Reyginus: This is appaling. You are deliberately mis-firing. The op is does not understand what it means to be God.
Just like holding that, plaeton is uncaused, and later go on to ask, what caused plaeton?

The op asked a simple question that every human has asked at one time or another in their lives. Instead of directly answering the question or humbly saying that you do not know, you have continued to attack both the op and his question.

This is ridiculous.
Leave the op out of this. Try to answer the question in simple english , just like the op asked it in simple english.
In case you forgot the question, let me remind you.
Who created god?
Someone else said god is uncaused cause, not you.
But if uncaused cause is the answer, then kindly explain to us in plain english , what it means to be an uncaused cause.
You cannot say that whatever exists must have a first cause or creator or a beginning, then leap ahead to tell us that god exists, but was not created nor did he have a beginning. That is a clear contradiction within your sigle belief itself.

If you cannot articulate a coherent answer, then kindly sit down and let others attempt to do so.

Reyginus: Good.
You know, God is the alpha. He was never created. The moment you begin to think that He was brought to existence, you deviate from what He stands for.
Achi4u, how do you create something that has always being?

If god was never created, then god does not exist, for everything that exists must have had a beginning or a creator.?

@strik

Don't abuse the term 'theory', as in scientific theory. Or don't confuse yourself. It's rather simple

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world,
based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment." Scientists create scientific
theories from hypotheses that have been
corroborated through the scientific method, then
gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all
forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories
are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic
propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and
explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the
diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is
measured by its ability to make falsifiable
predictions with respect to those phenomena.
Theories are improved as more evidence is
gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves
over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation
to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to
accomplish goals such as inventing technology or
curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous,
and comprehensive form of scientific
knowledge. This is significantly different from
the word "theory" in common usage, which implies
that something is unproven or speculative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory



You may have problems with the concept of "effective theories". Quoting lisa randall, a physicist

"It’s funny. In some respects the concept of an
“effective theory” is one of the most intuitive ones
you can imagine. If something is too small to matter, you can operate quite well. You can turn on a radio without knowing all its inner workings. The “effective theory” concentrates on the particles and forces that have “effects” at the distances in question. Rather than delineating particles and interactions that describe more fundamental behavior, we formulate our theories, equations, and observations in terms of the things that are actually relevant to the scales we might detect.
You can predict where a ball will land when you throw it based on Newton’s Laws. You don’t need to use quantum mechanics. Even if you did, the difference in prediction would be far too minuscule to matter. And as a practical matter, the calculation would be far too complex. So you can use the effective theory, because it works sufficiently well.
The reason this concept is so important is that it
helps us better understand how science advances, at least once it has developed to the state of
contemporary physics. Newton’s Laws aren’t wrong – they are an approximation. Similarly, if and when we find new underlying structure at the LHC, it won’t invalidate the so-called Standard Model of particle physics that describes matter’s most basic elements and their interactions as we understand it today. It will improve on what we know.
Science proceeds with uncertainty at the edges, but it is advancing methodically overall. The wisdom and methods we acquired in the past survive. But theories evolve as we better understand a larger range of distances and energies."
http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/welcome-to-the-machine



If you doubt general relativity, or newton's theory which is less accurate, feel free to jump off a cliff to test either. Some of the details to these theories might be still sketchy, but science is always very glad to own up to that and work toward attaining more accuracy. Unlike religion which usually attributes anything it does not understand to supernatural causes, that is a cop out. I need not list the long line of things which gods were responsible for that have now been settled by science, yes? This list includes, for the catholic church, both evolution and big bang (initially championed by a priest), yes?

Evolution is simple common sense, and among the at least many thousands of fossils found, not one fossil has ever been found in a region that would invalidate evolution. Big bang has lots of evidence, facts, etc, to back it up. And it is disingenuous or just plain silly to use the 'we've not seen it in a lab' excuse. The main agents of evolution; natural selection and mutation, have been observed everywhere. The effects of evolution, the myriad species, shared ancestry, dna analysis etc are observed everywhere as well. The same for the big bang. You know how rivers formed from looking at the evidence, yes? Would you like to sit in a lab for a few thousand, or million years to watch one form? Read up on both theories before portraying them as flawed.

As for a design, no. Do you understand just how big this universe is, and do you understand how hostile it is to life as we know it? Do you know just how inefficient our design is (ie assuming we agreed there were a positive purpose, and for just about any such purpose we could conceive), and do you know just how long and haphazard the journey to homo sapiens was? Read up on the antrophic principle.



As for op, as has already been mentioned, there are 'uncaused causes' to be considered, and the nature of time, and many other things. For instance, is there really such a thing as infinity in the physical universe? Your god would be classified as an uncaused cause, it would seemingly have been in existence for eternity (if eternity exists ie), or came into being without anything having created it per se. But science most definitely does not require conscious 'gods' as uncaused causes, or for anything else for that matter. 'Gods' greatly complicates things. You may have accidentally realized, thus your cognitive dissonance, if 'god' can be self-existant, why not something much simpler, like a basic form energy?


Edits

wiegraf: @strik

Don't abuse the term 'theory', as in scientific theory. Or don't confuse yourself. It's rather simple

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated
explanation of some aspect of the natural world,
based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment." Scientists create scientific
theories from hypotheses that have been
corroborated through the scientific method, then
gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all
forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories
are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic
propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and
explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the
diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is
measured by its ability to make falsifiable
predictions with respect to those phenomena.
Theories are improved as more evidence is
gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves
over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation
to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to
accomplish goals such as inventing technology or
curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous,
and comprehensive form of scientific
knowledge. This is significantly different from
the word "theory" in common usage, which implies
that something is unproven or speculative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory



You may have problems with the concept of "effective theories". Quoting lisa randall, a physicist

"It’s funny. In some respects the concept of an
“effective theory” is one of the most intuitive ones
you can imagine. If something is too small to matter, you can operate quite well. You can turn on a radio without knowing all its inner workings. The “effective theory” concentrates on the particles and forces that have “effects” at the distances in question. Rather than delineating particles and interactions that describe more fundamental behavior, we formulate our theories, equations, and observations in terms of the things that are actually relevant to the scales we might detect.
You can predict where a ball will land when you throw it based on Newton’s Laws. You don’t need to use quantum mechanics. Even if you did, the difference in prediction would be far too minuscule to matter. And as a practical matter, the calculation would be far too complex. So you can use the effective theory, because it works sufficiently well.
The reason this concept is so important is that it
helps us better understand how science advances, at least once it has developed to the state of
contemporary physics. Newton’s Laws aren’t wrong – they are an approximation. Similarly, if and when we find new underlying structure at the LHC, it won’t invalidate the so-called Standard Model of particle physics that describes matter’s most basic elements and their interactions as we understand it today. It will improve on what we know.
Science proceeds with uncertainty at the edges, but it is advancing methodically overall. The wisdom and methods we acquired in the past survive. But theories evolve as we better understand a larger range of distances and energies."
http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/welcome-to-the-machine



If you doubt general relativity, or newton's theory which is less accurate, feel free to jump off a cliff to test either. Some of the details to these theories might be still sketchy, but science is always very glad to own up to that and work toward attaining more accuracy. Unlike religion which usually attributes anything it does not understand to supernatural causes, that is a cop out. I need not list the long line of things which gods were responsible for that have now been settled by science, yes? This list includes, for the catholic church, both evolution and big bang (initially championed by a priest), yes?

Evolution is simple common sense, and among the at least many thousands of fossils found, not one fossil has ever been found in a region that would invalidate evolution. Big bang has lots of evidence, facts, etc, to back it up. And it is disingenuous or just plain silly to use the 'we've not seen it in a lab' excuse. The main agents of evolution; natural selection and mutation, have been observed everywhere. The effects of evolution, the myriad species, shared ancestry, dna analysis etc are observed everywhere as well. The same for the big bang. You know how rivers formed from looking at the evidence, yes? Would you like to sit in a lab for a few thousand, or million years to watch one form? Read up on both theories before portraying them as fundamentally flawed.

As for a design, no. Do you understand just how big this universe is, and do you understand how hostile it is to life as we know it? Do you know just how inefficient our design is, assuming there were a purpose ie, and do you know just how long and haphazard the journey to homo sapiens was? Read up on the antrophic principle.



As for op, as has already been mentioned, there are 'uncaused causes' to be considered, and the nature of time, and many other things. Is there really such a thing as infinity? Your god would be classified as an uncaused cause, it would seemingly have been in existence for eternity (if that exists ie), without anything having created it per se. But science most definitely does not require conscious 'gods' as uncaused causes, or for anything else for that matter. 'Gods' greatly complicates things.

Good evening, I can see that you have done your home work and it's really quite insightful. However bfore I comment on anything, I would just like to say this to your last comment:

God does not complicate things Humans do!

Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause. The issue of whether the first cause is not in existence because nothing caused it really shouldn't arrise cause no one, I repeat no one knows how the first cause did it. But the simple fact is that, the first cause or force if you like, did it. This first cause is who we call God.

I believe that eternity does exist. A good example is with numbers. You can count from negative infinty to positive infinity. There is no end to a number. Once you think you have gotten to the end, add one or minus one and you would get another. The issue of eternity is factual and glaring for all to see.

@strykt

Yeah, I edited my first draft and it addresses a few of the issues you raise, but you had already replied before my edits*. Read my post again, if there's anything you want to add/remove from your response, do so then I'll address your post. Else, I'll just proceed as is.

Note though, the path you're going down you'll have to define 'god'. In particular, is it conscious?

I've also purposely left abiogenesis out of the discussion.



*Sorry about that, most people don't reply immediately so I usually edit my initial posts (good for you, your quick response indicates you are using your own reasoning rather than just copy/paste from the web or some pastor etc, not that that is necessarily a bad thing though). Of course I indicate I've edited them after I do.

wiegraf: @strykt

Yeah, I edited my first draft and it addresses a few of the issues you raise, but you had already replied before my edits*. Read my post again, if there's anything you want to add/remove from your response, do so then I'll address your post. Else, I'll just proceed as is.

Note though, the path you're going down you'll have to define 'god'. In particular, is it conscious?

I've also purposely left abiogenesis out of the discussion.



*Sorry about that, most people don't reply immediately so I usually edit my initial posts (good for you, your quick response indicates you are using your own reasoning rather than just copy/paste from the web or some pastor etc, not that that is necessarily a bad thing though). Of course I indicate I've edited them after I do.

Hi, Now you are getting me kinda confused. What's really your argument? Are you saying there is no God or are you trying to let me know about science? If the latter is the intent, I already know what scientific knowledge is about but if the former is what you are driving at, then make it a bit clearer.

wiegraf: @strykt

Yeah, I edited my first draft and it addresses a few of the issues you raise, but you had already replied before my edits*. Read my post again, if there's anything you want to add/remove from your response, do so then I'll address your post. Else, I'll just proceed as is.

Note though, the path you're going down you'll have to define 'god'. In particular, is it conscious?

I've also purposely left abiogenesis out of the discussion.



*Sorry about that, most people don't reply immediately so I usually edit my initial posts (good for you, your quick response indicates you are using your own reasoning rather than just copy/paste from the web or some pastor etc, not that that is necessarily a bad thing though). Of course I indicate I've edited them after I do.

Really your draft or the edited version answered beither of the questions I asked.

striktlymi:

Hi, Now you are getting me kinda confused. What's really your argument? Are you saying there is no God or are you trying to let me know about science? If the latter is the intent, I already know what scientific knowledge is about but if the former is what you are driving at, then make it a bit clearer.

Both more or else. We'll get round to that. First, define 'god', if you will

wiegraf:

Both more or else. We'll get round to that. First, define 'god', if you will

My defiinition of God might not be palatable to you but here it is:

God is a supernatural being who existed of himself and is infinite in all perfection.

God is the first cause who caused all other things to be without he himself being caused.

God is the unmoved mover.

The interesting thing is, the earth is said to be 4.7Billion years old but our knowledge of earth is based on books/stories written about 1400 years ago, not even 1 million years ago. Just wondering how accurate those accounts can be...

OsunOriginal: The interesting thing is, the earth is said to be 4.7Billion years old but our knowledge of earth is based on books/stories written about 1400 years ago, not even 1 million years ago. Just wondering how accurate those accounts can be...

The issue of how old the earth is can be soughted out by scientific methods though the best we can get is an estimate. Carbon dating has been known to be quite good in approximating the dates of very old fosils. This was the method applied when the original scripts of the bible were verified.

plaetton:

The op asked a simple question that every human has asked at one time or another in their lives. Instead of directly answering the question or humbly saying that you do not know, you have continued to attack both the op and his question.

This is ridiculous.
Leave the op out of this. Try to answer the question in simple english , just like the op asked it in simple english.
In case you forgot the question, let me remind you.
Who created god?
Someone else said god is uncaused cause, not you.
But if uncaused cause is the answer, then kindly explain to us in plain english , what it means to be an uncaused cause.
You cannot say that whatever exists must have a first cause or creator or a beginning, then leap ahead to tell us that god exists, but was not created nor did he have a beginning. That is a clear contradiction within your sigle belief itself.

If you cannot articulate a coherent answer, then kindly sit down and let others attempt to do so.

Lol. I don't answer questions like that dude.
Before asking any question, you must be sure that it does not contradict itself.
Where did I say everything has a cause?

Reyginus: Lol. I don't answer questions like that dude.
Before asking any question, you must sure that it does not contradict itself.
Where did I say everything has a cause?

How does the question contradict itself?

plaetton:

If god was never created, then god does not exist, for everything that exists must have had a beginning or a creator.?

lol. Na wa o. And where is the begining where the begining must have a begining?
It doesn't matter how you twist it, or make God a part of the created. One thing is certain, it all began from somewhere/something. Whatever you identify it as, good for you.

Logicboy03:

How does the question contradict itself?

AbdulSleek! Thank you. You see,
the OP is a theist. Being so, he must have accepted all the doctrines adhered by your theistic faith. We theists believe and know God to be infinite and eternal. He is a theist. By default, he believe in this too. Now, asking how God whom you believe is uncaused was caused is ridiculous.

Reyginus: AbdulSleek! Thank you. You see,
the OP is a theist. Being so, he must have accepted all the doctrines adhered by your theistic faith. We theists believe and know God to be infinite and eternal. He is a theist. By default, he believe in this too. Now, asking how God whom you believe is uncaused was caused is ridiculous.

Okay.

Reyginus: AbdulSleek! Thank you. You see,
the OP is a theist. Being so, he must have accepted all the doctrines adhered by your theistic faith. We theists believe and know God to be infinite and eternal. He is a theist. By default, he believe in this too. Now, asking how God whom you believe is uncaused was caused is ridiculous.

Ok. I kind of get your logic.
For example, if you believe in a talking snake by faith, then asking to see the snake's vocal cords would be ridiculous.
Now I get you.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so for me to wonder how and where the meatballs come from would be a ridiculous question.
lol.

achi4u: I believe in God the almighty who created heaven and earth(though nobody is there when the creation is ongoing) but our spirit made us to believe.
Am not trying to question the supermacy of the suprem God but:

1 How did God come to be,infact who created this GOD?

2 We have so many planet today...which one did GOD reside?

3 Anyone who have seen GOD?

*Am only searching for my true GOD*

Look into the mirror,what ever you see is God.

To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.

striktlymi:

My defiinition of God might not be palatable to you but here it is:

God is a supernatural being who existed of himself and is infinite in all perfection.

God is the first cause who caused all other things to be without he himself being caused.

God is the unmoved mover.

Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?

striktlymi:

God does not complicate things Humans do!

Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.

striktlymi:
Now to your very insightful research: I have read a number of publications about the theory of Darwin and the big b.ang and really, to this very day not every scientist is convinced that, the theories are what actually happened. And when we think about it: the questions remain: what caused the big b.ang if there was one? The elements that acted to form the b.ang where did they come from? I am very sure you do not have answers to these. Even in the theory of evolution the same applies, there is no thought about what happened before evolution took place. Both postulations would remain at best: Theories!!! No one is in doubt about the order in science. This serves as the very basis of the principle that whatever has been set in motion was made so by some other force. This law has been tested and proving to be true for one, true for 2 upto the nth term and has been validated as true for all.

This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

striktlymi:
Science is not in disagreement with the of a first cause. If you allow me borrow your words: this is simple logic. If the world starts going back back in time, we would get to a point where it all began for which we can't move any further and at that point we would arrive at the first cause. The issue of whether the first cause is not in existence because nothing caused it really shouldn't arrise cause no one, I repeat no one knows how the first cause did it. But the simple fact is that, the first cause or force if you like, did it. This first cause is who we call God.

The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.

striktlymi:
I believe that eternity does exist. A good example is with numbers. You can count from negative infinty to positive infinity. There is no end to a number. Once you think you have gotten to the end, add one or minus one and you would get another. The issue of eternity is factual and glaring for all to see.

I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

human brain created god

Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.


[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

wiegraf: To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.

This was not my earlier question. The questions I asked were based on what happened before evolution and the big bb.ang theory.

Since you believe in the scientific method then what inspired your beliefs that there is no God? I know science did not tell you this. The belief of there being no God is mainly inspired by this line of thought: "If I can't see it, feel it or experience it then it does not exist". This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge or using the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method as I do, then prove empirically that there is no God.

Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?

The fact that one is yet to understand something does not prove that it exist. You ask for proofs that the supernatural exists? Do you have proofs that it does not exist? It's quite easy to go on the offensive and ask someone to "prove things" but in fact the proof against such things is not in existence. Anyways, there has been cases of things happening which are yet to be explained by science. We have seen people get cured of their ailments after they have been written off by science. I am not talking about some fake miracles people are performing these days. If this is not a poiinter to the existence of some higher "force" then I wonder what is.

The existence of a first cause was proved empirically using scientific methods. The fact that we do not know how the first cause came about does not suggest the use of magic. Anyways I pretty much believe that you do not believe there is anything like magic.

Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.

I hope you know what it means to "beg the question"? None of my definitions about God has the word "God" as part of the definition. You still seek empirical evidence after the proof of a first cause? Anyways since this logic is weak to you, don't you thnk that not believing something you are yet to prove as none existent is also very weak?

This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

The fact that a majority of people choose to believe in something does not in anyway suggest that it is correct. Like I have pointed out, I do believe in the scientifiic method and that's how I know that your belief that there is no God is not in line with the scientific method. Science does not claim what it has not proven. Your belief that God does not exist is far from being scientific. The belief that there is no God is also your personal conclusion cause this is yet to be proved by science.

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

The phrase "God did it" ws curled from somewhere. I believe it was used in context but now you prefer to use it in isolation. Anyways, if I choose to believe that God actually did it, I believe that is my choice. You believe God has no hand in it, iff there is a God for you. This line of thought of there being no God is also not scientific.


To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For abiogenesis the same question would be asked: what happened before the fosils?

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Note that scientific theories are hypothesis that have been tested over time and have been found to be true for most cases without knowing if there is anything to the contrary. Scientific theories can be disporoved with better understanding and facts. Scientific theories are not the same as scientic laws because they are not regarded as true for all cases.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

Already commented on this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html



The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I suppose you actually feel comfortable with the term "energy", well that so callled "simple energy" that has the power to come from nothing is who I call God. Atleast since you have proof of an uncaused cause I wonder what proof you still seek. It is not all the time that something comes from nothing, what you would simply say is that science has no clue where some of those things come from.


Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.

Your meaning please.


I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

Sorry I had to insert my comments in there.

striktlymi: Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.


[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

striktlymi: Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.


[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

Heh, you still don't get it, I said in the 'physical' world (or rather, I amended it to say that). There are definitely infinities in abstractions. You're under no obligation to reply btw, kudos.

No one creates the creator.

So you are up already! I guess you didn't see my response to your comment. Let me make it clearer for you to see.

wiegraf:

Heh, you still don't get it, I said in the 'physical' world (or rather, I amended it to say that). There are definitely infinities in abstractions. You're under no obligation to reply btw, kudos.

wiegraf: To answer your earlier question more clearly, I am saying there is very little doubt there is no god (by most definitions, particularly the personal ones), and there's no need to invoke one, at all. It complicates things. If you do not think so then you probably do not understand how science works, or you're not willing to apply the scientific method here.



Supernatural is simply science that has not been understood. Or are you implying something that could never be comprehended? If you are, you've now crossed the boundary into nonsense, and that cannot be classified as science. We can now assume anything goes, like the FSM. We'll also have to look at what "perfection" means to you. I assume 'god' is conscious, yes? How did it become conscious? By magic? And do you have any proof to suggest the supernatural exists?





Begging the question. God, where? As far as we know, the concept was created by humans. The logic to support his case is weak and there's absolutely no empirical evidence to back the claim up. As we created the concept, we also create the problems then assign them to 'god'.



This has already been addressed. Do not confuse theories for scientific theories. Only thing you could criticize is their accuracy, or the details, which is fine. But that has also been addressed via "Effective Theories". Evolution is accepted by well over 90% of the scientific community by virtually all accounts, so your personal conclusions or those of the articles you read do not concur with mainstream science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

Regardless of scientific support even, I've already pointed out how "I don't know"!="God did it". "I don't know" simply means; "I don't know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

To be specific though, conditions prior to the the big bang != big bang. Same with evolution, it is not abiogenesis.

For pre-big bang conditions, yes, science has no answer presently, and may never for various reasons. But there are also various hypothesis. And they remain just that, hypothesis, not scientific theories. They are not accepted as fact, at all. Your 'god' theory would also qualify as a hypothesis, not a fact, and the logical evidence to support it is weak, empirical evidence non existent. From all indications it's simply god of the gaps, again.

Abiogenesis has blurrier details than evolution. How it came about is still not entirely clear. Testing its various forms or details, considering conditions on early earth and time, is usually complex. But it is by far and away a better option than "god did it", which begs a rather larger question. Random article on abiogenesis and odds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html



The nature of first cause is the issue here, which is why I asked for your definition of god. You've replied with the claim of supernatural and perfect, I've responded above I believe. I also addressed this in the edit by mentioning that if something does come from nothing, why would you assume a complex god would form rather than some simple form of energy? Which do you think would logically be more likely to form from nothing? And note, considering uncertainty, something does come from nothing all the time in this universe. And it is; simple energy. An example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Even now, as you read this, the particles that make up your body are constantly tuning themselves, phasing in and out of reality.




I addressed this in my edit as well. What I meant to say is it's possible infinity does not exist in the physical world.

Good morning, I trust you slept well. I have tried to respond to your querries and thoughts below. Sorry, I couldn't do that yesterday night cause I slept off.

Since you believe in the scientific method then what inspired your beliefs that there is no God? I know science did not tell you this. The belief of there being no God is mainly inspired by this line of thought: "If I can't see it, feel it or experience it then it does not exist". This has nothing to do with empirical knowledge or using the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method as I do, then prove empirically that there is no God.

The fact that one is yet to understand something does not prove that it does not exist. You ask for proofs that the supernatural exists? Do you have proofs that it does not exist? It's quite easy to go on the offensive and ask someone to "prove things" but in fact the proof against such things is not in existence. Anyways, there has been cases of things happening which are yet to be explained by science. We have seen people get cured of their ailments after they have been written off by science. I am not talking about some fake miracles people are performing these days. If this is not a pointer to the existence of some higher "force" then I wonder what is.

The existence of a first cause was proved empirically using scientific methods. The fact that we do not know how the first cause came about does not suggest the use of magic. Anyways I pretty much believe that you do not believe there is anything like magic.

I hope you know what it means to "beg the question"? None of my definitions about God has the word "God" as part of the definition. You still seek empirical evidence after the proof of a first cause? Anyways since this logic is weak to you, don't you thnk that not believing something you are yet to prove as none existent is also very weak?

The fact that a majority of scientists choose to believe in something does not in anyway suggest that it is correct. Like I have pointed out, I do believe in the scientific method and that's how I know that your belief that there is no God is not in line with the scientific method. Science does not claim what it has not proven. Your belief that God does not exist is far from being scientific. The belief that there is no God is also your personal conclusion cause this is yet to be proved by science.

The phrase "God did it" ws curled from somewhere. I believe it was used in context but now you prefer to use it in isolation. Anyways, if I choose to believe that God actually did it, I believe that is my choice. You believe God has no hand in it, iff there is a God for you. This line of thought of there being no God is also not scientific.

For abiogenesis the same question would be asked: what happened before the fossils?


Note that scientific theories are hypothesis that have been tested over time and have been found to be true for most cases without knowing if there is anything to the contrary. Scientific theories can be disporoved with better understanding and facts. Scientific theories are not the same as scientic laws because they are not regarded as true for all cases.

I suppose you actually feel comfortable with the term "energy", well that so callled "simple energy" that has the power to come from nothing is who I call God. Atleast since you have proof of an uncaused cause I wonder what proof you still seek. It is not all the time that something comes from nothing, what you would simply say is that science has no clue where some of those things come from.

Infinity is a synonim for eternity. The example of numbers is evidence that infinty does exist. That is, somethings have no end.

Thank you!

chrisj2000: human brain created god

Which god are you talking about? If it's my God then what's your proof that he only exists in my head?

plaetton:

Ok. I kind of get your logic.
For example, if you believe in a talking snake by faith, then asking to see the snake's vocal cords would be ridiculous.
Now I get you.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so for me to wonder how and where the meatballs come from would be a ridiculous question.
lol.

SMH. Plaetton you are not alright.:-)

@strict

Ah, I see, you embedded the answer in there. Too long, and I don't have the time. But for most of that post you clearly don't understand how the burden of proof works.

What you are doing here is a very basic mistake. I'm not the one making a claim here, you are. You claim there is a god, not me, and you expect me to just accept that on what, faith? Again, where's your evidence? In that case I say to you pikkiwokki created the universe using his cosmic mud, not abrahamic god. Accept it on faith. No? Prove me wrong.

How do you expect one to disprove something you've not even proven anyhow? You've not even presented testable or falsifiable evidence, or made any predictions. Evolution, look at fossils and microevolution. Big bang, expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, etc. No such thing for god, at all, except weak logic. Usually being made on the spot no less. If there's nothing there, then there's nothing to disprove.

Note, not believing in something that has not been proven is the very way to go. Or do you believe in santa? Do you believe in thor and zeus, or any of the myriad other gods you do not subscribe to?

And if you've not proven a god exists, yet you invoke it as an explanation to some phenomenon, then you are clearly begging the question

Anyways, for now, this for burden of proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

And this for arguing from ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

@Wiegraf

Hi,
Are you sure you have made no claims of your own? I thought you were an atheist? I guess I thought wrong. But if you are then you should note that a fundamental belief of atheism is that there is no God. This is a claim that is not backed up by science.

Note that the proof of God's existence through the argument of a "First cause" is there for all to see. The big b.ang theory, the theory of evolution etc are really not attempts at proving the existence or lack of existence of God. These theories basically are attempts to tell us how the world began and how humans came to be.

Since your last comment suggest that you are not an atheist, I am quite curious to know were you pitch your tent. I know it's not religion!

Thank you!

Evolution is as much a matter of faith as creation, if not more so.

From what humans know for now, First Cause would have to be energy, matter or both - because there's a known and provable relationship between matter and energy.

For evolutionists, First Cause is something - could be "simple" energy, that somehow spawns, against impossible mathematical odds, an intelligent universe.

For creationists, First Cause is someone - a super being with intelligence and energy, who deliberately brings about a universe that literally screams intelligent design.

Which you choice is a matter of faith. Neither is provable in the true sense of the word - by an experiment, for now. Both claim "proof" from the observable universe.

I'm for the thinking that intelligent design should come from intelligence, and not from "chance" with it's practically impossible probability of occurrence.

So OP, whichever side you tilt towards, First Cause is First Cause - it can't have a beginning. And i fear you have to take it by faith, for now.

TroGunn: Evolution is as much a matter of faith as creation, if not more so.

From what humans know for now, First Cause would have to be energy, matter or both - because there's a known and provable relationship between matter and energy.

For evolutionists, First Cause is something - could be "simple" energy, that somehow spawns, against impossible mathematical odds, an intelligent universe.

For creationists, First Cause is someone - a super being with intelligence and energy, who deliberately brings about a universe that literally screams intelligent design.

Which you choice is a matter of faith. Neither is provable in the true sense of the word - by an experiment, for now. Both claim "proof" from the observable universe.

I'm for the thinking that intelligent design should come from intelligence, and not from "chance" with it's practically impossible probability of occurrence.

So OP, whichever side you tilt towards, First Cause is First Cause - it can't have a beginning. And i fear you have to take it by faith, for now.

I can relate with your thoughts on the matter.