Please do your best to respond to this post. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.
Cause and effect. How can something come out of nothing? How could the very first thing that happened to start the universe not be effected by anything? It has to go back and back and back until one thing that effected something without being caused. That, I believe, was a god. Can somebody please prove this point wrong?
I'm not sure if this link uses a session specific URL. If it does not work then it would be my blog on here title The Origin of the Universe
Quantum Physics sais something can come out of nothing doesn't it?
Its amazing to me that"believers", have no problem believing in an all powerful god that has always existed and had no creator, yet they have a hard time imagining that the universe may have come from the big bang.
I have to ask you "what is that about"? Is this where you throw common sense, logic and rational thinking out the window in order to hang on to your "Faith"? Why would you even consider jumping to the conclusion of a god, simply because we don't have the answers yet? Fear maybe?
Science may not have all the answers (YET), but at least their working on them.
First, you must understand that the origin of the universe is a separate question from the existence of god. One can be agnostic with regard to the first and still be atheist with regard to the second. Assuming they are a single question is proof of circular reasoning on some level.
Second, your reasoning is exactly the same used by primitive man to reach the conclusion that the Earth must be flat and held up by a god. They had no idea how it could be otherwise because their everyday experience on Earth told them it was impossible. What they (and you) didn't understand is that they were extrapolating their experience to a situation that was completely different and completely alien to them. What they (and you) didn't understand was they were not just comparing apples to oranges, they were comparing apples to airplanes. Please read the essay at this link:
Nobody can know what happened before the Planck time, before the Big Bang. The concept of ' before ' may be inappropriate.
However, the Creator of the Universe has sent us a message. Is this the God you were hoping for?
See ' God says sorry ' .
Have a cool Yule!
For most of our species' existence, we believed that we were the center of the universe. It was only fairly recently that we realized we're a bi-product of it. What if the very implication that matter requires a beginning is a result of your perceptual bias towards the universe, a reflection of the human ego? "You" have an observable beginning and end, therefore somehow all of existence must as well? You are not an accurate representation of the universe. You are a bi-product of one of its phases. Have some humility.
Also delicious Oreos.
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." - Marcello Truzzi
With that in mind, perhaps we can agree that the post is more of a thought experiment than an assertion of truth. So setting science and reason aside, let's do it. Say that once upon a time there was nothing, and then suddenly something that simply came to be; and let's say that this something was the starting point for everything that we know and have yet to know. Let's say even that we as humans come to know of this thing and agree to call this thing god.
What then? Is this thing still present or has it faded away? How do you know if this thing still affects what is happening to us and our tiny world? How do you know if this thing was directly the creator of all or just the first domino that tipped? If it was just simply the starting point, then of what consequence is it to say that you believe in it? Forgive me, but I still fail to see why, if this were in any way true, I should then adhere to faith, religion, and theism.
If you’re unable to accept the state of nothingness as a plausible beginning to our universe, yet you wish us to accept your god hypothesis, then we can simply apply your question to this hypothesis and ask: what created your god and what created that and so on.
But, we don’t even need to go as far as to even evoke a god to address the question. Science tells us that “nothing” is the most unstable state in the universe and that “something” is more likely (statistically speaking) than “nothing.” So, the fact that we have something rather than nothing is really unremarkable and is what one would expect.
I think the most important thing to note is that you’ve asked us to prove your point wrong without first being able to prove that your belief is correct or even remotely plausible. Provide us the evidence that we need to even consider your point, otherwise why would anyone waste their time and effort attempting to prove it wrong?
Lastly, “god did it” is not an acceptable place-holder for questions for which we do not currently hold the answer. History has shown that such questions have been replaced by knowledge, thus “I don’t know” is a more logical place-holder than “god did it.”
It's turtles all the way down