Athiests.. How do you explain the beginning of time?

[lord_emperor]

Out universe is like a soap bubble floating around in higher dimensional space, it was empty, so empty there was not even emptiness.

Then it bumped into another universe and the energy of that collision created all the energy, matter and space in our observable universe.

As to where those higher dimensional bubbles came from... "god made them" is as good an answer as any right now.

 

[Tweak155]

I'm not arguing for the majority in this case, all I'm saying is if you want to prove god your going to have to disprove certain scientific proofs to make the argument valid.

I don't have to disprove anything. If I have 100% proof God existed, you'd be foolish to believe any other scientific theory that would remove such a God.

Why in the world would I waste my time? They'd be dis proven by default.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I completely agree, but your forgetting that the point of entropy death would essentially be the matter in the universe changing it's state to a state unrecognisable to us, but not the end of the universe. Only the end of the universe as we know it.

Indeed.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't have to disprove anything. If I have 100% proof God existed, you'd be foolish to believe any other scientific theory that would remove such a God.

Why in the world would I waste my time? They'd be dis proven by default.

agreed, but a 100% proof that god existed would disprove something like evolution or the big bang theory to name two, so you would have disproved them whether you try to or not.

 

[Tweak155]

The thing is, science isn't even claiming to have all the answers. It is just the tool used. You don't study science, you use science to study. I don't know why science has been bastardized/demonized into being something it is not.

Yeah I am aware of this. I don't have anything against scientific theories - at all.

I do currently believe that no one can provide the 100% exact correct answer as to what occurred (unless we can talk to a god). Or even 80% correct for that matter. At least not any time soon.

 

[Tweak155]

agreed, but a 100% proof that god existed would disprove something like evolution or the big bang theory to name two, so you would have disproved them whether you try to or not.

Right. But I'm not actively disproving those. The way you have it worded I would actually have to provide an active thought in the process of disproving them, but I wouldn't have to with ample evidence.

EDIT:

Although evolution I wouldn't think needs to be disproved. Evolution to an extent could take place even with belief in (or actual existence of) a god. It just couldn't be our origins in this event.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

How do you explain the beginning of time?

I don't care. Pretty simple really.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I don't have to disprove anything. If I have 100% proof God existed, you'd be foolish to believe any other scientific theory that would remove such a God.

Why in the world would I waste my time? They'd be dis proven by default.

Basically there isn't any scientific theory that posits anything about god existing, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

 

[HAL9000]

Right. But I'm not actively disproving those. The way you have it worded I would actually have to provide an active thought in the process of disproving them, but I wouldn't have to with ample evidence.

EDIT:

Although evolution I wouldn't think needs to be disproved. Evolution to an extent could take place even with belief in a god. It just couldn't be our origins in this event.

Ahh no sorry that's not what I mean, all I meant was that an actual proof for god, would in itself disprove those.

Edit: valid argument about evolution, but this is where the "majority" come in, the majority of theists might argue that the way that evolution is currently presented is contradictory to their belief in God.

 

[Tweak155]

Basically there isn't any scientific theory that posits anything about god existing, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

I didn't bring it up. Don't ask me.

 

[Tweak155]

Ahh no sorry that's not what I mean, all I meant was that an actual proof for god, would in itself disprove those.

Edit: valid argument about evolution, but this is where the "majority" come in, the majority of theists might argue that the way that evolution is currently presented is contradictory to their belief in God.

Who cares where the "majority" come in? You're the one letting them in as far as I'm concerned. The way it is presented is irrelevant. What is true is true, what is false is false.

I feel like this is going in circles.

 

[HAL9000]

Basically there isn't any scientific theory that posits anything about god existing, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about.

It depends really, if you would say that logic has a scientific basis then you could say there are logical arguments for the existence of a god, and so this argument could be under scientific proof.

Philosophy is often considered a science for example.

 

[HAL9000]

Who cares where the "majority" come in? You're the one letting them in as far as I'm concerned. The way it is presented is irrelevant. What is true is true, what is false is false.

I feel like this is going in circles.

I disagree, a definition is only a definition if the majority understands the concept to have that definition... So the majority is quite relevant in this case otherwise we would have no understanding of what god is to argue about.

 

[Tweak155]

I disagree, a definition is only a definition if the majority understands the concept to have that definition... So the majority is quite relevant in this case otherwise we would have no understanding of what god is to argue about.

So if the majority thought 1 + 1 is 5, I'd have no grounds in 1 + 1 actually being 2?

You may want to rethink this.

 

[HAL9000]

So if the majority thought 1 + 1 is 5, I'd have no grounds in 1 + 1 actually being 2?

You may want to rethink this.

I'm not saying if the majority believe in god he exists, I'm saying if the majority of people define god as one thing that is the common definition.

In the same way that the word Gay used to mean happy, but now the majority of people use it to mean homosexual and the definition has therefore changed. This is the way the world works.

 

[BoomerD]

I certainly don't know the answers to any of these things. My dog says he does, but he lies all the time...

For the "religionists," Where was God before he created the universe?

WHERE did he create the universe if there was nothing before?

From what materials was it created?

Does the universe have a beginning and an end? If so, what's on the other side?

Why does every "other" meat taste like chicken? Did God just run out of flavors and decide that since Man wasn't expected to eat things like snakes, he'd just use chicken as a stand-by?

 

[soulcougher73]

agreed, but a 100% proof that god existed would disprove something like evolution or the big bang theory to name two, so you would have disproved them whether you try to or not.

Actually it wouldnt. God could have created those as well

 

[torpid]

I'm not saying if the majority believe in god he exists, I'm saying if the majority of people define god as one thing that is the common definition.

In the same way that the word Gay used to mean happy, but now the majority of people use it to mean homosexual and the definition has therefore changed. This is the way the world works.

I don't follow your reasoning here. The word gay has multiple definitions. There is no "one" definition of the word "Gay." Similarly, various groups of people have varying definitions of "God" and it is of minimal relevance what the majority think in either of these cases. The majority of people don't know what the definition is of a large percentage of words in the English language.

Whether evolution is disproven has little to do with what the majority of people define as "God" and only to do with what the properties of "God" are in the hypothetical scenario where it is proven without doubt to exist. If a "God" existed but it turns out that humankind was created using the tool of evolution, I sincerely doubt that fundamentalists who believe that evolution was not involved would deny that God exists at all. Even if a majority of people define God as requiring that evolution was not involved in the formation of the human species, I still sincerely doubt that the same majority who believe this would dis-believe that "God" exists if they were shown proof of "a" God existing.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah I am aware of this. I don't have anything against scientific theories - at all.

I do currently believe that no one can provide the 100% exact correct answer as to what occurred (unless we can talk to a god). Or even 80% correct for that matter. At least not any time soon.

I agree with this. We cannot prove 100% anything either way about the creation of the universe. But on the same note im not going to make up something up like God to fill the void. I will just say i do not currently know and continue to strive to find the answer.

God is a cop out.

 

[HAL9000]

Why does every "other" meat taste like chicken? Did God just run out of flavors and decide that since Man wasn't expected to eat things like snakes, he'd just use chicken as a stand-by?

Why does everyone think that chicken tastes like evertyhing else. Steak dosen't taste like chicken, neither do sausages, neither does bacon, neither does ham...?!

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah I am aware of this. I don't have anything against scientific theories - at all.

I do currently believe that no one can provide the 100% exact correct answer as to what occurred (unless we can talk to a god). Or even 80% correct for that matter. At least not any time soon.

Ok, but so what? You point out that we can't say with certainty what happened at the birth of the universe. For the sake of discussion, let's say that god exists and he did create the universe. We still don't know who he is, why he created the universe, why there is no physical evidence of his existence, what role, if any he had in the evolution of our species, or for that matter, anything at all about him.

That's the problem with bringing god into any discussion about science, philosophy, or almost any other discipline, (history being one obvious example of an exception) it's a complete dead end.

 

[HAL9000]

I don't follow your reasoning here. The word gay has multiple definitions. There is no "one" definition of the word "Gay." Similarly, various groups of people have varying definitions of "God" and it is of minimal relevance what the majority think in either of these cases. The majority of people don't know what the definition is of a large percentage of words in the English language.

Whether evolution is disproven has little to do with what the majority of people define as "God" and only to do with what the properties of "God" are in the hypothetical scenario where it is proven without doubt to exist. If a "God" existed but it turns out that humankind was created using the tool of evolution, I sincerely doubt that fundamentalists who believe that evolution was not involved would deny that God exists at all. Even if a majority of people define God as requiring that evolution was not involved in the formation of the human species, I still sincerely doubt that the same majority who believe this would dis-believe that "God" exists if they were shown proof of "a" God existing.

That's true but in normal language we use the definition that the majority use, eventually the old definition of gay will die out..

A valid point about evolution though I don't know why I picked that...?

 

[Tweak155]

I'm not saying if the majority believe in god he exists, I'm saying if the majority of people define god as one thing that is the common definition.

In the same way that the word Gay used to mean happy, but now the majority of people use it to mean homosexual and the definition has therefore changed. This is the way the world works.

You still don't get it. In the event of me or anyone having 100% proof of a god, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or what the majority definition is. It is what it is.

I'm done replying to this. For someone that believes so strongly in logic you keep avoiding the glaringly obvious or cannot follow simple logic. I don't mean this in a derogatory fashion, this just isn't getting anywhere.

In the end I can't prove or dis prove either, and someone that believes strongly in the big bang theory will most likely continue to do so, and the same with a creationist. The end result is people will believe what they want to believe. This will not, however, change in any way shape or form what actually took place.

 

[soulcougher73]

Ok, but so what? You point out that we can't say with certainty what happened at the birth of the universe. For the sake of discussion, let's say that god exists and he did create the universe. We still don't know who he is, why he created the universe, why there is no physical evidence of his existence, what role, if any he had in the evolution of our species, or for that matter, anything at all about him.

That's the problem with bringing god into any discussion about science, philosophy, or almost any other discipline, (history being one obvious example of an exception) it's a complete dead end.

QFT. Well stated.

 

[DrunkenSano]

By the world I live in. I don't buy that this all happened by "chance" and life has no meaning.

Life has meaning, the purpose of life is to procreate.