'Been thinking about the universe and how it was made.

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Dude... my hands are HUGE!

It's, OK, just mellow out and drink this beer! :beer:

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

And who exactly created G:sun ?

Oh, yea, according to religious doctrine, we just have to believe he was always here and stuff, Riigghhtt. That's really profound when you are a sheep herder and will believe anything.

Cough...cough...

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

Or would he be interested and actively involved in the individual lives of ants or amoebas? I kind of doubt it, which makes the presumed all encompassing majesty of H

M all the more unlikely.

<passes it around>

 

[SlickSnake]

Oceandevi said:

Do not question his holy thoughts, god made dinosaurs for crying out loud. What if he brought space dinosaurs to invade us?

He already did. V

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

God seems to be invoked when something can't be understood. When we get to a point when we do understand it, God's influence gets pushed back.

For instance- We once thought God caused weather. We now know that air pressure and the Sun cause weather. We once thought that God created the planet. We now know that planet creation is a result of gravity. Any subject that is beyond our current comprehension is goind to be credited to God.

My view: God created physics, and we're the result of these rules. What we do with these rules is up to us.

So GOD is a physicist and not a magician? So is he more like Stephen Hawking on steroids? Up to that point, you had a good grasp of the situation. Then you decided to shake that voodoo doll again towards the end. How disappointing. :thumbsdown:

Just explain the elusive part about how he can be everywhere at once in the universe shtick, and maybe you can make a believer out of me.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Well, even if there is a god, where did it come from? What is its plane of existance? Are there other gods?

If god is everything, all of existance in its entirety of whatever was and whatever will be, again, where did that everything come from? Who or what created the creator?

I tend to think it was man who created god, not the other way around.

BINGO! Give this man another beer! :beer:

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

God seems to be invoked when something can't be understood. When we get to a point when we do understand it, God's influence gets pushed back.

For instance- We once thought God caused weather. We now know that air pressure and the Sun cause weather. We once thought that God created the planet. We now know that planet creation is a result of gravity. Any subject that is beyond our current comprehension is goind to be credited to God.

My view: God created physics, and we're the result of these rules. What we do with these rules is up to us.

And when we understand physics and can manipulate the rules?

do we become gods?

If you think about it...yes, we would be. However, that's unlikely to happen.

LOL! He's had way too much, you need to pass on the next few rounds.... just drink more beer for now! :beer:

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

The creation of a complex Universe would require the existence of an even more complex being. Seems easier to believe the formation of finitely complex realm of space, time, and energy, guided by a bunch of "rules," laws of physics, which are based simply on the nature of those components, rather than the existence of an infinitely complex being, guided by laws which, by definition, cannot ever be comprehended.

And, if you can simply say, "Well, God always existed, he didn't need to be created," then why can I not say, "Ok, then the Universe always existed in some form."?
Indeed, one theory is that space and time erupted from the singularity of the Big Bang. If both of these things were formed, we have no way of describing anything that came before it, because ultimately, there was no "before" in any sense that our laws of nature can describe. There was no place, no time. There was probably something, but what it was would have been like nothing we experience here. Maybe we will eventually find a way to peek beyond space and time, maybe after 50,000 years of progress, maybe after a million. I do think that someday, life will find a way to see past these constraints. But not anywhere near our lifetimes.

It's a complex Universe for tiny life forms like us to comprehend. We see this grandeur, and compare it to ourselves, and think, "Someone powerful must have created this." We try to fit it all into the realm of what we know, our daily lives. Here on Earth, we like cause and effect - if we see a car, we know that someone created it. But if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around, who did that? Was it God? No, either the tree was dead and rotting, or else a strong gust of wind took it down. It was nature just being nature.

Similarly, the Universe works the same way - it's just nature being nature. That involves energy coalescing into matter during the very early stages of development. That involves mass producing a gravitational field, and atoms produce their own gravitational analogue, in the form of their shorter-range strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity clumps the matter together. Once there's enough of it, the gravitational pressure is enough to cause friction to heat up the matter, and when it's hot enough, and of sufficient pressure, the nuclei begin to bond, they fuse together, and produce energy. Congratulations, you now have a star.
More gravitational interaction bonds the stars together into groupings which we refer to as galaxies. All of this requires no guiding hand, save the laws of physics, which are just properties of the matter, energy, space, and time, nothing more. There is no "why," any more than there is a real "why" to that tree falling in the woods. That tree falling wasn't some amazing, devine plan. It just fell. That's it. The laws of physics just exist the way they are. That's it.

If they didn't exist the way they do, if gravity was 10x weaker than it is, or if the strong nuclear force were half the strength it is, well then atoms might never have formed, and we wouldn't be around to ask, "How did we form if atoms don't exist?" We are here because this environment happened to be "just right" for us to exist. If it wasn't "just right," we wouldn't be here, simple as that.

Good post. I won't nit pick it, or anything, just a good overall post about the topic. I have to mostly agree with it. :thumbsup:

My question would be to you, does this mean you do or do not believe in the creator concept?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: Greenman
Read the few posts after my first one. It's always the same result. The concept can't even be considered by most people. The term magic is always thrown in to dismiss God, but when we talk about the universe being created out of a gravitational point source, magic never enters the picture. It's interesting that given two logically imposable scenarios one is accepted as fact while the other is dismissed as a fairytale.

I am sure most here think that something better than big bang theory will come along someday. Right now though its the best we have.

Old myths from a barbaric past are no help.

You all missed his point. Which is that it is quite obvious that the Big Bang theory is just the new myth for a barbaric present. They even sound about the same, except the Bible mentions God, doesn't include the math, and screwed up on the timeframe. Otherwise, the chain of events is nearly identical. In fact, modern science has not even really removed God from the equation, it's just said that God is unnecessary. So while we have figured out when and how, we are still stuck with the problem of not knowing where or why.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

The universe is only vast in time and space to us because our relative position within it. From the speculated multiversal position, it would actually be young and tiny.
That's pure speculation, of course, as time and space came into existence at the Big Bang from our perspective. In the Hawking books mentioned above, he "answers" the question of "What happened before the Big Bang?" by asking "What's north of the north pole?"
Hawking does speculate though that the universe is like a bubble (or "brane") within an infinity of such bubbles, each one operating according to its own physical laws.
Seems plausible to me, however Hawking has fallen somewhat out of favor among the elite physicists in the past couple decades mostly due to disagreements over the black hole information paradox.

<shakes voodoo doll at Vic since he refuses to smoke with the rest of us barbarians.>
Look, he hasn't even touched his beer yet!

Good post though. I will let it pass...

puff...puff...

<let's it pass by Vic again...>

 

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

The creation of a complex Universe would require the existence of an even more complex being. Seems easier to believe the formation of finitely complex realm of space, time, and energy, guided by a bunch of "rules," laws of physics, which are based simply on the nature of those components, rather than the existence of an infinitely complex being, guided by laws which, by definition, cannot ever be comprehended.

And, if you can simply say, "Well, God always existed, he didn't need to be created," then why can I not say, "Ok, then the Universe always existed in some form."?
Indeed, one theory is that space and time erupted from the singularity of the Big Bang. If both of these things were formed, we have no way of describing anything that came before it, because ultimately, there was no "before" in any sense that our laws of nature can describe. There was no place, no time. There was probably something, but what it was would have been like nothing we experience here. Maybe we will eventually find a way to peek beyond space and time, maybe after 50,000 years of progress, maybe after a million. I do think that someday, life will find a way to see past these constraints. But not anywhere near our lifetimes.

It's a complex Universe for tiny life forms like us to comprehend. We see this grandeur, and compare it to ourselves, and think, "Someone powerful must have created this." We try to fit it all into the realm of what we know, our daily lives. Here on Earth, we like cause and effect - if we see a car, we know that someone created it. But if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around, who did that? Was it God? No, either the tree was dead and rotting, or else a strong gust of wind took it down. It was nature just being nature.

Similarly, the Universe works the same way - it's just nature being nature. That involves energy coalescing into matter during the very early stages of development. That involves mass producing a gravitational field, and atoms produce their own gravitational analogue, in the form of their shorter-range strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity clumps the matter together. Once there's enough of it, the gravitational pressure is enough to cause friction to heat up the matter, and when it's hot enough, and of sufficient pressure, the nuclei begin to bond, they fuse together, and produce energy. Congratulations, you now have a star.
More gravitational interaction bonds the stars together into groupings which we refer to as galaxies. All of this requires no guiding hand, save the laws of physics, which are just properties of the matter, energy, space, and time, nothing more. There is no "why," any more than there is a real "why" to that tree falling in the woods. That tree falling wasn't some amazing, devine plan. It just fell. That's it. The laws of physics just exist the way they are. That's it.

If they didn't exist the way they do, if gravity was 10x weaker than it is, or if the strong nuclear force were half the strength it is, well then atoms might never have formed, and we wouldn't be around to ask, "How did we form if atoms don't exist?" We are here because this environment happened to be "just right" for us to exist. If it wasn't "just right," we wouldn't be here, simple as that.

Exactly true! People who ask, "What happened before the big bang?" or "Who made the big bang?" etc. don't truly understand the concept of the big bang. Those questions are invalid/meaningless in the context of the big bang, since there is no such thing as a "before" the big bang, as that was the point where "existence came into existence" and therefore extrapolating prior to that is meaningless in the context of what is relevant in our reality.

as to how the universe was made.... who knows. Science's best guess comes from simply figuring out that, based on the motions of galaxies throughout the universe, there was a time where the universe was of infinite (or near infinite) density.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

God seems to be invoked when something can't be understood. When we get to a point when we do understand it, God's influence gets pushed back.

For instance- We once thought God caused weather. We now know that air pressure and the Sun cause weather. We once thought that God created the planet. We now know that planet creation is a result of gravity. Any subject that is beyond our current comprehension is goind to be credited to God.

My view: God created physics, and we're the result of these rules. What we do with these rules is up to us.

So GOD is a physicist and not a magician? So is he more like Stephen Hawking on steroids? Up to that point, you had a good grasp of the situation. Then you decided to shake that voodoo doll again towards the end. How disappointing. :thumbsdown:

Just explain the elusive part about how he can be everywhere at once in the universe shtick, and maybe you can make a believer out of me.

A physicist STUDYS physics-which are the rules of nature. If you had the ability to create the rules of physics, you would be a God. See....whole different concept when you read it correctly.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Greenman
Am I the only one who finds it odd that so many of you have no problem believing that the universe exploded out of a mono block, or was squirted into existence from another dimension, but scoff at the idea of it being created by God? Would creationism be more palatable if we said the universe was created by Fred? Then further state that Fred has no rules of behavior that we should follow? I often wonder if it's not the concept of a God that causes such consternation, but the idea that accepting the existence of God implies the existence of God's law, and along with that, the fear that we might be breaking it? To put it another way, is atheism nothing more than an exercise in plausible deniability?

Or perhaps the notion that a being capable of creating such vastness from nothingness would concern itself with the day-to-day minutiae of some organisms on one of a ridiculous number of planets?

God seems to be invoked when something can't be understood. When we get to a point when we do understand it, God's influence gets pushed back.

For instance- We once thought God caused weather. We now know that air pressure and the Sun cause weather. We once thought that God created the planet. We now know that planet creation is a result of gravity. Any subject that is beyond our current comprehension is goind to be credited to God.

My view: God created physics, and we're the result of these rules. What we do with these rules is up to us.

Same here. People look at me crooked when I say that last sentence. It's apparently just right to bother both the hardcore religious and the hardcore anti-religious (whatever they call themselves these days).

Yeah, because it makes too much sense and neither side can argue it

 

[Jeffwo]

Weird I came across this thread considering what I was studying this morning:

"Did God create (bara) or make (asah) in Genesis 1?"

Many people who have written on Genesis 1 have attempted to make a very significant distinction between two Hebrew words found there: bara (??????, to create) and asah (??????, to make or do). Theistic evolutionists (TEs) and old-earth creationists (OECs) both accept the millions of years advocated by the scientific establishment (although the OECs do not accept neo-Darwinian evolution while TEs do). They sometimes try to defend the acceptance of millions of years by saying that bara refers to supernatural creation ex nihilo (Latin for ?out of nothing?) but that asah means to make out of pre-existing material and therefore allows for creation over a long period of time. Such people say that the only supernatural creation events were in relation to the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), sea creatures and birds (1:21) and Adam and Eve (1:27). Since asah is used for all other creative acts in Genesis 1, those acts could have been creative processes over the course of millions of years.

But this argument will not stand when we look carefully at the use of these words in Genesis 1 and in other biblical passages related to creation.....


Werd!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeffwo
Weird I came across this thread considering what I was studying this morning:

"Did God create (bara) or make (asah) in Genesis 1?"

Many people who have written on Genesis 1 have attempted to make a very significant distinction between two Hebrew words found there: bara (??????, to create) and asah (??????, to make or do). Theistic evolutionists (TEs) and old-earth creationists (OECs) both accept the millions of years advocated by the scientific establishment (although the OECs do not accept neo-Darwinian evolution while TEs do). They sometimes try to defend the acceptance of millions of years by saying that bara refers to supernatural creation ex nihilo (Latin for ?out of nothing?) but that asah means to make out of pre-existing material and therefore allows for creation over a long period of time. Such people say that the only supernatural creation events were in relation to the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), sea creatures and birds (1:21) and Adam and Eve (1:27). Since asah is used for all other creative acts in Genesis 1, those acts could have been creative processes over the course of millions of years.

But this argument will not stand when we look carefully at the use of these words in Genesis 1 and in other biblical passages related to creation.....


Werd!

Bara doesn't mean to create in ancient Hebrew. It means to be divinely filled or inspired. Gen 1:1 does not support the the ex nihilo argument.

And in reference to another post, this is true from the scientific perspective as well. While the Big Bang did mark the beginning of time and space, and there is nothing "north of the north pole," no time before time, the universe still did not come into existence from nothing. All the energy/matter in the universe has always existed and always will exist. There's no paradox here, time is relative. From our perspective, it has been some ridiculous 13-plus billion years since the Big Bang. To a beam of light (were it sentient), there has been no passage of time at all, as time still does not exist to it. When everything was energy, there was no time and space.

 

[SlickSnake]

Good post about the light debate here> Light STOPPED, Einstein Rolls Over In GRAVE!