How did the universe come about?

[expos4ever]

The universe exists so something caused it to exist.

You seem to think this is a logical necessity. For me, I would say that my "gut" tells me that something caused the universe to exists. But my rational mind questions this - while all events in the world appear to have a cause, it does not logically follow that there cannot be an exception. By analogy: If I walk into a wall a million times, I will surely bounce off it a million times. But our best theories of physics assert that it is indeed possible, albeit exceedingly unlikely, that I will pass through it unscathed on my "millionth and first" attempt.

 

[expos4ever]

To say one is Atheist and believe there is no God, must answer, in the absence of a "CREATOR", how the universe came about. Nothing would be a creator, because nothing created it, good bye atheism!

This notion that to claim that "nobody created it" forces one in to the position of postulating a creator named "nobody" is simply incorrect reasoning. It is perfectly coherent to assert that the existence of the universe is a brute fact that will always remain a mystery.

 

[Sal Mercurio]

This notion that to claim that "nobody created it" forces one in to the position of postulating a creator named "nobody" is simply incorrect reasoning. It is perfectly coherent to assert that the existence of the universe is a brute fact that will always remain a mystery.

you make baseless arguments without standing for anything or on anything. Your arguments are baseless because they don't rely on your testimonies or experiences or truth for that matter, they rely on your rebellion against faith and God's righteousness. Science itself is not Atheist because the first premise of science is Agnostic: "I know that I don't know". An atheist somehow KNOWS there is no God and is foolish enough to challenge even science, and to go as far as to state the absence of belief, through blind faith, without providing acknowledgement of faith.

 

[expos4ever]

Your arguments are baseless because they don't rely on your testimonies or experiences or truth for that matter, they rely on your rebellion against faith and God's righteousness.

Obvious ad hominem:

Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

 

[expos4ever]

Science itself is not Atheist because the first premise of science is Agnostic: "I know that I don't know". An atheist somehow KNOWS there is no God and is foolish enough to challenge even science, and to go as far as to state the absence of belief, through blind faith, without providing acknowledgement of faith.

I agree that science is "agnostic" - so what? How does this advance your argument?

An atheist believes there is no God - you are attempting to distort the position of the atheist by painting him (or her) as arrogant by representing him or her as knowing there is no God.

Furthermore:

(a) you have no nowhere made any case that the atheist "challenges science"
(b) you have nowhere made the case that the atheist's position is based on "blind faith"

 

[ViaCrucis]

Again that is trying to fit the finite into the infinite.

The universe exists so something caused it to exist.
Something outside of time and space is unknowable, unless that somethng makes it self known.
Which brings us to religion and to the judeochristian set of beliefs.

I don't disagree with that. Science cannot address what is unobservable and unknowable through the scientific method. Philosophy can go steps further and ask questions and attempt methods of reason and rationality.

But God cannot be known from either science or philosophy, God can only be known through His own Self-Disclosure, i.e. Revelation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sal Mercurio]

I don't disagree with that. Science cannot address what is unobservable and unknowable through the scientific method. Philosophy can go steps further and ask questions and attempt methods of reason and rationality.

But God cannot be known from either science or philosophy, God can only be known through His own Self-Disclosure, i.e. Revelation.

-CryptoLutheran

Wrong! Apart from faith one can not either know God or please God. There are no excuses before God in His judgement. One can not say to Jesus "you didn't make yourself known to me"; Rather, it is Jesus who says "depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU! Everyone knows they are in sin, sorry, it is just so. EVERYONE knows what murder is, that's why murderers like Cain lied before God and than ran. Thieves know they're stealing and hide behind hoods and run so as not to be caught. Everyone knows what they're doing. Sympathizing with them doesn't make the right before God. We are the ones that must come to God and through repentance ask to receive His forgiveness freely and begin living with a renewed mind and heart. God has already done the heavy lifting.

 

[Sal Mercurio]

I agree that science is "agnostic" - so what? How does this advance your argument?

An atheist believes there is no God - you are attempting to distort the position of the atheist by painting him (or her) as arrogant by representing him or her as knowing there is no God.

Furthermore:

(a) you have no nowhere made any case that the atheist "challenges science"
(b) you have nowhere made the case that the atheist's position is based on "blind faith"

I'm not arguing, you are!

 

[expos4ever]

I'm not arguing, you are!

You are evading. Once more:

How does the generally "agnostic" nature of the scientific enterprise support your position?

To say, as you do, that an atheist KNOWS there is no God is to misrepresent the position of the typical atheist and cast them in an arrogant light.

You have no nowhere made any case that the atheist "challenges science".

You have nowhere made the case that the atheist's position is based on "blind faith".

Are you willing to actually address each of the above?

 

[Sal Mercurio]

You are evading. Once more:

How does the generally "agnostic" nature of the scientific enterprise support your position?

To say, as you do, that an atheist KNOWS there is no God is to misrepresent the position of the typical atheist and cast them in an arrogant light.

You have no nowhere made any case that the atheist "challenges science".

You have nowhere made the case that the atheist's position is based on "blind faith".

Are you willing to actually address each of the above?

I created this post remember? I am evading nothing. You're the one who has nothing to offer except to hijack paragraphs and write words that say nothing and mean nothing. You argue wishy and washy as if there's a gem in there somewhere. You remind me of a trouble shooter who constantly points to problems, explains problems, creates the problems he is trying to analyze yet never provides a single solitary solution.

You don't join this discussion to help people, you simply write to bring attention to yourself. This is your way of saying...look at me. I write to bring revelation to those who seek God's face, and I write so that those who read, don't see anything pointing to them, they see me pointing to Jesus and Him crucified. Because in the end, Jesus calls men to reach men and plant seeds. You write to create strife. You rebel. Write your own post and leave everyone else to their own ministry.

 

[expos4ever]

I created this post remember? I am evading nothing. You're the one who has nothing to offer except to hijack paragraphs and write words that say nothing and mean nothing. You argue wishy and washy as if there's a gem in there somewhere. You remind me of a trouble shooter who constantly points to problems, explains problems, creates the problems he is trying to analyze yet never provides a single solitary solution.

You don't join this discussion to help people, you simply write to bring attention to yourself. This is your way of saying...look at me. I write to bring revelation to those who seek God's face, and I write so that those who read, don't see anything pointing to them, they see me pointing to Jesus and Him crucified. Because in the end, Jesus calls men to reach men and plant seeds. You write to create strife. You rebel. Write your own post and leave everyone else to their own ministry.

Obvious ad hominem.

Again. Please stop evading and do not expect to get to make claims without being challenged - that is not how things work in this particular forum.

How does the generally "agnostic" nature of the scientific enterprise support your position?

To say, as you do, that an atheist KNOWS there is no God is to misrepresent the position of the typical atheist and cast them in an arrogant light.

You have no nowhere made any case that the atheist "challenges science".

You have nowhere made the case that the atheist's position is based on "blind faith".

Are you willing to actually address each of the above?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wrong! Apart from faith one can not either know God or please God. There are no excuses before God in His judgement. One can not say to Jesus "you didn't make yourself known to me"; Rather, it is Jesus who says "depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU! Everyone knows they are in sin, sorry, it is just so. EVERYONE knows what murder is, that's why murderers like Cain lied before God and than ran. Thieves know they're stealing and hide behind hoods and run so as not to be caught. Everyone knows what they're doing. Sympathizing with them doesn't make the right before God. We are the ones that must come to God and through repentance ask to receive His forgiveness freely and begin living with a renewed mind and heart. God has already done the heavy lifting.

Nothing you've said here is a response to anything I said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tolworth John]

But God cannot be known from either science or philosophy, God can only be known through His own Self-Disclosure, i.e. Revelation.

Actually God can be known through both science and philosophy.
Science only works because of a christian world view. Evolution is a pagan world view that explains nothing about the world.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually God can be known through both science and philosophy.
Science only works because of a christian world view.

I'm not sure how God can be known through science, how? Philosophy can reason something, for example an uncaused cause.

But Jesus is clear when He says that no one comes to the Father except through Him. And St. Paul is also clear when he says that though God's power and attributes are on display through His creation, that did not lead men to worship the true God but instead led them to idolatry.

Evolution is a pagan world view that explains nothing about the world.

Well, that's just not true. Evolution isn't pagan in any sense; and it does explain the observations we see in earth's biodiversity. You may not agree with that explanation, but it is an explanation of our observations.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[expos4ever]

I'm not sure how God can be known through science, how?

What about the whole fine-tuning argument - the fact that a number of fundamental constants of physics (e.g., the strength of gravity) appear to be "selected" for the existence of life, and if they differed by even a smidge of their actual value, life would be impossible?

I realize there are explanations for fine-tuning that do not require us to think in terms of a creator. But fine-tuning seems at least suggestive.

And looping back to Paul when he writes that God's powers are "on display in creation" - given this statement, and the fact that science does tell us a lot about the nature of reality, I would not at all be surprised if we could learn something about God through science.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What about the whole fine-tuning argument - the fact that a number of fundamental constants of physics (e.g., the strength of gravity) appear to be "selected" for the existence of life, and if they differed by even a smidge of their actual value, life would be impossible?

I realize there are explanations for fine-tuning that do not require us to think in terms of a creator. But fine-tuning seems at least suggestive.

And looping back to Paul when he writes that God's powers are "on display in creation" - given this statement, and the fact that science does tell us a lot about the nature of reality, I would not at all be surprised if we could learn something about God through science.

One could reasonably conclude a profound intelligence, "god" if you will, but at most that would get us to something like Deism. The "Prime Mover" of philosophy. While only the Christian, through faith, can confess God truly, as the One who meets us in Jesus Christ. Reason cannot get us there, only faith can.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

This is the one question that changes everything, the game changer. Here's what I mean by that. If the Atheist answers and says "I don't know", than that Atheist has just confessed to being an Agnostic. If the Atheist answers and says "The purple people eater created it", than the Atheist has just confessed to being a Creationist, with the creator being the purple people eater. If the Atheist answers and says "Nobody created it", again confessing a creator named Nobody.

Here's the thing, there was never nothing. There was always something. Nothing can't produce something because it can't produce anything...it's nothing, with nothing in it to make something, otherwise, it wouldn't be called nothing, it would be called something. Thus GOD - from everlasting to everlasting.

The big bang doesn't work because - "nothing" can not produce an accident, even by accident. The big bang can not exist without the Elemental "LAWS" : formation, compression, combustion...etc. Who made the laws?

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. What a breath of fresh air knowing that while we were laying in the dust of the earth GOD administered mouth to mouth and we became alive with a purpose - to express the righteousness of God to the whole creation.

Romans 8:1 19
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the children of God. Halleluiah!

nothing is a relative concept. although I think the word is falling out of practice among atheists the same "nothing" is still there, perhaps with just a different language. this "nothing" is that which science cannot observe and if it cannot observe something then under science it has no basis for existence and thus does not exist. God pre-exists, his name is I AM, and is a statement of eternal existence. his substance of a different substance known to our universe otherwise it just creates a never-ending question of who created who.

This doesn't prove God but it demands that God cannot be measured by science thus cannot be proven or disproven. at best science can measure God's signature left in our universe but that will always lead to a place where science is cannot see. This is the only way God can exist and if he can be measured it means he has limits and thus is not God. The very idea of God demands he exists in the unknown relative to our known in perpetuity. By design, God may reveal himself but only through a lens that we comprehend, the rest we are blinded to.

Science is about the pursuit of knowing (it is what the word means) but it is based on and limited to our universe. if something created the universe then it would make sense that the inside would not be able to comprehend the outside. anything that Science cannot reach is outside of its scope, it doesn't mean it's not there, it just means it cannot be measured. Science may be right about the things it has observed but it is ignorant of the source where the tail ends and it will always stay that way because that's the limits of science.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm not sure how God can be known through science, how?

science can only measure whatever signature of God that he left that can be observed. So if a proverbial smoking gun is found it may promote an existence of an outside influence albeit an unknown outside influence. Science has recently concluded that the universe is not locally real, as per the link "real" means that objects have definite properties independent of observation. that kind of sounds like a place with outside influence could be suggested (even feels a bit like a description of unloaded objects in a computer simulation) but the rub is science may be able to see the smoke it cannot comprehend the gun so at best it may point to something outside itself, but it would never call that something God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

science can only measure whatever signature of God that he left that can be observed. So if a proverbial smoking gun is found it may promote an existence of an outside influence albeit an unknown outside influence. Science has recently concluded that the universe is not locally real, as per the link "real" means that objects have definite properties independent of observation. that kind of sounds like a place with outside influence could be suggested (even feels a bit like a description of unloaded objects in a computer simulation) but the rub is science may be able to see the smoke it cannot comprehend the gun so at best it may point to something outside itself, but it would never call that something God.

I'm getting flashbacks to my philosophy classes during my short stint in college. George Berkeley - Wikipedia

The short of it, George Berkeley argued that a thing only has existence because it is observed, there must therefore always be an observer, and that observer must be God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm getting flashbacks to my philosophy classes during my short stint in college. George Berkeley - Wikipedia

The short of it, George Berkeley argued that a thing only has existence because it is observed, there must therefore always be an observer, and that observer must be God.

-CryptoLutheran

when science fails philosophy always takes over