Gods are only a figment of mans imagination. God(s) (all of them) were created by man to explain what was not understood. There is no god or gods, never have been. The old argument "prove god or no god" is a waste of time and since neither case is provable it's a waste of time and effort.
I am so tired of the philosophical arguments for and against an un-provable or provable possibility of something that doesn't exist that I want to puke. We are so inculcated with religion especially Christianity that we don't seem to be able to think outside the box. Even those who find God(s) ridiculous still grant the theists tha the possibility of some sort of supernatural being created the universe and all in it. It's bullshit, there is no such being/thing.
I have no problem with the idea that life is random, just as random as the universe itself. Those of you who feel/think the universe is not random, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change reality. That the universe may not be random is something we have no indication of, but what caused (a term I have real problems with) it is a question for which we have no answer.
Why is it so important to prove or dis-prove the existence of something that supposedly created reality? What a waste of time, we can argue for centuries without ever reaching a definitive answer that anyone will be able to accept.
The Christian god exists in the same dimension as the Greek, Egyptian or other gods, i.e. some other dimension, but none of them exist. I cannot see why, or any reason that, the Christian God can be any realer than those others. The Christian God is as much myth as any other historical god.
If people want to believe the universe has some meaning, direction, reason for being or what ever; have at it. If it makes you feel better and you need to believe go ahead, but if you think you are a candidate for "heaven" you'd better re-think your beliefs.
If anyone wants me to "prove" my thesis they can go straight to Hell (if you will pardon the expression). Just because I make a categorical statement it doesn't mean it is not correct. I admit I do not like to make categorical statements since they are often faulty; in this case I make an acceptation. You want to argue with me? Go ahead but if you expect me to acquiesce to your demands you can go jump in a lake or preferably an erupting volcano.
Anyone who believes there is a god is terribly terribly misinformed.
End of rant.
Earlier in this thread I shared my definition of God: A spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, intelligent, powerful Being.
Anything that came into being had a cause. Objects don't simply appear from nothing. Atheists and theists have the same dilemma, finding the uncaused cause of the universe. Given the nature of our universe (appearance of design in the universe and biology, humans with minds & free will) it is reasonable to believe that God is the uncaused creator.
Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your time. Best wishes.
Doesn't sound like a god who is so concerned about the food you eat, who you sleep with or who would bother to torment a fella named Job. Have you also logically concluded that all that is true as well?.
"...when the Vikings tried to explain lighting..."
And all this time I've been giving Edison credit for that. :)
LOL, you are correct
Well, you misunderstand what science actually says for starters...in that the Big Bang specifically includes pre-existing conditions, and, only applies to the known universe, which is what we call what started about 14 billion years ago.
And, part of the energy balance calculations for the Big Bang, as an example, include the work done by OUR universe expanding into the space AROUND IT.
IE: The space around it was already there, as it has no beginning or end, it is infinite.
The TIME before the BB was of course already there too, for there to be a "when" that it happened.
So, what science REALLY says, is that there has always been, and will always be, an infinite amount of space, and, time.
Spacetime (ours) is expanding into this infinite space.
We also know, experimentally, in laboratory experiments, that spacetime is unstable, and, results in the propagation of photons, electrons and positrons.
So, if we have spacetime, we have quantum fluctuations that result in matter and energy, as a property of space time.
We HAVE an infinite amount of space, time, and, spacetime...and, therefore, an infinite source of matter and energy as well.
There can be no "beginning", as there will always be a time just before that, and, just after that, etc....and, empty space is a given if we have "nothing".
There is no such thing, in reality, AS "nothing", though, other than as a concept.
So, your premise has a flawed assumption right from the get go, as a beginning is not a valid assumption.
After that, you then present a false dichotomy, assuming that the first flawed premise must have either been SOMEONE CREATING that beginning from nothing, or, from something.
In the bible, the someone creates everything from nothing.
In science, the universe is not created (The cosmos), but, our known universe started expanding ~ 14 billion years ago, into the rest of the cosmos.
So, the biblical version basically, has a supernatural entity existing for an infinite amount of time, and, then, about 6,000 years ago, making the cosmos...and our known universe....and than that all lasting for all eternity.
The science version has the cosmos existing for an infinite amount of time, but our known universe starting about 14 billion years ago, and, our sun dying/disappearing in a few billion years.
There is no evidence at all for the origin of the universe (assuming there was an origin which we don't know). So nope, no evidence neither for a divine cause nor a meaningless one. No one has a shred of evidence that proves it one way or another. You can present a argument that is more or less reasonable or worth following but there is nothing at all out there in terms of proof.
The biggest difference between a theological proof and a non-theological speculation, is that the first one is assumed to be true, usually in an attempt to justify an ideology or world view. The second one is not assumed to be true. One can admit that they do not know and then focus on promising theories.
As for which theory is worth one's time more than another one, supernatural explanations are rarely (if ever) worth one's time or effort. For example, take this:
Theological: God sends down lightening from the heavents
Non-theological: I don't know but it may be a random event that has something to do with the clouds or gravity or ether etc.
The second one doesn't really get it right (these theories were speculated on before electricity was properly theorised), it lacks the essential explanation of charged particles, but it does indeed have something to do with the clouds and pressure and to a much lesser extent with gravity, and nothing to do with ether cause there is no ether...they got that totally wrong.
The point is, is it reasonable to accept the supernatural explanation on assumptions and sketchy reasoning (usually proped up from an ideology or world view) or is it reasonable to say: I don't know and then try to develop and follow reasonable theories?
Ultimately per the origin of the universe (assuming there was an origin) you can do three things:
Assume God did it and create a web of arguments around it,
Assume it was purely natural (which is also a dubious position)
Say I don't know and attempt reasonable theories/arguments/explanations.
The last one is the most successful approach and will be so until the day (if it ever happens which I doubt) that a shred of evidence for supernatural phenomena pops up. Concluding that "God did it" is a foolish one to make, especially with a topic of which we are the most ignorant of. Paralell universes or bubble universes or multi-verses or the big-bang and big-crunch cycle are highly extremely theoretical. They are always preceeded by a "we don't know" and are as primitive explanations as "lightennning comes from ether" were. They may have a kernal of truth to them or they may be all totally wrong. They are still all more reasonable than plopping God or Allah or Primordial consciousness or Mother Earth at the beginning just as assuming God sent down lightening was a very bad assumption.
I listed 5 lines of scientific evidence that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning. This isn’t theology. This is science.
The argument for a divine cause is philosophy rooted in logic and the scientific evidence listed. In short, if you accept the Law of Causality (if something came to be or had a beginning, it had to have a cause), then for me I can believe that the the universe has an origin and it is more reasonable for me to believe that someone created something from nothing, than to believe that no one (or no thing) created something from nothing.
Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your time. All the best.
"it is more reasonable for me to believe that someone created something from nothing"
- yes, but "nothing" and "the unknown" are two very different things. You rush to invoke the God of the Gaps as an explanation, but I don't think it's justified to assume this in the absence of any other knowledge. The most you can say, like anyone else, is "I don't know".
It's also a bit of a strawman to say that science thinks the universe came from nothing. That would seem to be another unjustifiable assertion, worthy of attack, but it's not what people actually think.
As Aristotle surmised, cause effect is an finitely regressable series which he was unable to accept. Somehow there had to be a cause that was not caused so he ended up with a "first cause" which had to be God (short version of his dilemma and solution). Regardless, Mark's reliance on Aristotle's reasoning it seems to lead him, as with Aristotle, to God.
What he fails to acknowledge is that cosmologists, physicists and quantum theorists, among others, do not know and will not say anything about what the singularity is/was nor what came before; they readily agree they don't know anything before 10−36 (approximatley, since new information becomes available frequently) seconds after the expansion began (BTW "The Big Bang" is a misnomer). They also say nothing about why the expansion came about. “Cause” is something of no importance at this time. Theories abound but nothing that can be verified by experiment(s).
The only place I know of where Cause and Effect have any validity is in law; there you can ignore any preceding events that do not directly effect the situation. A train hits a car at a grade crossing, train derails, driver of the car is killed. Who is at fault? All the law is concerned with is who caused the accident so blame can be laid and compensation be determined. Same with an airplane crash; only cause is important not antecedent situations. Cause and effect are only important for placing blame.
Why can't there be a way to preview posts before actually posting?
You misunderstand the science, leading to ALL of your mistakes.