:

 

 

 

Maybe you can use science to show how science is an inadequate measure of the start of the universe, but you can't use science to analyze God or find something out about him.

I didn't use science to analyze God.

 

 

 

analyze: consider in detail and subject to an analysis in order to discover essential features or meaning;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not considering in detail. I am considering in the broadest sense of the word. The only thing I am considering is if he exists. I make no claim past that using this line of thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All you can use science for is to make a negative claim about science - not a positive claim about God.

 

 

 

Assume you believe the following statement is correct just for this one question. "The universe as we know it could not exist in it's present form unless it had a definite beginning that would have had to break all laws of science." Would this not be a huge neon lit flashing billboard clue that something supernatural would have to be involved in it's beginning? If not then what is the alternative?

[pault]

Would this not be a huge neon lit flashing billboard clue that something supernatural would have to be involved in it's beginning? If not then what is the alternative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. There are no laws of physics that are definite, as none can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[Tigra00]

Why is what I said invalid? If you can't use the facts of this Earth around you to prove or disprove religion, what CAN you use? The Bible? Is the Bible the only credible religious source just because? Is religion untouchable "just because"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The answer to both of those questions, to religious people, is an indirect "Yes". They don't SAY it's untouchable, but they make it untouchable. All the evidence we have says that the Bible is not factual. I mean, geographic locations in it are, but that's where it stops, and that proves nothing about God existing. It's amazing how people can say "Sodom and Gomorrah existed! The Bible is true! God is real!" and pretty much get away with it. If a scientist were to say "Apes walk on two legs! Humans walk on two legs! Evolution is fact!", they'd be laughed at and their career would be over. That's essentially what religious people do, but they get away with it thanks to the "Cloak of Religion" as I sometimes call it...It's that cloak that covers religion and allows it to not be discussed as fiction, let alone be called fiction, or to be disproved completely. You cannot disprove religion, not because of the evidence against it, or it's lack of evidence for it, but because the supporters of it just won't allow you to. If they dug up a text right now...Say it was some guy confessing that he wrote the Bible with some friends and that it was just a story they wrote, I gaurentee you there would still be religious people going "That proves nothing..." It's that whole fear of Hell that keeps them going with this stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want the short answer, it's this: All evidence points to us not being created. The Bible accumulates 6,000 years of stuff, and we KNOW, without a doubt, that the Earth is FAR older. Hell, the Jewish/Christian God wasn't even the first. Jesus wasn't the first to claim to be a Messiah, and he wasn't the first to "die and be ressurected" as the story claims. If there is a God, he went through a terrible amount of trouble to try to disprove himself. And why is it that everyone takes ALL science as fact, EXCEPT evolution? It's science, it's been taken just as seriously, and it wasn't invented by Satanic cultists, so why is it said by so many to be fiction, even with all the evidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Shrug*

[pault]

If there is a God, he went through a terrible amount of trouble to try to disprove himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if god didn't create all the random coincidences that led to the creation of the human species. What if he is all those coincidences? Evolution is his allegorical pinky finger and I am his nipple.

[Tigra00]

 

If there is a God, he went through a terrible amount of trouble to try to disprove himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if god didn't create all the random coincidences that led to the creation of the human species. What if he is all those coincidences? Evolution is his allegorical pinky finger and I am his nipple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you just say you were God's nipple? That's...creepy, but okay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That'd be a very good theory, except for the fact that it wouldn't add up either. ANd what is all this? Why can God just NOT EXIST? Everyone always has the "But what if..." thing, but noone ever says "...He doesn't exist!" Pretty much everything but.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see it now...Evolution is finally accepted as fact...But religious people have made it the "God-Evolution-Theory". Great. Then we'll discover life all over the Galaxy, and that's God's "side-projects" he failed to mention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And still, one million years from now, the end of the world will STILL be "just around the corner!"

[pault]

That'd be a very good theory, except for the fact that it wouldn't add up either. ANd what is all this? Why can God just NOT EXIST?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because he is an abstract concept, and randomness is worth defending untill the end. God is everything. He is nothing. It makes more sense to defend his existence if you don't believe in him, given his extremely vengeful nature.

[Ambassadar]

Pault and Tigra... you guys are just ranting opinions on a topic that isn't even what this discussion is about. This is not about evolution. This is not about Earth. This is not about how man was created. This is about the origins of the Universe. If you have anything insightful or productive to say about that then feel free to share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to assassin_696 post... I thought that was a great post. I am researching into Quantum Vacuuem Fluctuations and Zero Point Energy at the moment. Once I find the answer to a question I have about it I'll get back to ya. I'll also link a few websites I am reading with some really interesting papers from Quantum Physicists if anyone would be interested. :wink:

[pault]

If you have anything insightful or productive to say about that then feel free to share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God couldn't have created the universe, because he is the universe.