CREATION OF UNIVERSE

[Gonubierat]

wooper said:

gonubierat said:

Not entirely. The Big Bang assumes there was something...

Yes, energy. Wouldnt that count as something the unknowing before us (meaning, they didnt have any scientific expressions) would call "God"?

Thats confusing... rephrase that please.

[Mike Lohmer]

squall2 said:

pink4eva said:

I believe in the Big Bang.

Ditto

If god took 7 days to make Earth he musta been pretty bored when making the other...trillion trillion trillion planets

God created everything. The Story in the Bible is merely a Story. Moses wrote it to hekp explain to the people that God made everything. They're just parables, stories, not meant to be scientific. You're supposed to grasp from the stories that God made everything, God is good, and he can do anything.

So Yes, God created the Universe.

God always was. No one created him.

Just go look at the stars-you know there has to be a higher power.

[Gonubierat]

mikelohmer said:

squall2 said:

Ditto

If god took 7 days to make Earth he musta been pretty bored when making the other...trillion trillion trillion planets

God created everything. The Story in the Bible is merely a Story. Moses wrote it to hekp explain to the people that God made everything. They're just parables, stories, not meant to be scientific. You're supposed to grasp from the stories that God made everything, God is good, and he can do anything.

Of course that is a very liberal view. Not all Christians hold that view. I consider myself a Literalist.

So Yes, God created the Universe.

God always was. No one created him.

amen (meaning I agree).

Just go look at the stars-you know there has to be a higher power.

A very brief example of the cosmological argument in effect.

[myke]

gonubierat said:

Is that your own theory? It's pretty interesting. If it isn't, could you pass on the philosopher, or scientist who theorised that idea, I would love to read into it more.

No, not my original theory. It's like the theory of a monkey, a typewriter, and Hamlet. If you take an immortal monkey, set him down in front of a typewriter and let him randomly type for an infinite amount of time, eventually he will type out Shakespeare's Hamlet.

If I played the lottery for eternity, I'm going to hit the jackpot millions, and millions of time. Make sense?

Therefore, on a large enough timescale, the events of the universe, and a fiery rock gaining atmosphere in such a perfect way it can sustain life is no great feat. In fact, I would be willing to bet Earth is not the only planet to achieve this. I believe there are thousands of worlds out there with life on them, even if it's only animal life.

Not sure who wrote the theory originally.

gonubierat said:

It also depends on how you define what is probable. I think that most of the theories that exclude a God are improbable, then again, that is my oppinion. However, you may think the idea of God is improbable. That then is your oppinion.

One question. If you believe:
'every possible event that can happen will happen, so this happening by chance is not only possible, but probable'

Would you find it probable for a God/gods to be a cause?

While I have never stated my religious standpoint here, and never will...the answer to your question is yes, it is more then possible, and is more then probable. At the same time, it is more then possible, and more then probable he doesn't exist.

However, to flip this a little, something I've always asked in these debates...

Why does it always have to be science vs religion? Why does it always have to be God vs Evolution?

Is it not possible God created the universe through the big bang?

Is it not possible god create humans through Evolution?

Believe in God or not, he did not snap his fingers and make Earth appear. Humans thought that in the dawn of civilization because they did not understand how science worked. The credited Apollo for the sun coming up every morning, Apollo and his Chariots of Fire.

Today we have a better understanding of how science works, thus we know God did not create the Earth out of thin air.

So, why is it impossible for God to work through science, to work through evolution, among other things?

Again, I'm not stating that is what I believe, or that it is not what I believe. I'm just offering some food for thought.

[ryndell]

And to the one who said If god took seven days to make the earth ... um not actually Seven Days as we know it .God also said .. a day is as the thousand years ,as a thousand years is a day .Which time always exsists its not a mankind created thing ,but time binds man not god .One of gods days could be 1,000 years to us ... could be a million years to use 5 million .We do not know ,because time means nothing to god .It does not bind him ..

[Zoni]

pink4eva said:

squall2 said:

Ditto

If god took 7 days to make Earth he musta been pretty bored when making the other...trillion trillion trillion planets

Didnt god only create "Earth"?

So i doubt he made all the trillion, trillion planets lol.

I wonder how big the universe really is.

We dont know. The universe exploded everywhere, so there is no specific "center" of the explosion; it's an explosion of space-time itself. Therefore, we are woven into the fabrics of space-time and cannot escape, thus meaning there is no boundary to our perception.

There are three possibilities. In a spherical universe, if you travel forward, you will eventually reach the location which you started. Two people starting out exactly parallel will eventually collide.

In a flat universe, also known as a Euclidean universe, named after the person who created the postulates in your geometry textbooks, if two people started out parallel, they would remain the same distance apart. There is an extremely low possibility our universe is Euclidean. However, you may treat small sections of it as Euclidean. Similarly, our earth is round, but you can treat sections of it as flat.

Finally, in the third possible shape of our universe, hyperbolic, in a system developed by Lobachevsky, two people starting out parallel and moving forward would eventually get further and further away.

[Zoni]

ryndell said:

And to the one who said If god took seven days to make the earth ... um not actually Seven Days as we know it .God also said .. a day is as the thousand years ,as a thousand years is a day .Which time always exsists its not a mankind created thing ,but time binds man not god .One of gods days could be 1,000 years to us ... could be a million years to use 5 million .We do not know ,because time means nothing to god .It does not bind him ..

not only that, but day and night weren't created until about the third day. Therefore, a different standard existed.

[ryndell]

XkamelX There is something i will give to you i will conceed one point .Yes no doubt in my mind and heart God created everything period .There is no debate,but the thing is mankind is clueless is to how he did it.We can not even imagine .We are just as clueless on the actually methods of creation , as everyone one else.God only tells us I made ever thing that was made, is made ,and shall be made .Thing is he never told us how he did it.he just told us how he made man and woman.Thats it no clues into the rest of it as far as i can see.I have looked too .So energy ,science , Matter Manipulation ... He created Science as well , and it would seem to be the fastest way to get thing going throughout the universe.So yes God Could have totally used Science for the creation of all things, because it would Seem to allow him to do Millions of worlds all at once... one mans science though ..is another mans magic.. so either one .

[Zephyr]

myke said:

gonubierat said:

Is that your own theory? It's pretty interesting. If it isn't, could you pass on the philosopher, or scientist who theorised that idea, I would love to read into it more.

No, not my original theory. It's like the theory of a monkey, a typewriter, and Hamlet. If you take an immortal monkey, set him down in front of a typewriter and let him randomly type for an infinite amount of time, eventually he will type out Shakespeare's Hamlet.

If I played the lottery for eternity, I'm going to hit the jackpot millions, and millions of time. Make sense?

Therefore, on a large enough timescale, the events of the universe, and a fiery rock gaining atmosphere in such a perfect way it can sustain life is no great feat. In fact, I would be willing to bet Earth is not the only planet to achieve this. I believe there are thousands of worlds out there with life on them, even if it's only animal life.

Not sure who wrote the theory originally.

gonubierat said:

It also depends on how you define what is probable. I think that most of the theories that exclude a God are improbable, then again, that is my oppinion. However, you may think the idea of God is improbable. That then is your oppinion.

One question. If you believe:
'every possible event that can happen will happen, so this happening by chance is not only possible, but probable'

Would you find it probable for a God/gods to be a cause?

While I have never stated my religious standpoint here, and never will...the answer to your question is yes, it is more then possible, and is more then probable. At the same time, it is more then possible, and more then probable he doesn't exist.

However, to flip this a little, something I've always asked in these debates...

Why does it always have to be science vs religion? Why does it always have to be God vs Evolution?

Is it not possible God created the universe through the big bang?

Is it not possible god create humans through Evolution?

Believe in God or not, he did not snap his fingers and make Earth appear. Humans thought that in the dawn of civilization because they did not understand how science worked. The credited Apollo for the sun coming up every morning, Apollo and his Chariots of Fire.

Today we have a better understanding of how science works, thus we know God did not create the Earth out of thin air.

So, why is it impossible for God to work through science, to work through evolution, among other things?

Again, I'm not stating that is what I believe, or that it is not what I believe. I'm just offering some food for thought.

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, (e.g. a God that is all powerful) then he would not need to work through science. Of course to ask the question "Why does God not do this, this and this?" is pointless as we cannot comprehend the nature of God.

[Zoni]

ryndell said:

XkamelX There is something i will give to you i will conceed one point .Yes no doubt in my mind and heart God created everything period .There is no debate,but the thing is mankind is clueless is to how he did it.We can not even imagine .We are just as clueless on the actually methods of creation , as everyone one else.God only tells us I made ever thing that was made, is made ,and shall be made .Thing is he never told us how he did it.he just told us how he made man and woman.Thats it no clues into the rest of it as far as i can see.I have looked too .So energy ,science , Matter Manipulation ... He created Science as well , and it would seem to be the fastest way to get thing going throughout the universe.So yes God Could have totally used Science for the creation of all things, because it would Seem to allow him to do Millions of worlds all at once... one mans science though ..is another mans magic.. so either one .

I agree with you to some point.

There are two types of laws God created:
1. Divine Law - the laws you must follow in order to be happy.
2. Natural Law - the laws of physics and science.

Since God is not bound to these laws, He did not use them to create the universe, but only included them to be put into the universe He created.

[Mike Lohmer]

zephyr2 said:

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, (e.g. a God that is all powerful) then he would not need to work through science. Of course to ask the question "Why does God not do this, this and this?" is pointless as we cannot comprehend the nature of God.

Amen.

[myke]

ryndell said:

XkamelX There is something i will give to you i will conceed one point .Yes no doubt in my mind and heart God created everything period .There is no debate,but the thing is mankind is clueless is to how he did it.We can not even imagine .We are just as clueless on the actually methods of creation , as everyone one else.God only tells us I made ever thing that was made, is made ,and shall be made .Thing is he never told us how he did it.he just told us how he made man and woman.Thats it no clues into the rest of it as far as i can see.I have looked too .So energy ,science , Matter Manipulation ... He created Science as well , and it would seem to be the fastest way to get thing going throughout the universe.So yes God Could have totally used Science for the creation of all things, because it would Seem to allow him to do Millions of worlds all at once... one mans science though ..is another mans magic.. so either one .

But every day we are learning more and more about the past, and how things came to be. Eventually we will even learn to minipulate time, thus time will be nothing to use either.

zephyr2 said:

If you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, (e.g. a God that is all powerful) then he would not need to work through science. Of course to ask the question "Why does God not do this, this and this?" is pointless as we cannot comprehend the nature of God.

I never stated whether or not I believe in God, and will not state so either.

I believe the universe was always here, always will be, and believe the matter from within the universe came to be in it's current form from the Big Bang, or another scientific event.

Going beyond the pure science of it, and stating my personal beliefs, or non-beliefs of religion will taint my theories and views of the universe by one side or the other (the science people or the religion people).

[Enchant]

gonubierat said:

lordroxton said:

In the beginning, God created the bit. And the bit was a zero.

On the first day, he toggled the 0 to 1, and the Universe was. (In those days, bootstrap loaders were simple, and "active low" signals didn't yet exist.)

On the second day, God's boss wanted a demo, and tried to read the bit. This being volatile memory, the bit reverted to a 0. And the universe wasn't. God learned the importance of backups and memory refresh, and spent the rest of the day (and his first all-nighter) reinstalling the universe.

On the third day, the bit cried "Oh, Lord! If you exist, give me a sign!" And God created rev 2.0 of the bit, even better than the original prototype. Those in Universe Marketing immediately realized that "new and improved" wouldn't do justice to such a grand and glorious creation. And so it was dubbed the Most Significant Bit. Many bits followed, but only one
was so honored.

On the fourth day, God created a simple ALU with 'add' and 'logical shift' instructions. And the original bit discovered that -- by performing a single shift instruction -- it could become the Most Significant Bit. And God realized the importance of computer security.

On the fifth day, God created the first mid-life kicker, rev 2.0 of the ALU, with wonderful features, and said "Forget that add and shift stuff. Go forth and multiply." And God saw that it was good.

On the sixth day, God got a bit overconfident, and invented pipelines, register hazards, optimizing compilers, crosstalk, restartable instructions, micro interrupts, race conditions, and propagation delays. Historians have used this to convincingly argue that the sixth day must have been a Monday.

On the seventh day, an engineering change introduced Windows into the Universe, and it hasn't worked right since.

Haha, thats one of the funniest things I've read. Good one. I might just post that on my board to see what response is given from my teens. ;D



Um, now wait a minute. She made the comment that religion did not belong to be taught in schools, and made the statement that:



This is being ignorant. And if it sounds mean to you... well sorry, it wasn't meant to be read as being mean... I suppose I should use these smilies more... but the point still remains. If creationism has no place in schools, then neither does evolution. Both are theories. And evolution has a very big place in religious education, since a vast amount of Christians do believe that evolution, the big-bang and God can all coincide in harmonious theory of creation. So My point is this, if you plan on saying that creationism does not belong in a school curiculum, be prepared to be challenged. The word 'ignorant' is a normal english word, which one definition says means: 'Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge'. In this case, knowledge. To say creationism does not belong in schools is highly offensive to me, and I can just as well say that her comment was 'nasty'. But I can look past the fact that schools are starting to place a theory such as evolution above creationism. But I will always hold, and teach those around me, and my Kids (one day, God willing) that the creation story is true.



And if you read my comment closely, you will see that I did state: 'if you believe in God'.



Gee, will I get in trouble for calling someone ignorant again? This time, the meaning of Ignorant means this (as take from the same dictionary): 'Unaware or uninformed.'

Immanuel Kant, is a very famous philosopher who lived from 1724-1804. Another one of his famous arguments is the Categorical Imperative (which is a command without conditions - i.e. one must never tell lies).
One of the principles of the categorical imperative is known as the universal law: 'Act only according to the maxi (a principle or rule) by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law'.

I hope that helps to clear up your question; 'who the heck is Kant?'

Secondly, noone can prove God exists. That is the whole idea of faith, as you rightly said. But it is very interesting to study the five arguments for God's existence. My personal favourites are the Teleological argument (constructed by William Paley) and the Cosmological argument. They really help to grow one's faith (in my oppinion) yet all arguments will be flawed. However, it is quite ignorant (using the second definition) of you to call a philosopher such as Kant, 'Naive' (correct spelling).
It is because of such philosophers (no matter how right or wrong you think they are) that we know, and understand more about the world we live in today.

creationism or evolution the fact remains that everyone has the right to there own opinions....

Of course, but is this not a discussion? My oppinion was that she made (and you might I add) some very ignorant comments. You may feel exactly the same way about me! Which is cool. I love you guys anyway. But just because I love you (in an 'agapaic' sort of way - not even sure I can use agape like that), doesn't mean im not gonna share my oppinion out.

God Bless my crazy proboard companions (hey Im a freak! )

And remember, vote 2W2L International! Because you only have...2 Ways to Live!

~Ryan

Again, you are calling people ignorant for what they believe in . And just because I didn't know who the heck Kant was (I imagine alot of people dont know who Kant is), doesn't make me ignorant...which by most people standard is a slang insult, reguardless of the webster dictionary defintion. And your condesending and patronizing remarks, (intended or not )are unwarranted. And all your encyclopedia definitions and explainations still doesn't sway from the fact that because someone has different beliefs (evolution or religion in the schools) doesn't make them ignorant...and you need to learn a sense of tolerence and not be making judgements about there opinions.

Yes this a discussion....and you take offense at peoples beliefs well most take insult and get offensive, but such remarks as "Dont be ignorant." How I feel or dont feel about you is irrelevent and doesn't pertain to the topic, just the same as your feelings are irrelevent to me....

I am sure there is alot of mispellings and typos...I don't need you to point them out....thank you

[Gonubierat]

myke said:

gonubierat said:

Is that your own theory? It's pretty interesting. If it isn't, could you pass on the philosopher, or scientist who theorised that idea, I would love to read into it more.

No, not my original theory. It's like the theory of a monkey, a typewriter, and Hamlet. If you take an immortal monkey, set him down in front of a typewriter and let him randomly type for an infinite amount of time, eventually he will type out Shakespeare's Hamlet.

If I played the lottery for eternity, I'm going to hit the jackpot millions, and millions of time. Make sense?

Therefore, on a large enough timescale, the events of the universe, and a fiery rock gaining atmosphere in such a perfect way it can sustain life is no great feat. In fact, I would be willing to bet Earth is not the only planet to achieve this. I believe there are thousands of worlds out there with life on them, even if it's only animal life.

Hmmm, good theory, but not without its flaws. Unless you are using evolution in this theory, there is not even a chance that a monkey will be able to type out shakespeare hamlet. There are way too many factors involved. Not even an infinite amount of time would get it right. The only way this theory could possibly work is if you are counting evolution as part of theory... and even then the chances are pretty low. The monkey would have no concept of character constructs, no idea of creating plots, subplots, metaphors and imagery. The amount of times the monkey would have to press 'space' at just the right place, add in all neccessary punctuation... It just couldn;t happen. But then again, that could be showing my ignorance on the matter.

While I have never stated my religious standpoint here, and never will...the answer to your question is yes, it is more then possible, and is more then probable. At the same time, it is more then possible, and more then probable he doesn't exist.

Wow... I am trying to figure out how, at the same time, is is more that possible that God was a cause, and more that possible he wasn't cause... thats like a complete contradiction... simple yes or no?

However, to flip this a little, something I've always asked in these debates...

Why does it always have to be science vs religion? Why does it always have to be God vs Evolution?

Is it not possible God created the universe through the big bang?

Is it not possible god create humans through Evolution?

I had already discussed the idea (slightly) about God being a cause of evolution and the big bang.

So, why is it impossible for God to work through science, to work through evolution, among other things?

Not impossible at all. I believe the two are very closely linked. However, as one member said, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. That is what got me riled... because then evolution should not be taught either. However, if you are going to teach evolution, teach creation too. And teach them that it is possible for the two to be linked (even though I don't think that, but teach them the possibilies anyway!).

Believe in God or not, he did not snap his fingers and make Earth appear. Humans thought that in the dawn of civilization because they did not understand how science worked. The credited Apollo for the sun coming up every morning, Apollo and his Chariots of Fire.

So, is it not probable for God to snap his fingers and Earth to come into existence?

Today we have a better understanding of how science works, thus we know God did not create the Earth out of thin air.

Not True. God is more than Able to create out of Ex Nihlio (SP?).

Again, I'm not stating that is what I believe, or that it is not what I believe. I'm just offering some food for thought.

Some good food indeed. Thnk you.

God Bless

-Ryan

[Spooky]

gonubierat said:

Um, now wait a minute. She made the comment that religion did not belong to be taught in schools, and made the statement that:



This is being ignorant.

Please can you quote me where you think I said that 'religion did not belong to be taught in schools'.

Now you are accusing me of being ignorant and yet you completely misquote me.

I said ....

"Creationism has no place in a science lesson, likewise evolution has no replace in religious education."

Where did I say that religion should not be taught at school.

Normally, this misinterpretation wouldn't bother me but you accused me of being ignorant!!