If god didnt create the universe then who did?

[MeanMeosh]

aliens?

 

[nakedfrog]

I did.

 

[zzzz]

Why do electrons orbit protons? They just do, its their nature.

They don't.

 

[Alphathree33]

(Disclaimer: I am an atheist and what I am writing is absolutely silly, but I just thought I'd write it anyway because I'm bored)

As nearly everything in life is cyclical and very few things are self-contained, I like to think that the universe can define itself, much like a good XML document.

If you get out a piece of paper and say "okay, everything needs a creator" and draw a flow chart, you get a tree. God creates some things, those things create other things. As we all know, trees are graphs that do not contain any cycles. Our graph's edges can also be thought of as having directional attributes with the direction pointing from the creator to the created.

This pattern of no cycles does not conform to what we normally see in the universe. As a thought experiment, make it cyclical. Connect all of the outermost branches to the top node -- God.

So now we have the idea that God's most evolved creations end up creating God.

See? I figured it all out with abstract math.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who believes that God would require creation (by another God I assume?) doesn't understand even the most basic concept of what "God" means.

For example:

Rev 1:8 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 22:13 - " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Hebrews 7:3 - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;"

One thing I have noticed about people in general is that we are unable to grasp the concept of "forever." Everything that we believe in must have both a point in time that was creation (birth) and another point time that will be destruction (death). Everything must be like our lives, and we give imaginary life to everything. For example, the Earth has to have a point when it was "born" and we have to speculate a point when it will "die," though in reality the span of years that we involve in this speculation is far beyond our comprehension (there have been just over 1 billion minutes since the time of Christ) Same with the universe, though in reality we have only little more idea of how the universe actually works that we did thousands of years ago (we arrogantly think that we know more than we do, but that is another discussion).

The concept of the Perfect God implies a god that was never created. To the contrary, it is the concept of a god that created Time itself. Hard to grasp? Read my paragraph above. Asides from being able to use external movements in order to measure it, we do not yet have even the smallest grasp of what time really is, or why it exists.
Alright, that's enough. To summarize, the basic point of my post is that if you want to ask the question "and wouldn't there have to be something to create something to create something to create life?" then you may want to watch who you call stupid, because you must not understand the most basic concepts of the Christian/Judaism/Islamic God.

Vic, Very nicely put. I've been waiting a long time to hear something this interesting from the Creationist viewpoint.

Take that all you atheists!

What you fail to consider is that humans may not be smart enough to comprehend God. We try to fit GOD into our limited understanding and that appears contradictory. What seems contradictory from a set of logical rules may turn out to be true when considered from a superset of those rules. Thought of that?

 

[Looney]

though in reality we have only little more idea of how the universe actually works that we did thousands of years ago (we arrogantly think that we know more than we do, but that is another discussion).

That's pretty ignorant. We know A LOT more of how the universe works than we did a thousand years ago. A LOT more.

Alright, that's enough. To summarize, the basic point of my post is that if you want to ask the question "and wouldn't there have to be something to create something to create something to create life?" then you may want to watch who you call stupid, because you must not understand the most basic concepts of the Christian/Judaism/Islamic God.

And what makes the Biblical religion superior to Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other creationist story?

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: BigToque
NinjaGnome,

I believe in God (and I didn't for a long time), so don't let what I have to say come across as biased or anything, but here is what I believe.

The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old. There was absolutely no life on this planet at all. The very first forms of life were created by great chance from inorganic matter (it has been proven that life can form from inorganic matter). This first organic matter, over billions evolved into bacteria, then into the first vertabrate creatures. These creatures moved onto land where they further evolved into mammals, which evolved into variations of primates and humans are the end product of all this evolution. I believe that humans as you know them today will continue to evolve.

ALL life on this planet originally came from the oceans, created in the most inhospitible conditions you can think of.

Now, that explains life on earth, but I don't know how to explain the beginning of the universe. If I use the "big bang" theory, I can follow time all the way back to the instant of the bang. Before that I don't know how to explain how all that matter was put there that could allow the big bang to happen in the first place. I would have to say God put it there, because I can't even comprehend how it could just form itself. That level of understanding is beyond me unless someone can shed more light on it for me.

So, you believe God created the beginnings of the universe, and, as a result, created "life," and, as a result, human beings were created through evolutionary process.

Do you believe that God created man in his own image?

It seems quite impossible that God created existance, or the beginning of the universe, and through the course of existance, "life" simply, and randomly, evolved into the image of its maker!

As humans, we view existance from the perspective of beginning to end. Beginning to end may only pertain to physical existance; animate and inanimate objects. Our understanding of the universe is one of concrete, physical concepts, i.e. galaxies, stars, planets, ecosystems, animals, etc. We have a difficult time wrapping our heads around the thought that their might not have been any existance - and then all of a sudden there was! We need to assume something, a chemical process, a metaphysical being, put existance together.

As I said, we view existance as beginning to end. However, we're not sure there ever was a beginning, and we're not sure if there is, or ever will be, and end.

Personally, I tend to believe the perspective of beginning to end to be as man-made as religion.

Who simply knows?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who believes that God would require creation (by another God I assume?) doesn't understand even the most basic concept of what "God" means.

For example:

Rev 1:8 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 22:13 - " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Hebrews 7:3 - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;"

One thing I have noticed about people in general is that we are unable to grasp the concept of "forever." Everything that we believe in must have both a point in time that was creation (birth) and another point time that will be destruction (death). Everything must be like our lives, and we give imaginary life to everything. For example, the Earth has to have a point when it was "born" and we have to speculate a point when it will "die," though in reality the span of years that we involve in this speculation is far beyond our comprehension (there have been just over 1 billion minutes since the time of Christ) Same with the universe, though in reality we have only little more idea of how the universe actually works that we did thousands of years ago (we arrogantly think that we know more than we do, but that is another discussion).

The concept of the Perfect God implies a god that was never created. To the contrary, it is the concept of a god that created Time itself. Hard to grasp? Read my paragraph above. Asides from being able to use external movements in order to measure it, we do not yet have even the smallest grasp of what time really is, or why it exists.
Alright, that's enough. To summarize, the basic point of my post is that if you want to ask the question "and wouldn't there have to be something to create something to create something to create life?" then you may want to watch who you call stupid, because you must not understand the most basic concepts of the Christian/Judaism/Islamic God.

Vic, Very nicely put. I've been waiting a long time to hear something this interesting from the Creationist viewpoint.

Take that all you atheists!

What you fail to consider is that humans may not be smart enough to comprehend God. We try to fit GOD into our limited understanding and that appears contradictory. What seems contradictory from a set of logical rules may turn out to be true when considered from a superset of those rules. Thought of that?

Ah, the old "humans are just too simple to understand" argument. What you fail to take into account is that a superset of our logical rules could disprove God beyond any shadow of a doubt. Like I said, saying that we don't know something, therefore it's God is stupid. Not by any potential logical rules, but by our own rules. God may not have to operate with our rules, but we do.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who believes that God would require creation (by another God I assume?) doesn't understand even the most basic concept of what "God" means.

For example:

Rev 1:8 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Rev 22:13 - " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Hebrews 7:3 - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;"

One thing I have noticed about people in general is that we are unable to grasp the concept of "forever." Everything that we believe in must have both a point in time that was creation (birth) and another point time that will be destruction (death). Everything must be like our lives, and we give imaginary life to everything. For example, the Earth has to have a point when it was "born" and we have to speculate a point when it will "die," though in reality the span of years that we involve in this speculation is far beyond our comprehension (there have been just over 1 billion minutes since the time of Christ) Same with the universe, though in reality we have only little more idea of how the universe actually works that we did thousands of years ago (we arrogantly think that we know more than we do, but that is another discussion).

The concept of the Perfect God implies a god that was never created. To the contrary, it is the concept of a god that created Time itself. Hard to grasp? Read my paragraph above. Asides from being able to use external movements in order to measure it, we do not yet have even the smallest grasp of what time really is, or why it exists.
Alright, that's enough. To summarize, the basic point of my post is that if you want to ask the question "and wouldn't there have to be something to create something to create something to create life?" then you may want to watch who you call stupid, because you must not understand the most basic concepts of the Christian/Judaism/Islamic God.

Vic, Very nicely put. I've been waiting a long time to hear something this interesting from the Creationist viewpoint.

Take that all you atheists!

What you fail to consider is that humans may not be smart enough to comprehend God. We try to fit GOD into our limited understanding and that appears contradictory. What seems contradictory from a set of logical rules may turn out to be true when considered from a superset of those rules. Thought of that?

But youre STILL making a huge assumption. All youve proved is the same thing that everyone else is trying to say, that we dont know for sure. According to the bible god is and always was, but thats just a book! I'm sorry if I offend anyone that believes its somehow special and written by the hand of god, but its a BOOK.

And until you can provide that superset or even any evidence that there is a superset, you havent said a damn thing. If you can suppose that we are not able to comprehend god, then you also have to suppose that when we finally do comprehend, we got it all wrong.

 

[BatmanNate]

Dick Clark.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

though in reality we have only little more idea of how the universe actually works that we did thousands of years ago (we arrogantly think that we know more than we do, but that is another discussion).

That's pretty ignorant. We know A LOT more of how the universe works than we did a thousand years ago. A LOT more.

We do? Only if you consider western knowledge. There were no "Dark Ages" in the east. The Catholic church may have fought Galileo over the idea of a sun-centric solar system, but the Babylonians and Egyptians knew that the earth revolved around the sun in 3000 BC. Is the Church responsible for the temporary loss of knowledge? Perhaps, but not because of God or religion, but because it was so absorbed in the concept of power and money that it told people to not "waste too much time thinking about it."

And what makes the Biblical religion superior to Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other creationist story?

Sorry, I'll include them all, because they are all so similar. As long as they include the concept of a perfect omnipotent God, which is what I'm discussing.

Originally posted by: BD2003
But youre STILL making a huge assumption. All youve proved is the same thing that everyone else is trying to say, that we dont know for sure. According to the bible god is and always was, but thats just a book! I'm sorry if I offend anyone that believes its somehow special and written by the hand of god, but its a BOOK.

And until you can provide that superset or even any evidence that there is a superset, you havent said a damn thing. If you can suppose that we are not able to comprehend god, then you also have to suppose that when we finally do comprehend, we got it all wrong.

I don't believe in a book (although I know that many so-called Christians do), I believe in a perfect omnipotent God.
And (as I said) if you ask the question "Who Created God?" then I will suppose that you don't comprehend the concept of a perfect omnipotent God (but then neither do I, but I at least try). If and when we finally do understand, how could we be wrong then? Otherwise, if you want me to understand what you're trying to say, could you please define your pronouns?

editted: formatting

 

[mudkiller]

god is dog spelled backward! therefore...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Ah, the old "humans are just too simple to understand" argument. What you fail to take into account is that a superset of our logical rules could disprove God beyond any shadow of a doubt. Like I said, saying that we don't know something, therefore it's God is stupid. Not by any potential logical rules, but by our own rules. God may not have to operate with our rules, but we do.

Okay, do that now. Disprove God. Right now. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Please.
And I didn't say that "humans are just too simple to understand," I said that asking who created God isn't a logical question when referring to a perfect omnipotent God. And I think that, like all things, people can understand if they choose to. And I believe that God does have to operate with "our rules" - but that begs the question, what are our rules?

 

[Looney]

We do? Only if you consider western knowledge. There were no "Dark Ages" in the east. The Catholic church may have fought Galileo over the idea of a sun-centric solar system, but the Babylonians and Egyptians knew that the earth revolved around the sun in 3000 BC. Is the Church responsible for the temporary loss of knowledge? Perhaps, but not because of God or religion, but because it was so absorbed in the concept of power and money that it told people to not "waste too much time thinking about it."

Um, what about things such as astrophysics and astronomy. How stars are created and destroyed, how elements are formed, how about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, theories on gravities, big bang, etc. We know A LOT more than we did a thousand years ago. Just because you're ignorant of what we currently know, that doesn't mean we don't know much more than we did a thousand years ago.

Sorry, I'll include them all, because they are all so similar. As long as they include the concept of a perfect omnipotent God, which is what I'm discussing.

There isn't a perfect omnipotent God in those other religion though.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: mudkiller
god is dog spelled backward! therefore...

And Goddam is mad dog spelled backwards!

 

[Sid59]

lmao .. i evolved from a rock. case closed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Um, what about things such as astrophysics and astronomy. How stars are created and destroyed, how elements are formed, how about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, theories on gravities, big bang, etc. We know A LOT more than we did a thousand years ago. Just because you're ignorant of what we currently know, that doesn't mean we don't know much more than we did a thousand years ago.

I'm not ignorant of those things. What you are ignorant of is that none of those things answers the original poster's question. Like I said several posts back, science has taught how, but it has not taught us why - nor will it ever.
Sagan said (as ripped from another poster's sig) that he wanted to know, not believe. I ask you: after all his years of work, did he ever get to know?

There isn't a perfect omnipotent God in those other religion though.

Duh... perhaps that's why I didn't include them then?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Um, what about things such as astrophysics and astronomy. How stars are created and destroyed, how elements are formed, how about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, theories on gravities, big bang, etc. We know A LOT more than we did a thousand years ago. Just because you're ignorant of what we currently know, that doesn't mean we don't know much more than we did a thousand years ago.

I'm not ignorant of those things. What you are ignorant of is that none of those things answers the original poster's question. Like I said several posts back, science has taught how, but it has not taught us why - nor will it ever.
Sagan said (as ripped from another poster's sig) that he wanted to know, not believe. I ask you: after all his years of work, did he ever get to know?

How and why are the same thing. It's just people find it hard to accept the answer that science gives them, they need something more meaningful. Why does it rain, is the same as how it rains. But some people need to believe that it is raining for a purpose. But why must there be a a purpose?

There isn't a perfect omnipotent God in those other religion though.

Duh... perhaps that's why I didn't include them then?[/quote]

So what makes the Biblical belief that an omnipotent God created the universe more credible than any other creation story?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
So what makes the Biblical belief that an omnipotent God created the universe more credible than any other creation story?

Heh. Don't go there. What then makes the Scientific creation story more credible than any other story?

And how and why are not the same. Some languages (like Spanish) don't have a single word for "why". Instead they say "for what". And that is what "why" means: for what purpose? It's what I posted earlier - some people need to know more.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
So what makes the Biblical belief that an omnipotent God created the universe more credible than any other creation story?

Heh. Don't go there. What makes then makes the Scientific creation story more credible than any other story?

Because it's based on facts and evidence, or at least rational logic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
So what makes the Biblical belief that an omnipotent God created the universe more credible than any other creation story?

Heh. Don't go there. What makes then makes the Scientific creation story more credible than any other story?

Because it's based on facts and evidence, or at least rational logic.

It is? I thought it was based on grant money. I'm not saying that they haven't come up with some nice ideas about how the universe was created, but they frequently just jump on whatever seems like the most popular idea at the time. And they change their minds and contradict often.
For example, I read a little while ago, in a respected scientific magazine, that scientists now believe from universal mapping that the universe is contracting, not expanding, and that the Milky Way will probably collide with another galaxy in a few billion years. Doesn't that contradict Hubble's Big Bang?
Or why do scientists continue to insist on the meteor theory for the demise of the dinosaur when the rise of flowering plants (which occurred at the same time) is a more plausible theory that more properly fits the known facts? I guess because global dinosaur hay fever doesn't sell as well as giant meteorites?
I have deep respect for all of science, but astronomy and paleontology I frequently find quite amusing. Every new discovery is the next big thing, with the last next big thing always getting swept under the rug. Rational? Only if you say so.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The top 5 answers to the thread title:

5. Other Gods / Goddesses who either "exist outside time" or created themselves.
4. Humanity (A.E. van Vogt "Weapon Shops" SF story, a man time travelled back to cause the big bang)
3. Inhabitants of some other universe (many SF stories)
2. Natural Laws (including evolution of universes as in Stephen Baxter's Manifold Time)
1. The universe itself is "the alpha and the omega": it has always existed in some form, and always will exist.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
So what makes the Biblical belief that an omnipotent God created the universe more credible than any other creation story?

Heh. Don't go there. What makes then makes the Scientific creation story more credible than any other story?

Because it's based on facts and evidence, or at least rational logic.

It is? I thought it was based on grant money. I'm not saying that they haven't come up with some nice ideas about how the universe was created, but they frequently just jump on whatever seems like the most popular idea at the time. And they change their minds and contradict often.
For example, I read a little while ago, in a respected scientific magazine, that scientists now believe from universal mapping that the universe in contracting, not expanding, and that the Milky Way will probably collide with another galaxy in a few billion years. Doesn't that contradict Hubble's Big Bang?
Or why do scientists continue to insist on the meteor theory for the demise of the dinosaur when the rise of flowering plants (which occurred at the same time) is a more plausible theory that more properly fits the known facts? I guess because global dinosaur hay fever doesn't sell as well as giant meteorites?
I have deep respect for all of science, but astronomy and paleontology I frequently find quite amusing. Every new discovery is the next big thing, with the last next big thing always getting swept under the rug. Rational? Only if you say so.

Unlike religion, science doesn't claim it's the truth. It's theories, and theories DO CHANGE. Well, religion does too i suppose (old testament vs new testament), but it takes a lot more for people to accept it, and that's because society pushes for the change.

And yes, galaxies collide... they collide due to a force known as gravity. Dinosaurs came from meteror rocks? That's a first that i've heard. But yes, there are different theories for many things out there... but that's the beauty of science, it's purpose is the pursuit for the truth. If we were to follow what the religious nuts want us to believe, we wouldn't be pursuing anything.

 

[Looney]

And yes, it's rational... at least more rational than religion.

Like i said, what makes the bible any more authoriative or credible than my theory that whenever i poop, i create an entire new world out of my sh1t?

 

[LordMorpheus]

I'll admit it. God didn't do it. I did. Sorry about the mess.


atheists tend to believe that it just happened as the laws of a highly advanced physics we have not figured out would dictate, or its kinda like an endless loop in a comp program :

lbl 1
Big Bang
Big Crunch
goto 1

but that looks untrue as it appears that the rate at which the universe is expanding due to leftover momentum from the Big Bang is increasing: i.e. there is something pulling stuff away from all the other stuff . . . against the idea that the gravity between the stuff would slow the rate of expansion.

I think its currently called dark matter.