An Arbitrary Universe?

[smog]

A God is much more complex than a set of laws of physics. If you can't believe the laws of physics could "appear" out of "nowhere", I don't see how you can possibly believe that an entity exponentially more complex could "appear" from "nowhere". I mean, do you even know what intelligence implies?

Intelligence is not magical. An intelligent entity does have pre-requirements to its existence, and not just a few. It can be roughly described as a set of laws applied on a data core, and these laws are subject to the same "arbitrary" criteras as any other laws. Any other distinction you could make is definitely imaginary.

Any reasoning that is applicable to the origin of the universe is applicable to the origin of God. There is no way out.

 

[llDayo]

The fact that we're able to define anything perhaps? How can we define anything without a sense of order?

What does being able to define something have to do with being ordered? I was looking for a basic description of what this so-called 'order' that is being observed, is!

Says the nature of cause-and-effect. Or, are we supposed to just let it ride in this one instance?

Who says the nature of cause-and-effect existed the same way back then as it does now? Quantum mechanics has already shown that the laws of the universe were different milliseconds after the Big Bang occurred.

Well, it's very important to me that it does makes sense.

Yet you believe in a God who claims to be loving but has no problem killing 42 children because they made fun of a bald man? Or how about a God that created everything, including evil, temptation, and talking serpents, yet WE'RE the sinners?! Or how about a creator who implies a young earth yet leaves evidence of an old one?

The order is still there whether we understand it or not.

Looking at something and saying it's ordered does NOT make it so. That's like looking at a tiger and calling it a pigeon just because you say so. Unless you can define this order in any way, it doesn't exist.

Yes, and what is it that modern science has discovered ... besides everything comes from nothing?

Do you really want me to create a list of probably MILLIONS of things that science has discovered? Maybe I should ask what has religion discovered? Also, didn't God create everything from nothing or did he have some everlasting clay lying around with which to create the stars and planets in the universe?

 

[curious_george]

I fail to see how the perception of order means there is God. Just because we have math, and things in the universe can be measured with Math means we must have a God? Just because there is gravity, there must be God? I think the laws of physics have shown there is no God as described in the Bible. After all, why would the Bible have so many inconsistencies with science such as those described in these forums about Creation, Adam&Eve, etc. If you believe God created the universe with a Big Bang, then I think you would have to throw out parts of the Bible or at least bend it to fit the scientific evidence. If the Bible was accurate in describing the origin of the universe, it would have made a mention of the BB, the much larger time scales, evolution, scientific principles, and the atomic theory. None of this is there, so that's why it's religion. There is simply no way to distinguish if the mythology of Christianity, Hinduism, or Greek Folklore are more scientific and accurate if none of them describe the BB.

Just imagine, if the Bible just stated E=mc^2, F=ma, quantum mechanics, or some other laws, then we could all find some scientific credibility in the book. Well, that is just my opinion anyway. I can agree that it is hard to describe how the physical laws came about, or what caused the BB. In due time, when more evidence is provided maybe we can describe some more probable causes.

 

[Iacchus32]

A God is much more complex than a set of laws of physics. If you can't believe the laws of physics could "appear" out of "nowhere", I don't see how you can possibly believe that an entity exponentially more complex could "appear" from "nowhere". I mean, do you even know what intelligence implies?

In other words you're suggesting the complexity has always existed in the form of God? This is what I believe anyway.

Intelligence is not magical. An intelligent entity does have pre-requirements to its existence, and not just a few. It can be roughly described as a set of laws applied on a data core, and these laws are subject to the same "arbitrary" criteras as any other laws. Any other distinction you could make is definitely imaginary.

Any reasoning that is applicable to the origin of the universe is applicable to the origin of God. There is no way out.

Of course we also have to ask if the law maker is not one and the same as the laws He creates or, if He stands outside of the laws He creates? Am not sure if this is ascertainable or not? Of course we have the laws and order which define our Universe, which at least suggest a sense of consistency about our being here. Perhaps because He wants us to understand who He is?

 

[michabo]

And yet I don't have to assert that God did anything, all I have to do is know that God exists. Yes, and trying to assert how God did it to those who don't know, is another story.

Good trick if you can manage it.

I think what you mean is that you have faith that god exists, but you don't know. And faith may help shut down questions, but it doesn't provide any real answers.

 

[seventytwo]

There's no time like the present, correct? Besides that, the center of the Universe is everywhere. So, what does that have to do with time and space? This is what we had before the Big Bang. In fact the same rules still apply, it's just that we don't know it. All we have is the moment which, is Eternal. How so? Is it possible to exist outside of the here and now? No.

This is ****. Stop going off onto tangents by trying to sound philosophical. Your sentences dont even logicall follow one another. You go from saying there is no time like the present, right into how the center of the universe is everywhere. Then you ask what this (whatever "this" is...) has to do with time and space. Do you see the illogical steps you are taking to express yourself?

Reading this gives me a headache. It makes no sense.

For the sake of God, please make your arguments and paragraphs coherent! And stop rambling and going off on tangents - its unhealthy.

 

[anunbeliever]

Some aspects of the Universe appear amazingly ordered and 'designed' to us because other aspects are chaotic and suffer from entropy. But we only know one universe. So how can you say that it is unusual? If we lived in a universe populated by mile tall pink rabbits we may find it incredible, but without another point of reference, why should it be?

No matter how fantastic a thing is. The fact that it 'is', and there's no examples of 'it isnt', means its not improbable at all.

 

[funyun]

Am merely asking how the Big Bang can come about of its own accord, without something, God in other words, to instigate it?

The Big Bang did not "come about" at all. Besides, I could just as easily ask how god came about with nothing to instigate him/her/it.

 

[Bushido216]

Of course this is highly probable contingent upon "the fact" that God doesn't exist, right? What if you were able to establish for a fact that God does exist, would that make a difference?

I'm a Catholic, so I'd hold that God does exist. However, as a scientist I recognize the fact that I cannot test for God, so I refuse to use invoke Him as any explaination until I have sufficient reason to do so.

Even if I could prove conclusively that God does exist I wouldn't rush to use Him unless He said otherwise.

 

[Iacchus32]

Good trick if you can manage it.

I think what you mean is that you have faith that god exists, but you don't know. And faith may help shut down questions, but it doesn't provide any real answers.

Yes, I can understand why you would like to believe this is so -- you see, it works both ways -- but, what I'm suggesting is that is possible to affirm God exists, without determining how the Universe came into existence. In which case it leaves you with a distinct advantage (if it were true) over those who would argue otherwise. Whereas you don't know for a fact that this is the standpoint from which I argue my case, in which case it's purely a matter of faith on your part. Which of course I'm sure you must find means of dispensing with, and rather quickly.

 

[JohnR7]

Have you tried reading a book? Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is a good read and may be just what you are looking for. He has no definite answers to your questions in the OP (nobody does)

Nobody does? How about Moses 3500 years ago, and the prophets that came along later to confirm what he said?

 

[Iacchus32]

I'm a Catholic, so I'd hold that God does exist. However, as a scientist I recognize the fact that I cannot test for God, so I refuse to use invoke Him as any explaination until I have sufficient reason to do so.

Even if I could prove conclusively that God does exist I wouldn't rush to use Him unless He said otherwise.

And yet if this was something you were certain of, I don't see how it couldn't have an effect on your views about the creation of the Universe.

 

[Bushido216]

It would mean that I would accept God as a possibility, but until we had narrowed it down to God I wouldn't just point to Him and say "Hedidit!"

 

[Iacchus32]

What does being able to define something have to do with being ordered? I was looking for a basic description of what this so-called 'order' that is being observed, is!

How can you assign order to nothing?

Who says the nature of cause-and-effect existed the same way back then as it does now? Quantum mechanics has already shown that the laws of the universe were different milliseconds after the Big Bang occurred.

This is all contingent upon "nothing" existing before the Big Bang of course.

Yet you believe in a God who claims to be loving but has no problem killing 42 children because they made fun of a bald man? Or how about a God that created everything, including evil, temptation, and talking serpents, yet WE'RE the sinners?! Or how about a creator who implies a young earth yet leaves evidence of an old one?

Do you believe people should be spared from breaking their legs when they walk over the edge of a cliff?

Looking at something and saying it's ordered does NOT make it so. That's like looking at a tiger and calling it a pigeon just because you say so. Unless you can define this order in any way, it doesn't exist.

Yes, but how could you even begin to differentiate between a tiger and a pigeon without a sense of order in the first place?

Do you really want me to create a list of probably MILLIONS of things that science has discovered?

You can try, but you still have to remember that Science has to answer to a higher authority, it's called the truth.

Maybe I should ask what has religion discovered? Also, didn't God create everything from nothing or did he have some everlasting clay lying around with which to create the stars and planets in the universe?

Yes, and maybe at some point Science should give God credit for having created it?

 

[Iacchus32]

It would mean that I would accept God as a possibility, but until we had narrowed it down to God I wouldn't just point to Him and say "Hedidit!"

Yes, but if we can accept that God does exist, and know that He doesn't live in the same dimension that we do (let's call it the spiritual kingdom), then where does that put Him at the time of the Big Bang? Possibly in this other dimension which, existed prior to it? A dimension which, for all intents and purposes appears to be nothing, because it's not material?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Nobody does? How about Moses 3500 years ago, and the prophets that came along later to confirm what he said?

Where is their data? How can their assertions be verified scientifically? Appeals to divine revelation carry no weight whatsoever in a scientific discussion.

 

[Iacchus32]

I fail to see how the perception of order means there is God. Just because we have math, and things in the universe can be measured with Math means we must have a God? Just because there is gravity, there must be God? I think the laws of physics have shown there is no God as described in the Bible.

I think the laws of physics suggests order, where perhaps there should be none.

After all, why would the Bible have so many inconsistencies with science such as those described in these forums about Creation, Adam&Eve, etc. If you believe God created the universe with a Big Bang, then I think you would have to throw out parts of the Bible or at least bend it to fit the scientific evidence.

Or perhaps if we were to understand that there are two ways to interpret it, in a natural or external sense, in other words literally, as well as an internal or, spiritual sense. The Bible is very symbolic in what it represents, and much of it was meant to be taken in that sense.

If the Bible was accurate in describing the origin of the universe, it would have made a mention of the BB, the much larger time scales, evolution, scientific principles, and the atomic theory.

Why? What purpose would it have served?

None of this is there, so that's why it's religion. There is simply no way to distinguish if the mythology of Christianity, Hinduism, or Greek Folklore are more scientific and accurate if none of them describe the BB.

When we speak of religion and mythology, we speak more of an inner-reality which, would have served its purpose more at that time.

Just imagine, if the Bible just stated E=mc^2, F=ma, quantum mechanics, or some other laws, then we could all find some scientific credibility in the book. Well, that is just my opinion anyway. I can agree that it is hard to describe how the physical laws came about, or what caused the BB. In due time, when more evidence is provided maybe we can describe some more probable causes.

People didn't need to know these things back in their day anyway did they? Isn't that how it usually works, things don't normally change unless there is something to facilitate that change?

 

[curious_george]

I think the laws of physics suggests order, where perhaps there should be none.

Certainly there is order, we are both suggesting that the universe can be explained by scientific laws then. If you suggest the order was created by a god or supernatural being, then there is no way to prove that either way. Science assumes there are no such higher powers and therefore does not try to disprove that possibility. Anyone can always make stories about what can not be tested or observed. Don't you agree? That is why I don't think Science is necessarily atheistic, you can believe in God or pink unicorns and still trust science.

Or perhaps if we were to understand that there are two ways to interpret it, in a natural or external sense, in other words literally, as well as an internal or, spiritual sense. The Bible is very symbolic in what it represents, and much of it was meant to be taken in that sense.

There are many YECs here that would disagree with you and those are folks we usually debate on this board. If the Bible is not meant to be read literally, then I think religion can coexist with the growing scientific knowledge. Again, most Creationists here will not accept that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Personally, I think the Bible has a lot of interesting stories, and it's certainly an influential book. I also feel the same way about Greek mythology and Buddhist scriptures too though.

People didn't need to know these things back in their day anyway did they? Isn't that how it usually works, things don't normally change unless there is something to facilitate that change?

My point was that if the Bible was supposed to be taken as scientific fact or evidence of a literal Creation, then it has fallen way short. If you suggest that it is not science, and simply spiritual then I think we agree.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Even so, wouldn't it be possible for these rules to exist in theory?

Yes

I honestly believe that Creation was a willful and deliberate act, ?

So do I, but that does not make it so. The two of us believing it only tells us the two of us believe it, we could still be wrong.

unless of course you're suggesting God is not capable of such things?

How on earth did you get that from what I said?
I believe God is capable of anything, that is why I have no problem believing he created via the big bang and used evolution as a tool in his creation of life. I always find the creationist standpoint that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are incompatible with God to be rather insulting and belittling to Him. I’m certainly not the one making the claim God is incapable of anything.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Of course this is highly probable contingent upon "the fact" that God doesn't exist, right?

Wrong.

I take it you overlooked the fact you were replying to Christian before typing that response?

Ghost