The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[chad_tukes]

[COLOR=red]I don't know what you really mean by Creationist. We are not talking here of a 7 day creation.

still creationism. what you stand for is called Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism. creationism doesn't necessarily connotate the 7-day creation.

As for me, I believe that someone could have caused it.

your statement is based on a faulty understanding of BIOLOGY.

And again, I'm giving you these 3 solid arguments for the existence of a Sumpreme Being.


1. The beginning of the Universe from nothing points on a Creator that is beyond space and time.
2. The fine tuning of the Universe dictates an Intellegent Designer.
3. The presence of Life considering a lifeless Universe demands a Giver of Life.

In order to prove Atheism, you must disprove all these arguments and build your own argument that the Physical world (like matter and energy) is all there is. That there is nothing beyond the natural world.

we are not here to prove Atheism because we don't share the burden of proof. we simply don't believe on an Intelligent Designer. you've made the claim for an Intelligent Designer so prove to me that it exist. but since you insist, i'll waste a few minutes of my work time to counter your "solid" arguments.

1. this admission of a "CAUSE" for the origin of the universe is not based on empirical data and evidence.

2. therefore, presenting a case for an Intelligent Designer is a mission to find EVIDENCE in an attempt to support an already predetermined CONCLUSION made by the same people who claim it to be TRUE. this is not REAL SCIENCE; because real science gathers data, observes them, and condenses them into testable laws and theories.

3. by recognizing a designer, we then invite the thought that there could many designers. if this is the case, would you accept the notion that there could be several Gods?

[schmuck]

Ergo, the universe itself is outside space and time, it contains them.

Huh? could you please elaborate?
Let's define what the Universe is:Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.

How can you say that the Universe is beyond space and time when IT IS the space and time?
That is why we refer to it as space-time Universe.


I can settle with the universe always having existed.
Please provide a valid reason why you believe so.

So now you're discrediting Stephen Hawking and what most scientists agreed about?
You don't believe that the Universe began at the Big Bang?
If the Universe has always existed, then how old is the Universe now?
I thought you believe that the Universe is 14 billion years old?



Also, how trivial it is of god who's existence is determined by mere ontological argument instead of empirical evidence. Eh?

Then what empirical evidence can you provide?

I've already provide 3 solid arguments for the existence of a supernatural Being.

1. The beginning of the Universe from nothing points on a Creator that is beyond space and time.
2. The fine tuning of the Universe dictates an Intellegent Designer.
3. The presence of Life considering a lifeless Universe demands a Giver of Life.

These arguments, no matter how incomprehensible it may seem, is more logical than an uncaused Universe.

You have not disproved even one argument. How can you conclude that all things came up by chance alone?

I think your misunderstanding my idea. I repeat again, the universe expanded from a singularity(note of emphasis: this is still the universe, only a different form durr). Said singularity could have been always in existence prior to the big bang. Why is this more feasible for me? As I mentioned before, Occam's Razor. Look it up already.

Also, your argument from causality is old. And frankly, I've tackled the same argument one too many times already. And its tiring because its nothing new, just regurgitated rhetoric. You cite all this "logic" to invoke recursion. And then plug this recursion with an uncaused-cause(a.k.a god) throwing all the "logic" out the window. If you are will to say that god has always been there, I'll save a step and maintain that the universe(the singularity, remember?) has always been. My position has lesser unknown variables than yours. Ergo, more feasible.

[moot]

how significant is this question to ones life? is it really? i see a lot of people waste their time talking about this. how can you be truly sure?

[Hotmomma]

^^mao ni ilang gi ingon nga By Chance, nga magkaabot ta tanan sa imnanan. hahaha

hahahahhaha! asa pa ka mangahoy ana? kaysa naglalis nga way hinungdan? hahahaha!

[redhorse1L]

still creationism. what you stand for is called Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism. creationism doesn't necessarily connotate the 7-day creation.



your statement is based on a faulty understanding of BIOLOGY.



we are not here to prove Atheism because we don't share the burden of proof. we simply don't believe on an Intelligent Designer. you've made the claim for an Intelligent Designer so prove to me that it exist. but since you insist, i'll waste a few minutes of my work time to counter your "solid" arguments.

1. this admission of a "CAUSE" for the origin of the universe is not based on empirical data and evidence.

2. therefore, presenting a case for an Intelligent Designer is a mission to find EVIDENCE in an attempt to support an already predetermined CONCLUSION made by the same people who claim it to be TRUE. this is not REAL SCIENCE; because real science gathers data, observes them, and condenses them into testable laws and theories.

3. by recognizing a designer, we then invite the thought that there could many designers. if this is the case, would you accept the notion that there could be several Gods?

we are not here to prove Atheism because we don't share the burden of proof. we simply don't believe on an Intelligent Designer.
But you believe that the Universe came into being by chance. Then how can you prove it?

1. this admission of a "CAUSE" for the origin of the universe is not based on empirical data and evidence.
The existence of a supernatural being is beyond human comprehension, but is more reasonable than an idea that the Universe exists eternally or just pops out from nowhere.

2. therefore, presenting a case for an Intelligent Designer is a mission to find EVIDENCE in an attempt to support an already predetermined CONCLUSION made by the same people who claim it to be TRUE. this is not REAL SCIENCE; because real science gathers data, observes them, and condenses them into testable laws and theories.
What evidence are you expecting? Are you expecting a spectral analysis that shows a pattern of God's hands?

If we are talking of something beyond space and time, then it cannot be in a form of matter or energy that our scientific tools can detect. Cause if it is, then it will just be part of the space-time Universe.

What I'm presenting is the demand of an intelligent designer, cause if you believe that the fine tuning of the Universe is merely by chance, it would be virtually impossible for all quantities and constants just to come up in order to support life.

For example, if the gravitational force constant is larger than usual, the stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller, then the stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form.
Or if the expansion rate of the universe is larger, no galaxies would be formed. If smaller, the universe would collapse, even before a star is formed.


As what physicist Paul Davies stated: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.


3. by recognizing a designer, we then invite the thought that there could many designers. if this is the case, would you accept the notion that there could be several Gods?

How could that make a difference? If you're open to that possibility, then at least you believe that beyond space and time, lies a supernatural world.

But if you ask me on the notion of several designers, it only entails that those gods are not perfect or supreme. Since they need collaboration with other gods for the design.

[Rajzh_niX]

this argument is going nowhere....think of it this way, atheist are atheist...leave them alone with their own argument....they believe in empirical evidences....our beliefs are different from them....we just have to hold on to what we believe in and our own faith....

[Hotmomma]

Most people in the developed countries never believed in creation anymore. Though some still believe there is God but most dont. Nagpabilin nalang ang third world sa ilang mga faith. Have you noticed it pipol? And the the third world is Vatican's only hope..

[redhorse1L]

I think your misunderstanding my idea. I repeat again, the universe expanded from a singularity(note of emphasis: this is still the universe, only a different form durr). Said singularity could have been always in existence prior to the big bang. Why is this more feasible for me? As I mentioned before, Occam's Razor. Look it up already.

Also, your argument from causality is old. And frankly, I've tackled the same argument one too many times already. And its tiring because its nothing new, just regurgitated rhetoric. You cite all this "logic" to invoke recursion. And then plug this recursion with an uncaused-cause(a.k.a god) throwing all the "logic" out the window. If you are will to say that god has always been there, I'll save a step and maintain that the universe(the singularity, remember?) has always been. My position has lesser unknown variables than yours. Ergo, more feasible.

I repeat again, the universe expanded from a singularity(note of emphasis: this is still the universe, only a different form durr). Said singularity could have been always in existence prior to the big bang.
That singularity you're talking is already the Universe, no matter how small it was.
If you're telling me that this singularity could have existed in eternity, then you really believe that the Universe has always existed, which is a contrary to what scientists like Hawking or NASA believe.

I suggest you provide good grounds that the Universe "in a different form" has always existed.

As I mentioned before, Occam's Razor
Take note that Occam's Razor can also be extended to metaphysics.
Which is more simple? To think that the Universe has always existed or just pops out from nothing (which is contrary to the established findings), or to believe that something beyond space and time (beyond our observable Universe) could have caused this?

Please remember that we are not just talking here of the Universe's existence.
The fine-tuning of the Universe is massively complex that it is virtually impossible to happen by chance.
The existence of life from a lifeless chemicals cannot be explained by mere science.


Also, your argument from causality is old. And frankly, I've tackled the same argument one too many times already.
Well, your argument for an eternal Universe is obsolete, and discarded by scientists.


If you are will to say that god has always been there, I'll save a step and maintain that the universe(the singularity, remember?) has always been

The difference between the two is this:
- You believe in something within human comprehension, but an erroneous one.
- I believe in something beyond human comprehension, but is feasible and logically valid.

[Hotmomma]

so kamo undang na mo ug debate kay mawad-an na jud ug suki ang Vatican, more pah! kanang mga atheist diri ug evolutionist, leave them alone, will you guys?

[orcgod]

Universe is always there, nobody created it, no spirit created it. it is just there.
Please prove you're claim.

Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time. Not only space, but also time has a beginning - at the Big Bang.
The Beginning of Time

Even NASA has acknowledged, that our Universe is about 14 Billion years old. That means to say, the universe, had a beginning.
WMAP- Age of the Universe


can an EMPTY BLACK INFINITE SPACE be created by something or somebody? yes or no?
Please analyze your question for a moment.
How will "EMPTY" or "NOTHING" be created?
Unsa pa man imong buhaton nga wala man?
Pwede diay na? nga magbuhat ka ug wala?

Before the Universe is Nothing.
That EMPTY BLACK INFINITE SPACE your referring is not a larger container of a Universe.
It's just simply NOTHING.

It's like when you're inside a pitch dark room, you don't say "I see a black color", instead, you will say: "I see NOTHING"

Thats my point...you just emphasize my point.
How will "EMPTY" or "NOTHING" be created? yes, it cannot be created
Unsa pa man imong buhaton nga wala man? true
Pwede diay na? nga magbuhat ka ug wala? thats it, good student

wahaha, then you agree with me, "I see nothing", of course thats my point, its nothing, its pitch black, infinite universe, thats why theres no GOD, because nobody creates the universe. thats why it is by CHANCE that everything here under the PITCH BLACK INFINITE UNIVERSE existed. It existed from NOTHING, no GOD.

Thank you SCIENCE, naka sabot na sila. lets celebrate!!!!!