If god didnt create the universe then who did?

Click elsewhere then.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\...\.......... ....·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....

 

[dullard]

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."

But then can't athiests use the same arguement for the universe? That the universe is the beginning and the ending and all of which is to come. Meaning the universe was always here, and will always be here?

 

[crazygal]

Yes they can but they don't have a cool little book like some religions do

 

[HarryAngel]

From Bhagavad Gita:
"I am the birth of this cosmos, its dissolution also.
I am He who causes, no other beside me.
Upon me these worlds are held
Like pearls strung on a string.

These my wandering creatures are always within me.
These, when the round of ages is accomplished,
I gather back to the seed of their becoming:
These I send forth again at the hour of creation.

Helpless all, for Maya (delusion) is their master
And I, their Lord, the master of Maya:
Ever and again, I send these multitudes forth from my being."

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: NinjaGnome
So your trying to tell me that a rock can evolve into a living thing without some kind of interference? What are these different thoeries also?

Wow, what kind of education do you have? I thought all high schools taught evolution now.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Click elsewhere then.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\...\.......... ....·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....

Cute.
No one invited you to this thread, but you have been invited to leave.

edit: why are the pseudo atheists (in reality, anti-God) always represented by the crappiest, snidest, most insulting forms of human life? It doesn't speak well for the cause..

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: NinjaGnome
So your trying to tell me that a rock can evolve into a living thing without some kind of interference? What are these different thoeries also?

Wow, what kind of education do you have? I thought all high schools taught evolution now.

They also taught him that the world was flat, their table of elements contained water, fire, rock and air, and leeches cure all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard
But then can't athiests use the same arguement for the universe? That the universe is the beginning and the ending and all of which is to come. Meaning the universe was always here, and will always be here?

Of course. But while science is very good at answering the question "How?" it's really terrible at answering the question of "Why?"
This is why I say that science and religion are not exclusive. That, in fact, the two often support each other. NinjaGnome was basically saying that evolution and the Big Bang are fine and all, but what started them in motion? Science doesn't answer that question, it merely puts it down to chance (and an outrageously small chance at that). Some people need more than that.

 

[CubicZirconia]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

We have to bet the egg came first. The odds are in its favor.
1) If there is no god, then evolution occured and the egg came first.
2) If there is a god, he could have created evolution and thus the egg came first.
3) If there is a god who didn't create evolution, he could have created the egg first.
4) If there is a god who didn't create evolution, he could have created the chicken first.

I assume #3 and #4 have equal odds of occuring (and I think everyone should agree with that assumption - creationists, evolutionist, and creation/evolutionists). Then if #1 and/or #2 have nonzero odds of occuring, then most likely the egg came first.

 

[Syringer]

Of course God created the universe..some 9000 years ago. Science books that predate that period are all incorrect.

 

[BD2003]

The reason that you cant find the answer to "why", is because its a nonsensical question. Its like asking "what is the color of the number 5?"

Like a lot of things, it just happens, with no reason why. Without the big bang, there would be nothing to ask "why?" about? Why do electrons orbit protons? They just do, its their nature. You just have to accept it.

 

[BigToquex]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

You see, the chicken evolved from some other variation of bird. So the bird that laid the first true chicken egg was not actually a chicken, but something very close. Therefore, the first true chicken came from the egg.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard
But then can't athiests use the same arguement for the universe? That the universe is the beginning and the ending and all of which is to come. Meaning the universe was always here, and will always be here?

Of course. But while science is very good at answering the question "How?" it's really terrible at answering the question of "Why?"
This is why I say that science and religion are not exclusive. That, in fact, the two often support each other. NinjaGnome was basically saying that evolution and the Big Bang are fine and all, but what started them in motion? Science doesn't answer that question, it merely puts it down to chance (and an outrageously small chance at that). Some people need more than that.

Exactly. As a know-nothing agnostic I understand how life probably evolved from a chemical stew, but realize that doesn't rule out a watchmaker.

I'll even grant that the Christian God could, if he wanted to, have created a 14-billion-year-old universe less than 50,000 years ago just like the Bible says, complete with pre-antiqued fossils to test man's faith. That part just seems a little less likely to me, but antiquing the cosmos is certainly within the power of an omnipotent being.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

the same question applies to the universe as with God, namely, "where did God come from" --> "where did the universe come from"

possible answer: we need not presuppose a beginning/end. perhaps something always existed.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dullard
But then can't athiests use the same arguement for the universe? That the universe is the beginning and the ending and all of which is to come. Meaning the universe was always here, and will always be here?

Of course. But while science is very good at answering the question "How?" it's really terrible at answering the question of "Why?"
This is why I say that science and religion are not exclusive. That, in fact, the two often support each other. NinjaGnome was basically saying that evolution and the Big Bang are fine and all, but what started them in motion? Science doesn't answer that question, it merely puts it down to chance (and an outrageously small chance at that). Some people need more than that.

Exactly. As a know-nothing agnostic I understand how life probably evolved from a chemical stew, but realize that doesn't rule out a watchmaker.

I'll even grant that the Christian God could, if he wanted to, have created a 14-billion-year-old universe less than 50,000 years ago just like the Bible says, complete with pre-antiqued fossils to test man's faith. That part just seems a little less likely to me, but antiquing the cosmos is certainly within the power of an omnipotent being.

So what criteria do you use to choose which to believe? Why even believe in the Biblical God, and not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Shamanism, or the schizophrenic down the street who claims to be a god himself?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

also, on the idea of a prime mover: how did the universe come into motion? how did God first start creating the universe? the former is more easily answered: the universe has always been in motion. the latter is quite difficult as you would see if you studied medieval philosophy (scholasticism).

 

[edro]

Another GREAT forum for these type discussions is: The Infidels.com (The Secular Web)

Here are their forums.

 

[DaveSimmons]

So what criteria do you use to choose which to believe? Why even believe in the Biblical God, and not Hinduism, or Buddhism, or Shamanism, or the schizophrenic down the street who claims to be a god himself?

Hence my agnosticism, given there is no evidence for the truth of any particular religion or group of religions.

I have nothing against those who have faith in their religion, but it is absurd and insulting when they attempt to pretend there is some scientific basis for their faith as "intelligent design" and "creation science" do.

 

[HarryAngel]

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."
Dr. Carl Sagan, (1934-1996) astro-physicist, from the book "Cosmos"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: NinjaGnome
I have always wondered what atheists thought of that. Also the fact that life cannot be formed from an inanimate object (a rock cant evolve into a human). Some sort of higher being must have created the universe and life in it. Please post your thoughts in a cilvil manner if possible.

Let me give you an example of why this type of argument is silly at best. I walk into work and find an apple sitting on my desk. I do not know where this apple came from, so I tell my coworkers that the CEO himself came in and put the apple on my desk. Since I'm just a lowly peon, they don't believe me. I say, "fine, then tell me who did put the apple on my desk." Since they have no way of knowing who did it, they say so. I grin in triumph and say that this proves the CEO put the apple on my desk since they can't come up with a better answer.

Hopefully you can see how silly this sounds. Your argument essentially goes like this: 1) The universe exists, 2) Ahteists do not know for certain where the universe came from, 3) Therefore, God created the universe. Points 1 and 2 are certainly true, yet I fail to see how 3 follows from them. The fact that there isn't a solid proven answer does not make wild guessing true either. Perhaps if God was a scientific explanation instead of a theological one this would work. But saying lack of a scientific explanation makes a wild assumption true makes no logical sense at all

 

Cute.
No one invited you to this thread, but you have been invited to leave.

edit: why are the pseudo atheists (in reality, anti-God) always represented by the crappiest, snidest, most insulting forms of human life? It doesn't speak well for the cause..

Gee, thanks, I'll heed your advice.

Now, you're making the assumption that I'm an athiest, and it's a falce one.

Why do all the psuedo-intellectuals (you) make the assumption that because someone makes fun of a religion thread, that they are athiest?
For talking such highbrow sh!t, you really sink to new lows.

 

[js1973]

"If god didnt create the universe then who did?"

Who or what? I don't know and I can sleep at night not knowing.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: SammySon
Rhetorical question.
Don't waste too much time thinking about it.

Probably the most intelligent point here. Anyways, this is my take on it.

I've always been into science and math but also am strong in my religion, and honestly I find they don't necessarily exclude each other.

1. The creation story in Genesis is very vague, and also incorporates certain things that could arguably make much more sense if taken symbolically rather then literally.
2. The "days" as I take it do not mean a 24 hour day. I take it that each day is a stage. Some may have taken longer then others.
3. The creation of man can arguably taken many different ways. Adam being formed out of dirt could be taken to be guided evolution, however I don't know, I've thought about it and I don't claim to know how it happened, I just know it COULD happen and honestly with my beliefs I just need to know it could happen.


Anyways, flamers do whatever, this is just what I've thought about.

 

[BigToquex]

Bignate,

One thing I don't really understand is that it seems like there are 2 stories of creation in Genesis. I never caught it when I was reading it, but my GF pointed it out to me because someone pointed it out to her.