I thought a Unicorn 'farted' the Universe into existence. No?
Beliefs About What Caused the Universe
by Perry 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Perry
@Perry. Just out of interest how have you jumped to the god conclusion when considering the so called 'first cause'? Could the 'first cause' be materialistic?
MASH,
I think the best explanation is an intelligent cause as opposed to an unintelligent one for a number of reasons. The video below is just one argument along that line.
As you watch this video, keep in mind that the commonly accepted quantity of particles in the whole observable universe is only 10 to the 80th power. This number includes the total number of protons, neutrons and electrons. The odds of just one (and there are dozens) of the necessary balances of natural things in order for life to exist far exceeds this number by an inconceivable number of times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=2
-
Xanthippe
But Perry God can't be detected, observed, measured or proved. So belief in God is also going beyond empirical science and is as speculative as the multiverse theory. -
prologos
cofty: "First christians failed to explain why the bible is full of flaws, contradictions and deplorable ethics.
Then they lost the argument about evolution.
Now they retreat into cosmic origins and deism.
You pointed out a big change in the nature of the debate, and the subject at hand; whereas research on the bible is about an ancient, man-made book, and it's guessing at origins,-- but--the contemplation of the processes of life's developments, it's origin and then the existence of the cosmos, it's laws, energy, laws, that debate, research deals with another level of interest altogether, --nature's reality.
To pry understanding out of the big universe we live in, takes great work. why is it so hard to realise that it must have taken even greater work to create all this in the first place?
Deism, belief in a creator might not a last retreat but a first proposition.
Dislike Like -
Jehalapeno
This is for you Perry.
-
Perry
But Perry God can't be detected, observed, measured or proved.
xainhippe,
As previously discussed, the fact that the universe is expanding, is strong evidence (with much scientific support) that not only did the universe have a beginning, but that an Agent or first cause existing outside of the space time universe must have acted upon our universe.
Otherwise, we are left with a scenario far worse than magic - Something begins from nothing. At least with magic, you start with a magician. Materialism ignores an assumption WAY worse off than magic.
The quantum vacuum that pop philosophers try to prove that things do indeed pop up out of nothing, is in reality "a seething sea of activity that pervades the entire Universe". If is far from "no thing"
This state (of timelessness) that this First Cause must exist in can be predicted by mathematics, but I can't see how anything in this inferred state could be observed, tested, or measured .... unless something from that realm penetrated ours FIRST. Test tube style devices do not work beyond our space time universe.... for any object, let alone God. But the effects can certainly be measured, tested , etc.
If you seek Him, He will be found by you - 1 Chron. 28: 9
I can say that I have personally found this to be true. Unless God penetrates (or transcends) our space/time universe and manifests himself to us; finding, testing, & observing him is impossible, but not his effects.... those are "clearly seen"... so that "we are without excuse" when positing credit for our existence within our space time universe..... without excuse.
Heb. 11: 6 - he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
-
sparky1
"Everybody is wondering what and where
They all came from
Everybody is worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go
When the whole thing's done
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be
I think I'll just let the mystery be." - Iris Dement LET THE MYSTERY BE
-
Xanthippe
xainhippe,
As previously discussed, the fact that the universe is expanding, is strong evidence (with much scientific support) that not only did the universe have a beginning, but that an Agent or first cause existing outside of the space time universe must have acted upon our universe.No it isn't.
Otherwise, we are left with a scenario far worse than magic - Something begins from nothing.
Eh and God began where? Same tired old circular argument Perry.
I can say that I have personally found this to be true. Unless God penetrates (or transcends) our space/time universe and manifests himself to us; finding, testing, & observing him is impossible, but not his effects.... those are "clearly seen"... so that "we are without excuse" when positing credit for our existence within our space time universe..... without excuse.
Why do I need an excuse for wanting evidence before I hand my life over to some group that tells me they have a hot line and a list of rules I need to now follow?
So why doesn't God manifest himself to me?
Heb. 11: 6 - he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
If I look for God with an open mind wanting to know reality, why is that not enough? -
Anders Andersen
Perry, even for those who follow you in your logic that the universe must be caused by some Cause, or Agent even....there is no reason to go from there to Bible God. Or Wodan. Or Zeus. Or any of the other mythical Gods that are imagined to be this Agent that caused the universe in some way.
I could write a book claiming that I am that Agent. And then refuse to prove it like your God does. Would anyone believe me? Why? Why not?
Do you believe the claim that Joseph Smith received a Holy Text from an angel? Why, or why not?
Is there any difference between his claims and the Bronze Age tribal guys' claims? Why, or why not?
-
bohm
I have read the two articles in question by Vilenkin (and coauthors) and it might be relevant to state what the articles show and do not show because this is often being confused as it is on this thread.
What Borde, Guth and Vilenkin showed (and the proof is not in dispute) is that if you start out with a classical space-time, and you assume it has always been expanding, then at some point in the past at least parts of the space-time will undergo a singularity, i.e. our description will break down.
To put this in lay-mans terms: Suppose we ignore quantum mechanics and assume the universe has always been expanding, then at some point in the past our current laws of nature won't work anymore.
However I can't think of any cosmologist who would think that we should not take quantum mechanics into account when the universe is the size of an atom, and the BGV theorem does not do that because we don't know what that description should be. This is not me saying they are mistaken or ignoring something, they say so themselves in the paper!.
To use the BGV theorem to argue for God is no better than to say: "Oh gee, a simple model of the universe we know is wrong can also be proven to break down, therefore god must have made everything".
And it's even worse than that. In reality, some scientists believe the universe had a "beginning" (but this certainly include natural beginnings), and some that it did not. Even if we trust the BGV theorem despite being based on a known incomplete model of the universe that would still only leave us with those models of the universe where there is no beginning. it does not get us anywhere.