justcool:

Dear Deepsight! How body?
I see threads after threads where you have exchanges with the alleged atheists who claim that there is no creator. I read these threads with a smiles and bewilderment: Smiling at the funny arguments that there is no creator, yet bewildered in the fact that you continue to engage in such arguments when it’s very clear that science cannot disprove the existence of a creator; arguing with somebody who claims that science or freethinking leads to atheism is a waste of time. I stay away from such treads because I don’t want to be drawn into calling somebody insane. Anybody who tries to use science to prove that the universe has no creator or that there is no God is simply not a scientist for science is confined to the physical world, which is only a work of the creator and in which the creator does not reside. Any body who is an atheist simply chose to be; he cannot claim that his unbelief is the inevitable product of logical thinking or science.

This is a fallacious argument and it begs the question, you are only arguing from ignorance since you clearly do not fully know and also do not have any evidence to show that there is a creator and that creator lives outside the universe.

So, as we all know we exist in the universe, can you tell me where god exist? Heaven? Paradise? The spiritual realm? OK.

The specific answer actually doesn't matter. Let's call the place/realm in which god exists "A".

Who made "A"?

God couldn't have made. If he did, where did he exist before he made it? That just pushes the question further back and we end up with the same problem, asking the same question.

If "A" is eternal, then it is something that precedes god or is equal to him when it comes to the divine trait of being eternal. And that contradicts the nature of god.

And if you say god is not in a place, then god isn't anywhere, which means he doesn't exist. Even the bible begins with the statement that in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.

justcool:

Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created.

This is not what science says, it says that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system, i don't know if the universe is an open or closed system.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed! This is obviously very true as science have observed. But keep in mind that we are dealing with the physical laws, since science only deals with the physical. And the Big bang is a physical event! Thus putting 1 and 2 together you arrive at the Truth that whatever created the physical world or matter that made up the physical world, is not physical since physically energy cannot be created and destroyed. Nor is it the big bang which is only a physical thing and hence, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot create energy. Is this not a proof that another dimension exist? A dimension which is non-physical and which science cannot explain? Thus we have to look for the origin of matter in a dimension not physical because in the physical dimension matter cannot be created or destroyed. Big bang is only a state in the existence of matter, which is nothing but condensed energy, and which perpetually goes through different stages or states- the four states of matter. I can elaborate on this if anybody wants me to.

How did you come to the conclusion that what ever created the universe is not physical? How do you know that its only one non physical entity that created the universe? Why can't it be 2 or more entities?

Thus everybody instinctively knows that everything that exists in nature has a beginning and a creator. Even the whole physical world has a beginning and a creator. It is left for the observer (the free thinker) to decide on what the beginning or the creator is. One is not confined to believe that this creator is the Christian God or the Muslim Allah. But to argue that the universe has no creator is totally counterintuitive, unnatural for a human being, unscientific, and to my perception, unintelligent. 

The big bang states that at a certain time the universe started to expand from a singularity which is something and not nothing. Also, a rigorous definition of "begins to exist" that completely encompasses everything included in the phrase "Everything that begins to exist" would be helpful. Changing from one form or state to another is not the same as "beginning to exist". A reasonable question is ,Can you give me an example of something that begins to exist? It turns out that pretty much any example of things the theist claims begins to exist are assembled out of pre-existing materials e.g the house I live in, the automobile I drive, the children I spawned, etc

@Justcool How u dey? Hope u good. Nice post

I think what u state here are possibilities. Plausible ones. They are IMO far from answers. You do not demonstrate the existence of a creator, but show that if certain premises are true, then it would not be unreasonable to think there was a creator. I don't think the mere belief in a creative force behind the universe's existence is silly. I think it can make a lot of sense sef. . . even though I'm firmly in the "don't know, don't think it matters" camp".   IMO We do not know enough about the universe to check how valid most of your premises are. . .  eg when u say this

justcool:


Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it.

or

justcool:

Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. [b]It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. [/b]T. . .

There are more but I think these will do. your arguments rely heavily on these types of claims, but u really don't know for sure. So why do u, in your post, seem to "ridicule' people for not seeing these things that u suggest are obvious, when all they may be doing is acknowledging what they see as obvious - That we know too little about the universe to answer "ultimate" questions about the universe.

I think we should be free to speculate and whatever, but be cautious when we start thinking we have answers. U seem to know a lot about the universe so i'm sure u have some idea of how much we don't know. Some of us are not comfortable with making those leaps and then holding on to the conclusions as factual.

@thehomer

Thanks for pointing out the things that you perceived as insults in my posts; I will treat the issues you raised.

thehomer:


If this was a reference to a recent thread, my own opinion was that critical thinking generally leads to a non-belief in a God.

You said “generally leads.”  Well I have no problem with that although I’m quite convinced that it does not. Can you show me the statistics that show that most freethinkers arrive at a non-belief in a God?

I am a freethinker yet I am not an atheist. Perhaps your definition of freethinking is different from mine. By freethinking I mean:

[I]Inclined to forms one's own opinions rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues; exhibiting boldness of speculation; skeptical of authority.[/I]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free-thinking

However I will not quarrel much with what you said here because you said “generally leads” and this is your opinion which, although I disagree with, I still respect; especially since you said "generally leads" and not "inevitably leads."

Critical thinking does not inevitably lead to non-belief in God, agnosticism or atheism; neither does science. Critical thinking that is not guided by the intuitive perception may lead to agonisticim or atheism. God cannot be grasped by thinking, neither can science prove the existence of God because God is non-physical and science is confined only to the physical.

Anybody who chooses to be a believer, atheist, agnostic and etc must admit that his/her belief or non-belief is his/her own personal choice and not the inevitable product of science or freethinking.

The existence of God can never be proven scientifically, God is not physical and most believers accept this. The dishonesty lies with some atheists who parade their atheism as being scientific. The Truth is that atheism is no more scientific than theism.

thehomer:

What evidence do you base your belief in a God on?

I have said times without number that science cannot conclusively prove the existence of God( a living being or entity with a will). God is beyond the physical realm which science is limited to. The knowledge of the existence of God is an intricate part of the spirit of man. But this is not science either because the spirit is not physical. I have no scientific proof of the existence of the spirit; but I know that it exist because I am a spirit, and I experience my spirit daily and hourly. But to one who does not experience the spirit within him, his true self, I cannot help. However, such a person has no right to tell me that the spirit does not exist, just because he doesn’t experience it. Who feels it knows it!

thehomer:

This is one of the implied insults.

This is what I said:
Also claiming that free thinking will not lead to the acknowledgement of a creator is not only outrageous but totally misguided and terribly counter intuitive. It is the most primitive view I have ever encountered and it is completely “un-human.”


I do not see insults implied in what I said. I have the right to express my opinion on certain views. The views that I mentioned above are simply outrageous, primitive and “un-human” to me; this is just my perception which could be wrong or right. People's perception change as they mature, perhaps in the future I may come to a better perception; but no matter my level of maturity, I owe it to people to honestly express my perception.

Keep in mind that it is the view that I considered primitive and not you or whoever expressed the view; actually I consider you an inteligent person. That’s why I said “un-human” instead of “inhuman”, just to show that I don’t consider the person who expressed the view inhuman rather I consider the view as generally not the usual views that people hold.

Even extremely inteligent people do have some primitive or outrageuose vews in certain things, nobody is a know it all. So always feel free to point out where you find my views outrageouse and primitive.

I hope you see that what I said was no insult; I am dealing with views and not personalities. And these views are not peculiar to you; hence I was not insulting you.

If I had insulted a particular religious view or a particular religious leader, then I will readily apologies. I will never insult what people hold sacred; but you as an atheist should not hold your views in the same way that religionists hold their doctrines. Are you not showing, by being offended, that atheism is just another religion and nothing else?

thehomer:

Some aspects of science do apply some principles of chance and understanding these principles involves knowledge gained by understanding probabilities.

Wrong! The laws of science do not deal with probabilities. The laws are certain and under the right conditions, the results will be predicted to mathematical exactitude. An example “for every action there is a reaction” does not say “for every action there is probably a reaction”

thehomer:

This is a straw man argument with a bad analogy. No one makes this argument.

Then why not? If the universe(a physical thing) can create itself. Why can’t an object(physical) create itself? Why do astronauts put their lives in danger by flying in a rocket, if the rocket can probably by itself double its mass, which would cause it crash? If science deals with probability as such, why can you, when asked to calculate the speed of an object, say that the speed is probable.

thehomer:

This statement ended with another one of the implied insults. Also, are you speaking of the universe here? Because, this would imply a time line and a mass outside of it. And do you have evidence for this line of reasoning?

I do not think that what I said implied insult. If your friend tells you that an airplane took off by itself and is flying with not external force—the pilot and jet fuel, you will simply take it as a joke and if he is serious you will advise to have his head examined.

Yes I am also speaking of the universe because the universe is not beyond the laws of physics. The evidence is that the universe is in motion. Motion does not start itself.

thehomer:

I hope you do realize that the statements you've made above actually apply more to miracles and similar phenomena.

All miracles lie perfectly within the laws of physics, the natural laws or the scientific laws. Any miracle that goes against the natural laws simply did not happen; it was either intentionally fabricated or the observer lacked the knowledge of the natural laws in question.

And do you realize that the premise that the universe just exists without a creator is as laughable as the impossible miracles which some religious enthusiasts fabricated. Actually, to me, to takes more blind faith to belief in the premise of non-created universe than it takes to believe that people can turn into birds and fly in the night as witches.

thehomer:


Again, what is the scope of this argument? Is it limited just to objects within the universe or does it also constantly apply to the entire universe?

Everything in the universe is included; the universe itself too.

thehomer:

Do you have any convincing evidence for this alternate dimension you're proposing? Plus, you've just contradicted yourself. You stated that energy cannot be created nor destroyed yet you claim this energy was created you only proposed an alternate dimension to make up for this.

Let me rephrase my statement. “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed” so said science which deals only with the physical world as the only thing that exist. In other words, “In the physical world, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” That means that whatever created the energy in the physical world or the entire physical world itself is not physical or is not in the physical world. Because in the physical world, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

It is clear enough now? Forgive my inability to make myself understood the first time.

I will use an analogy. Lets say, In Nigerian they don’t build cars. This implies that the cars we have in Nigeria must have been built elsewhere. This also implies that elsewhere exists. Not only Nigeria exists.

Therefore not only the physical world exists; there are planes above the physical, planes beyond the confines of the present day science.  I can’t wait for the day science will be refined enough to deal with the non-physical.

thehomer:

Have you considered that objects like the universe may simply exist?

Without a beginning No! Science tells us that the universe has a beginning. A beginning suggests that something started or created it.

Also things(physical things) don’t just simply exist without a beginning and an end. This is unscientific! No physical object has ever simply just existed.

Otherwise why waste time trying to figure out who and how the pyramids were built. Maybe they simply exist.

When a stolen car is found in your garage don’t tell the judge or the police that maybe the car simply exists or appeared there. Actually that may be a good thing to say; for then they will not throw you jail, rather they will commit you to a mental institution. No insults implied 

thehomer:

No it isn't proof of such a dimension. Actually, such a dimension would keep creating energy and matter in this universe which would make the universe either keep keep warming up as it expands or at least keep the temperature stable but, what has been discovered is that as the universe expands, it cools. And such spontaneous energy generation would be noticed.
And lastly, this would actually violate the first law of thermodynamics because this energy is being spontaneously created.

How can you predict what the dimension will do so as to disprove its existence??!! Who says that this dimension must keep creating energy/matter and sending it to the universe?

Again this shows that this dimension is not just an automatic and uncontrolled thing but a living entity who had created and stopped creating yet maintains the creation.

thehomer:

Psychologists and other scientists have shown that such instinctive knowledge can be false.

Instinctive knowledge’s like? Give me example. Also you said “can be false” but not definitely false. In other words, such instinctive knowledge can also be true.

thehomer:

This is yet another implied insult. But, why do you assume that there must be some alternate entity out there "outside" of the universe sitting around creating the universe?

Again I don’t see insult in what I wrote.

“Outside” because the universe is physical and science has observed that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. I believe I already treated this question.

Thanks a lot,  I would have said ‘remain blessed’ but knowing that you are an atheist I’d rather not, incase you perceive it as implied insult.
Cheers

thehomer:

If you're stating that the universe keeps cycling, then why introduce a God?

Good question!
I explained the fact that the universe keeps cycling to show:

(1) The Big Bang is not the creation or the universe, in that it is not the creation of matter and energy that make up the universe.
(2) Science doesn’t actually say that the universe was created by the Big bang. Science only says that the universe in its present state started by the Big bang, while acknowledging that before the Big bang the energy and matter that cooled down to become the universe existed in a different form. Science also speculates that other universes might have existed before the present universe.
(3) Although science is not sure where the current expanding universe may lead; many have come up with many speculations. I offered my perception of where the universe is headed to, based on my knowledge of the Laws of creation which are express nothing but the will of God.


Putting all these together you see how ridiculous it sounds when people say that the universe (the energy and matter in the physical world) was created by the Big bang.

I introduced God into it because the cyclic movement could not have started by itself and perpetually maintain itself in order; such would violet the law of thermodynamics.

A liquid cup of water, in isolation of every external force, will remain a liquid cup of water. It cannot by itself, and without any external force change from liquid to ice; or from liquid to gas. Only external forces, like change in the temperature of the environment can cause these changes in the liquid cup of water.

Fishes living inside the lake that is perpetually changing state, from liquid to ice; if such fishes were men, they would know that there is something else beside the lake. Something that they cannot see, yet they see its effects in the environment, the lake. They would figure out there is a source of power(heat) outside of the lake, which causes it to change state. And this power is the sun which sends rays carrying heat, thereby warming the lake; and during winter when these rays are hardly felt, the lake freezes.

The lake could be likened to the universe; the fishes could be likened to us; the sun could be likened to God who through the pressure of His power keeps everything in motion.

This is a coarse analogy though; it faintly reflects the relationship between God, His Power and the universe.

thehomer:

You are now introducing mysterious agents and dimensions into the equation. Do you have evidence for these alternate planes? How many are they? What exactly does this creator do? Is he tweaking the physical laws for maintenance?

The person(nucleaboy) that I replied to already believes in the existence of the beyond or the non-physical planes. At least I know that he believes in the existence of the spiritual realm.

Thus this part of the explanation that I offered him goes beyond the physical realm. Any realm beyond the physical is beyond the realm or reach of science therefore my explanations about them are not scientific. But this does not mean that the explanations are not true; they are simply beyond scientific examination.

The only evidence that I have about there existence is that only something non-physical, and outside the universe could have created the universe and keep the universe in motion.

There is no point explaining the various planes or creation to you since you don’t believe anything beyond the physical; you will only call my explanations fairy tales or myths. However if you are genuinely interested you can open new thread and we can discuss that.

Do I sense a curiosity about God in you now? Why do you ask me about how God maintain creation when you don’t even believe in God? Are you seeking God now?

thehomer:

So why introduce a God if you feel the universe keeps cycling?

I already answered this question.

Thanks

@toneyb and Krayola
Thanks for your nice and thought provoking posts. I will treat them later. I have to run for now.

justcool:

@thehomer

Thanks for pointing out the things that you perceived as insults in my posts; I will treat the issues you raised.
You said “generally leads.”  Well I have no problem with that although I’m quite convinced that it does not. Can you show me the statistics that show that most freethinkers arrive at a non-belief in a God?
I am a freethinker yet I am not an atheist. Perhaps your definition of freethinking is different from mine. By freethinking I mean:
[I]Inclined to forms one's own opinions rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues; exhibiting boldness of speculation; skeptical of authority.[/I]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free-thinking
However I will not quarrel much with what you said here because you said “generally leads” and this is your opinion which, although I disagree with, I still respect; especially since you said "generally leads" and not "inevitably leads."

I was talking about critical thinking.

justcool:

Critical thinking does not inevitably lead to non-belief in God, agnosticism or atheism; neither does science. Critical thinking that is not guided by the intuitive perception may lead to agonisticim or atheism. God cannot be grasped by thinking, neither can science prove the existence of God because God is non-physical and science is confined only to the physical.

How did you come about your knowledge of God? Were you initially told by someone?

justcool:

Anybody who chooses to be a believer, atheist, agnostic and etc must admit that his/her belief or non-belief is his/her own personal choice and not the inevitable product of science or freethinking.

No. Non-belief in a God can come about by critical thinking.

justcool:

The existence of God can never be proven scientifically, God is not physical and most believers accept this. The dishonesty lies with some atheists who parade their atheism as being scientific. The Truth is that atheism is no more scientific than theism.
I have said times without number that science cannot conclusively prove the existence of God( a living being or entity with a will). God is beyond the physical realm which science is limited to. The knowledge of the existence of God is an intricate part of the spirit of man. But this is not science either because the spirit is not physical. I have no scientific proof of the existence of the spirit; but I know that it exist because I am a spirit, and I experience my spirit daily and hourly. But to one who does not experience the spirit within him, his true self, I cannot help. However, such a person has no right to tell me that the spirit does not exist, just because he doesn’t experience it. Who feels it knows it!

How do you gain your information about God?

justcool:

This is what I said:
Also claiming that free thinking will not lead to the acknowledgement of a creator is not only outrageous but totally misguided and terribly counter intuitive. It is the most primitive view I have ever encountered and it is completely “un-human.”
I do not see insults implied in what I said. I have the right to express my opinion on certain views. The views that I mentioned above are simply outrageous, primitive and “un-human” to me; this is just my perception which could be wrong or right. People's perception change as they mature, perhaps in the future I may come to a better perception; but no matter my level of maturity, I owe it to people to honestly express my perception.
Keep in mind that it is the view that I considered primitive and not you or whoever expressed the view; actually I consider you an inteligent person. That’s why I said “un-human” instead of “inhuman”, just to show that I don’t consider the person who expressed the view inhuman rather I consider the view as generally not the usual views that people hold.

If the views held by lots of people are "un-human" then what do you think they are? Animal or machine views?

justcool:

Even extremely inteligent people do have some primitive or outrageuose vews in certain things, nobody is a know it all. So always feel free to point out where you find my views outrageouse and primitive.
I hope you see that what I said was no insult; I am dealing with views and not personalities. And these views are not peculiar to you; hence I was not insulting you.
If I had insulted a particular religious view or a particular religious leader, then I will readily apologies. I will never insult what people hold sacred; but you as an atheist should not hold your views in the same way that religionists hold their doctrines. Are you not showing, by being offended, that atheism is just another religion and nothing else?

No no. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended. But why do you seem to give this preference to religious views and religious leaders? Are they people whose views may not be criticized?
With respect to my views on atheism being a religion, you may wish to consider this topic where I posted on it. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.0.html#msg7111144

justcool:

Wrong! The laws of science do not deal with probabilities. The laws are certain and under the right conditions, the results will be predicted to mathematical exactitude. An example “for every action there is a reaction” does not say “for every action there is probably a reaction”

No. Science does use probabilities such as in statistical assessments, and quantum mechanics.

justcool:

Then why not? If the universe(a physical thing) can create itself. Why can’t an object(physical) create itself? Why do astronauts put their lives in danger by flying in a rocket, if the rocket can probably by itself double its mass, which would cause it crash? If science deals with probability as such, why can you, when asked to calculate the speed of an object, say that the speed is probable.

No one is making this argument either.

justcool:

I do not think that what I said implied insult. If your friend tells you that an airplane took off by itself and is flying with not external force—the pilot and jet fuel, you will simply take it as a joke and if he is serious you will advise to have his head examined.

Are you comparing an airplane to the universe prior to when it began expanding? This is simply another bad analogy.

justcool:

Yes I am also speaking of the universe because the universe is not beyond the laws of physics. The evidence is that the universe is in motion. Motion does not start itself.

No. The evidence shows that it is expanding.

justcool:

All miracles lie perfectly within the laws of physics, the natural laws or the scientific laws. Any miracle that goes against the natural laws simply did not happen; it was either intentionally fabricated or the observer lacked the knowledge of the natural laws in question.

Oh really? So do people float into the sky, walk on water, make axe heads float, turning water to alcohol etc? Why limit it to physics? How about zombies roaming the streets, humans being moulded from clay?

justcool:

And do you realize that the premise that the universe just exists without a creator is as laughable as the impossible miracles which some religious enthusiasts fabricated. Actually, to me, to takes more blind faith to belief in the premise of non-created universe than it takes to believe that people can turn into birds and fly in the night as witches.

Why should it take faith to understand that the matter currently in the universe was present at the Big Bang? This is what the evidence shows. The problem I notice is that you wish to posit a creator for whatever you observe without presenting ample evidence for this creator.

justcool:

Everything in the universe is included; the universe itself too.

So, do you have evidence for this time line and mass external to the universe we are in?

justcool:

Let me rephrase my statement. “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed” so said science which deals only with the physical world as the only thing that exist. In other words, “In the physical world, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.” That means that whatever created the energy in the physical world or the entire physical world itself is not physical or is not in the physical world. Because in the physical world, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

It is clear enough now? Forgive my inability to make myself understood the first time.

It was clear before. My question is why do you assume that the universe had to be created? If you assume there was a creator, this leads to an infinite regress. So, can you make a case for this creator without a recourse to special pleading?

justcool:

I will use an analogy. Lets say, In Nigerian they don’t build cars. This implies that the cars we have in Nigeria must have been built elsewhere. This also implies that elsewhere exists. Not only Nigeria exists.

Another bad analogy.

justcool:

Therefore not only the physical world exists; there are planes above the physical, planes beyond the confines of the present day science.  I can’t wait for the day science will be refined enough to deal with the non-physical.

If there is no evidence for this currently, why then do you believe this?

justcool:

Without a beginning No! Science tells us that the universe has a beginning. A beginning suggests that something started or created it.

No this is false. A beginning does not automatically imply creation by a conscious entity.

justcool:

Also things(physical things) don’t just simply exist without a beginning and an end. This is unscientific! No physical object has ever simply just existed.

We're speaking here of the entire universe. All the matter and energy was present at the time of the Big Bang.

justcool:

Otherwise why waste time trying to figure out who and how the pyramids were built. Maybe they simply exist.

Yet another bad analogy.

justcool:

When a stolen car is found in your garage don’t tell the judge or the police that maybe the car simply exists or appeared there. Actually that may be a good thing to say; for then they will not throw you jail, rather they will commit you to a mental institution. No insults implied 

Another bad analogy.

justcool:

How can you predict what the dimension will do so as to disprove its existence??!! Who says that this dimension must keep creating energy/matter and sending it to the universe?

This is what is implied by your statement. You claimed this mysterious dimension somehow popped out the energy or matter currently available in the universe. Did it stop? If it did, then why? But first, you need to provide evidence for this dimension. Then let us know what was present before this dimension started popping out matter and energy.

justcool:

Again this shows that this dimension is not just an automatic and uncontrolled thing but a living entity who had created and stopped creating yet maintains the creation.

You're just making stuff up as you go along. So this dimension is actually a living entity? Outside this universe?

justcool:

Instinctive knowledge’s like? Give me example. Also you said “can be false” but not definitely false. In other words, such instinctive knowledge can also be true.

Like illusions (optical illusion, magic tricks etc).
What I mean is that knowledge by intuition is not good enough to make important decisions.

justcool:

Again I don’t see insult in what I wrote.

“Outside” because the universe is physical and science has observed that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. I believe I already treated this question.

Thanks a lot,  I would have said ‘remain blessed’ but knowing that you are an atheist I’d rather not, incase you perceive it as implied insult.
Cheers

So in a statement like

But to argue that the universe has no creator is totally counterintuitive, unnatural for a human being, unscientific, and to my perception, unintelligent.

You don't notice any insult in it?

So you think because the universe is physical there must be an "outside" component? Then please answer this "where is north of the north pole?" The north pole is a place so what is north of it?

justcool:

Good question!
I explained the fact that the universe keeps cycling to show:

(1) The Big Bang is not the creation or the universe, in that it is not the creation of matter and energy that make up the universe.
(2) Science doesn’t actually say that the universe was created by the Big bang. Science only says that the universe in its present state started by the Big bang, while acknowledging that before the Big bang the energy and matter that cooled down to become the universe existed in a different form. Science also speculates that other universes might have existed before the present universe.
(3) Although science is not sure where the current expanding universe may lead; many have come up with many speculations. I offered my perception of where the universe is headed to, based on my knowledge of the Laws of creation which are express nothing but the will of God.

Oh my, what Laws of Creation might this be?

justcool:

Putting all these together you see how ridiculous it sounds when people say that the universe (the energy and matter in the physical world) was created by the Big bang.

No one says this.

justcool:

I introduced God into it because the cyclic movement could not have started by itself and perpetually maintain itself in order; such would violet the law of thermodynamics.

I hope you realize that this cyclical movement can also mean that the universe may have been cycling permanently so why introduce this God? What does thermodynamics have to do with this? If it is cycling, then it could have been infinite.

justcool:

A liquid cup of water, in isolation of every external force, will remain a liquid cup of water. It cannot by itself, and without any external force change from liquid to ice; or from liquid to gas. Only external forces, like change in the temperature of the environment can cause these changes in the liquid cup of water.
Fishes living inside the lake that is perpetually changing state, from liquid to ice; if such fishes were men, they would know that there is something else beside the lake. Something that they cannot see, yet they see its effects in the environment, the lake. They would figure out there is a source of power(heat) outside of the lake, which causes it to change state. And this power is the sun which sends rays carrying heat, thereby warming the lake; and during winter when these rays are hardly felt, the lake freezes.
The lake could be likened to the universe; the fishes could be likened to us; the sun could be likened to God who through the pressure of His power keeps everything in motion.
This is a coarse analogy though; it faintly reflects the relationship between God, His Power and the universe.

No this is a bad analogy because, we do have evidence for the sun adding its energy into the system but, we do not have evidence of some mysterious energy leaking into the universe.

justcool:

The person(nucleaboy) that I replied to already believes in the existence of the beyond or the non-physical planes. At least I know that he believes in the existence of the spiritual realm.

So what?

justcool:

Thus this part of the explanation that I offered him goes beyond the physical realm. Any realm beyond the physical is beyond the realm or reach of science therefore my explanations about them are not scientific. But this does not mean that the explanations are not true; they are simply beyond scientific examination.

But what evidence do you have of this non-physical realm?

justcool:

The only evidence that I have about there existence is that only something non-physical, and outside the universe could have created the universe and keep the universe in motion.

How does this non-physical thing interact with the universe? Why do you think that a phrase like "outside the universe" has a meaning? Who made this place outside the universe that this non-physical thing lives?

justcool:

There is no point explaining the various planes or creation to you since you don’t believe anything beyond the physical; you will only call my explanations fairy tales or myths. However if you are genuinely interested you can open new thread and we can discuss that.

I'll probably just say you're making things up as you go.

justcool:

Do I sense a curiosity about God in you now? Why do you ask me about how God maintain creation when you don’t even believe in God? Are you seeking God now?
I already answered this question.
Thanks

If he's actually there, then I'd like to know. Who knows? I might win a prestigious prize if I could demonstrate his presence from your explanation. Don't worry, I'm more than willing to share if it comes to that.

Justcool is obviously suffering from defective reasoning. All this merry go round ends in an infinite regress of who created the creator? and if the creator could not be created then it is possible that the universe could have always been in existence. This argument is simply irresolvable, there is no method available to us which can succesfully say this is what happened and the answer would not come from pages of meaningless arguments but from hardwork in a laboratory. For now justcoool sounds like an ancient greek philosopher shouting that the very nature of lightening means its the wrath of Zeus with no evidence to back his claim.

Chrisbenogor:

Justcool is obviously suffering from defective reasoning.

You have not shown the defective reasoning. Rather it seems to me eminently defective that a changeable thing like matter may be presumed by you and thehomer to be a self-existent thing. Self existent things are immutable. Matter is not immutable. It changes. Ergo, it could not be self-existent. This is so simple it beats me that Mr. Homer over a long stretch of time does not grasp this.

All this merry go round ends in an infinite regress of who created the creator?

The Creator is a self-existent and immutable element. It is not subject to change, as matter is.

. . .and if the creator could not be created then it is possible that the universe could have always been in existence.

Two responses to this.

First the universe could not have always been in existence because matter is not immutable: therefore not self-existent.

Anything that is not self-existent must have a cause to exist: and therefore a beginning.

Second response is a throw back to you: if the universe "could always have been in existence" as you have said yourself, then this shows you accept that some things could "always have been in existence" - thus this eliminates your infinite regress problem in terms of the existence of God.

For in the same way as you state: "Who created God?" - I may also state - "Who created the universe?" Your response to my question would be "the universe could always have existed" and it leaves me dumbfounded that you do not see that that is the same response I give to you: THAT GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

Now the reason that my answer should succeed whereas yours must fail is the simple reason that the universe CANNOT have always existed because the universe is matter and matter is subject to change: it is thus NOT immutable as self-existent things logically must per force be immutable.

On the reverse that which is self-existent cannot be matter and as such must be immaterial and intangible. This is what the eternal element called God is said to be.

This argument is simply irresolvable, there is no method available to us which can succesfully say this is what happened and the answer would not come from pages of meaningless arguments but from hardwork in a laboratory.

It is not very probable that you can access the self-existent from a laboratory for as analysed above, the self-existent is also necessarily immaterial and intangible.

For now justcoool sounds like an ancient greek philosopher shouting that the very nature of lightening means its the wrath of Zeus with no evidence to back his claim.

He has done no such thing. It is rather the man who can see the nature of those water crystals and fail to see design in that - such a man is the man who sounds as the bizzarre one, especially since such a man would similarly see a stone tool such as this below - and sees design in that!

Scientific view: designer required -

toneyb:

This is a fallacious argument and it begs the question, you are only arguing from ignorance since you clearly do not fully know and also do not have any evidence to show that there is a creator and that creator lives outside the universe.

So, as we all know we exist in the universe, can you tell me where god exist? Heaven? Paradise? The spiritual realm? OK.

The specific answer actually doesn't matter. Let's call the place/realm in which god exists "A".

Who made "A"?

God couldn't have made. If he did, where did he exist before he made it? That just pushes the question further back and we end up with the same problem, asking the same question.

If "A" is eternal, then it is something that precedes god or is equal to him when it comes to the divine trait of being eternal. And that contradicts the nature of god.

And if you say god is not in a place, then god isn't anywhere, which means he doesn't exist. Even the bible begins with the statement that in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.

What an argument.

You seek God's address, God's residence, eh?

It is beyond belief that anyone can attempt to construct an argument or a rebuttal based on an inquiry as to the location of an element that is said to be intangible and immaterial.

You amaze me. Perhaps you hope to locate such an intangible element relaxing and having its siesta in a tent in your back yard?

toneyb:

This is not what science says, it says that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system, i don't know if the universe is an open or closed system.

I seems to me that it is one of two things: either the direct implication of your own words completely eluded you, or you simply did not reflect on the aspect of Justcool's post that you were responding to above.

Here I reproduce what Justcool wrote in red:

"Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created."

Now you stated that - "that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system."

This has one direct implication: that if the universe is a closed system, energy could not be created in it: to wit: there would never have arisen any energy therein. What this tranposes into logically is that there would have been no energy and no universe.

It therefore means that the very existence of energy herein presupposes an open system: or at the very least at the the commencement, an entrance or reception of energy. It logically could not be otherwise.

This rationally leads to the affirmation that the source of energy could not itself be this universe, or the matter from which this universe expanded.

This is firm reasoning: and it speaks for itself.

Nonetheless I also need to urge you to recognise that at all events, matter could not self-exist in the form of a singularity because matter is changeable: and self-existence connotes immutability. There is no means by which a self-existent element can change for the simple reason that it is itself the principle of its own existence and as such could not be something else or otherwise. I do not know if you understand this. But it is absolutely clear and simple.

Anyhow you then went on -

How did you come to the conclusion that what ever created the universe is not physical?

Because the universe is physical and there is no physical thing that can be its own cause. Being its own cause would be self-existence and no physical thing is self-existent because physical things are changeable. Self-existent things are immutable.

It is for this reason that we see that nothing physical could self-exist. Therefore physical things require a cause that is not physical.

How do you know that its only one non physical entity that created the universe? Why can't it be 2 or more entities?

There could be any number of entities but all such entities must logically ultimately derive from an intangible singularity which is itself immutable.

That is what is referred to as God, the oneness of intangible self-existence itself.

Deep Sight:

On the reverse that which is self-existent cannot be matter and as such must be immaterial and intangible.

So because something is self existent it must be both immaterial and intangible? Please explain.

Deep Sight:

The Creator is a self-existent and immutable element. It is not subject to change, as matter is.

Ok. Besides this creator, what else has this quality of immutability? How did you come to know about such a quality at all?

Deep Sight:

First the universe could not have always been in existence because matter is not immutable: therefore not self-existent.

Give an example of a self existent immutable element.

Deep Sight:

Anything that is not self-existent must have a cause to exist: and therefore a beginning.

How do u know the qualities of this "element"? Let's pretend u have demonstrated that there is a creator (which you have NOT),where does this immutability come about? Is it just to deal with the "problem" of an infinite regression? If not, please explain how you know this FOR SURE. Or do u know for sure, or just believe because u as an individual are convinced by "evidence" that may be inconclusive.  (I'm pretty much asking the same question a few different ways so that i can understand your reasoning better. Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating myself)

Deep Sight:

Second response is a throw back to you: if the universe "could always have been in existence" as you have said yourself, then this shows you accept that some things could "always have been in existence" - thus this eliminates your infinite regress problem in terms of the existence of God.


For in the same way as you state: "Who created God?" - I may also state - "Who created the universe?" Your response to my question would be "the universe could always have existed" and it leaves me dumbfounded that you do not see that that is the same response I give to you: THAT GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

Now the reason that my answer should succeed whereas yours must fail is the simple reason that the universe CANNOT have always existed because the universe is matter and matter is subject to change: it is thus NOT immutable as self-existent things logically must per force be immutable.

Difference is that we have evidence that the universe exists for sure. We can say many things about the universe that can be objectively verified.

And why are self-existence and mutability mutually exclusive? Why must a "self-existent element" not be subject to change?

@deepsight I edited one of my previous posts. It didn't make any sense. Sleep still dey my eye when i write am. Na hangover abeg no vex  . It now reads "So because something is self existent it must be both immaterial and intangible? Please explain. "

Deep Sight:

You have not shown the defective reasoning. Rather it seems to me eminently defective that a changeable thing like matter may be presumed by you and thehomer to be a self-existent thing. Self existent things are immutable. Matter is not immutable. It changes. Ergo, it could not be self-existent. This is so simple it beats me that Mr. Homer over a long stretch of time does not grasp this.

The Creator is a self-existent and immutable element. It is not subject to change, as matter is.

Please could you run this property of "self-existence" by me again?

Deep Sight:

Two responses to this.
First the universe could not have always been in existence because matter is not immutable: therefore not self-existent.

I already addressed this point about the universe. It may just be that universe-like objects exist.

Deep Sight:

Anything that is not self-existent must have a cause to exist: and therefore a beginning.

Again with this cause but you are yet to demonstrate your alternate time-line.

Deep Sight:

Second response is a throw back to you: if the universe "could always have been in existence" as you have said yourself, then this shows you accept that some things could "always have been in existence" - thus this eliminates your infinite regress problem in terms of the existence of God.

For in the same way as you state: "Who created God?" - I may also state - "Who created the universe?" Your response to my question would be "the universe could always have existed" and it leaves me dumbfounded that you do not see that that is the same response I give to you: THAT GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

We also need to keep the principle of parsimony in mind. Why add a God when it is not necessary if the universe at its pre-expansion phase could have always existed?

Deep Sight:

Now the reason that my answer should succeed whereas yours must fail is the simple reason that the universe CANNOT have always existed because the universe is matter and matter is subject to change: it is thus NOT immutable as self-existent things logically must per force be immutable.

The universe is physical not necessarily matter.

Deep Sight:

On the reverse that which is self-existent cannot be matter and as such must be immaterial and intangible. This is what the eternal element called God is said to be.
It is not very probable that you can access the self-existent from a laboratory for as analysed above, the self-existent is also necessarily immaterial and intangible.

So if matter is not self-existent, the only alternative is an immaterial and intangible God? Why not two Gods?

Deep Sight:

He has done no such thing. It is rather the man who can see the nature of those water crystals and fail to see design in that - such a man is the man who sounds as the bizzarre one, especially since such a man would similarly see a stone tool such as this below - and sees design in that!

Scientific view: designer required -

Your comparison between a water crystal and a stone tool is simply inappropriate because we actually know that the stone tool was made by a person but do you have any evidence that each individual crystal was manufactured by one person or his assembly line? Keep in mind that crystals in general have this sort of repeating pattern.

[list]
[li]something exists[/li]
[li]you don’t get something from nothing[/li]
[li]therefore, something necessary and eternal exists[/li]
[li]the only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator[/li]
[li]science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe, it is known that the universe began at a point[/li]
[li]therefore, an eternal Creator exists[/li]
[/list]

cogicero:

[list]
[li]something exists[/li]

Ok.

cogicero:

[li]you don’t get something from nothing[/li]

No one claims this.

cogicero:

[li]therefore, something necessary and eternal exists[/li]

Wow this is a huge leap. How do you know something eternal exists? Why must this thing be necessary?

cogicero:

[li]the only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator[/li]

How do you know this creator is eternal? How many are they? Where is this creator?

cogicero:

[li]science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe, it is known that the universe began at a point[/li]

Yes we know that it began expanding from a point but at the time of its expansion, all the energy within the universe was present.

cogicero:

[li]therefore, an eternal Creator exists[/li]
[/list]

So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first.

thehomer:

Ok.

yeah

thehomer:

No one claims this.

in order to believe matter == energy is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. no reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position. i wont do your homework for you. read of the anthropic principle in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

thehomer:

Wow this is a huge leap. How do you know something eternal exists? Why must this thing be necessary?

it is necessary that something must have started it all (considering points 1 & 2). it is beyond time because time as we know it began at the big bang. it is eternal because if it isnt, it must have risen from another finite abstraction which in turn rose from another, leading back into an eternal abstraction. that first eternal abstraction began the process in that case even if it did not begin the big bang and or the universe

thehomer:

How do you know this creator is eternal?

see above.

thehomer:

How many are they? Where is this creator?

this is of no consequence to the argument presented. where is the bachelor's wife? how does color blue smell? what is the procedure required to weigh a tonne of fire?

thehomer:

Yes we know that it began expanding from a point but at the time of its expansion, all the energy within the universe was present.

does this make the universe eternal? even world-reknown scientists like hawkings (atheists nonetheless) explain how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe have provoked conceptual changes, which means the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe is no longer tenable.

thehomer:

So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first.

show me how

@Deepsight

I cannot thank you enough! You have done my work for me. Logged in to treat Krayola's, Chrisbenogor's and thehomer's concerns, only to find out that you have correctly treated these concerns. The funny thing is that a critical analysis of their posts shows that these gentle men are actually saying that the universe has a non-physical creator. It would be more understandable if they claim that this creator or whatever it is that caused the universe to exist does not necessarily have to be a living entity; that would be better and more scientific argument for them to make. A better argument and not necessarily the Truth.

And when you expose this implication of their argument; they will just give a very short replies like, "says who?" "No one says this," "then what," or "this is a bad analogy."



@thehomer
The only thing I will like to add to you to the reply that Deepsight gave you is this:

thehomer:

How did you come about your knowledge of God? Were you initially told by someone?

First critical or scientific thinking led me to believe that there is something out there because the universe could have created itself. Then my intuition told me that the creator is God.

So my knowledge of God came from my intuition which is the voice of my spirit.

thehomer:

If the views held by lots of people are "un-human" then what do you think they are? Animal or machine views?

This view is not held generally by man. Most people do not hold this view. What makes humans peculiar is their desire to find the meaning of it all, to find a creator or to find God.

The fact that in modern times a few people hold this view of non-belief in God does not make this view the view that humans generally or usually hold.

How many people do you mean by “a lot.” Compared to the total numbers of all the humans that have ever existed, the number of people who are or were atheists is insignificant.  I can equally say that a lot of people drink blood. Does this make blood drinking the general or usual behavior of man?

thehomer:

No no. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended. But why do you seem to give this preference to religious views and religious leaders? Are they people whose views may not be criticized?  

I do not give preference to religious views; I only respect what people hold as sacred.
As an atheist you shouldn’t hold any view sacred; if you do, then you qualify as a religionist. This is why in my initial post on this thread, addressed to deepsight, I said “alleged atheists.”  If a person claims to be an atheist yet sill hold his views as sacred; then such is dogmatism which makes such atheism another religion.

Yes, People who parade unscientific views as scientific truths should be criticized; because such practice is falsehood and deception. The religionist is honest enough to know that some of his views are unscientific; they, although not necessarily wrong, are beyond the scope of science.

Athesisit should also be honest enough to admit that his views have not and cant be scientifically proven, and hence unscientific.

Some atheists do more harm to science than religionists.

thehomer:

With respect to my views on atheism being a religion, you may wish to consider this topic where I posted on it. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.0.html#msg7111144

Wonderful!! I am very impressed with the definition of religion that you gave, from wikipedia. “A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred”

Notice the part “held sacred.” A scientist never holds any view sacred until it has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Since your atheists beliefs or views have not been proven scientifically; then by holding them sacred you are only being a religionist.

By taking offence when your atheists views are attack, you show that you are not a true atheist, but a rather a religionists hiding under the cloak of atheism.

thehomer:

No. The evidence shows that it is expanding.

And expansion doesn’t imply movement? Expansion doesn’t imply motion of particles or parts of the universe away from each other

thehomer:

Oh really? So do people float into the sky, walk on water, make axe heads float, turning water to alcohol etc? Why limit it to physics? How about zombies roaming the streets, humans being molded from clay?  

All those things are false; they were made up by fanatics and religions enthusiasts. People float in air by a vehicle(Airplane for example); people can also walk on water on a ship or when the water is frozen.

Any miracle that goes beyond the laws of physics, simply did not happen. They are all ferry tales.

thehomer:

You don't notice any insult in it?

No I don’t. I expressed that in my perception such views are unintelligent; not necessarily that the person holding the view is unintelligent. I already explained this to you. I will not go round and round on one issue.

I have seen religionists who forgive easier when people insult their beefs or views, even though they hold these views sacred. As freethinker you should allow people to express their opinions on your views. I repeat: If you hold your views sacred; you are not and atheist.

Deepsight treated the rest of your posts extremely well. I agree with the replies he gave.

cogicero:

[list]
[li]something exists[/li]
[li]you don’t get something from nothing[/li]
[li]therefore, something necessary and eternal exists[/li]
[li]the only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator[/li]
[li]science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe, it is known that the universe began at a point[/li]
[li]therefore, an eternal Creator exists[/li]
[/list]

@cogicero

Wonderfull!!!! With a few words you captured a lot.

cogicero:

yeah
in order to believe matter == energy is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. no reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position. i wont do your homework for you. read of the anthropic principle in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Your reference to the anthropic principle is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that no one claims that this universe came from nothing but that all the energy was present at the Big bang.

cogicero:

it is necessary that something must have started it all (considering points 1 & 2). it is beyond time because time as we know it began at the big bang. it is eternal because if it isnt, it must have risen from another finite abstraction which in turn rose from another, leading back into an eternal abstraction. that first eternal abstraction began the process in that case even if it did not begin the big bang and or the universe
see above.

Do you have evidence for this alternate time-line? Is your only means of solution is by an appeal to special pleading?

cogicero:

this is of no consequence to the argument presented. where is the bachelor's wife? how does color blue smell? what is the procedure required to weigh a tonne of fire?

No it it very relevant because this creator has to be somewhere to create this universe. Also, the way by which you arrived at the number of creators is also important for us to be sure you're not just making stuff up.

cogicero:

does this make the universe eternal? even world-reknown scientists like hawkings (atheists nonetheless) explain how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe have provoked conceptual changes, which means the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe is no longer tenable.

I'm not proposing an eternal universe. You, on the other hand, are proposing an eternal entity.

cogicero:

show me how

I showed this by the problems raised with your various premises.

Krayola:

So because something is self existent it must be both immaterial and intangible? Please explain.

thehomer:

Please could you run this property of "self-existence" by me again?

Guys thank you for taking the time to ask carefully about this. Let me offer my two cents in this regard.

What do we mean when we say that something is self-existent? We mean that by its nature it inherently exists. "Existing" is core to what it is. It could not but exist because its very nature is existent. Accordingly such a thing does not "come into" existence, nor does it cease to exist, because existence is inherent to the principle of what it is.

Now let us understand this carefully. A self-existent thing is so because the core principle, the very principle of what it is, is inherently existent. So it is what it is for that reason. Since it is what it is, it is not something that can change. It just is. Constant. A constant and non-ceasing reality.

This is why we say that a self-existent thing is immutable. Its existence is predicated on a principle that is inherently existent and could not but exist and accordingly it cannot but be that principle. Thus it cannot be or become something else because inherently it is that principle. We thus understand that some-thing that self-exists cannot change.

Matter and Energy as we observe them in the physical are changeable. Thus they are not self-existent things

I may further indicate that there is a deeper, more subtle reason why it is obvious that self-existent things are non-physical. Without being wordy, and selecting my words very carefully let me simply say that a self-existent thing being something that cannot be created, thus cannot be something of form and mass. I hope this resonates within your mind.

And so a self-existent thing can not have a form or physical mass as it is an intangible and neceesary, non-contingent reality.

An example of a self-existent thing is eternity. Eternity is eternity. No birth or death of physical universes could circumscribe eternity. It is just there: a constant: eternity. It is not to be confused with the finite time that we use our indicators to measure. Eternity is just a constant. It could neither change nor be created. It is simply the constant vacuum into which things are interpolated.

Every self-existent thing that one may discern is a great key and a great help to understand what God is. Because God is the sum of intangible self-existent realities. The sum of all self-existent law.

cogicero:

[list]
[li]something exists[/li]
[li]you don’t get something from nothing[/li]

You said something exists. Not that something was derived, or "gotten". I think those are different things. IMO your second premise has nothing to do with the first.

cogicero:

[li]therefore, something necessary and eternal exists[/li]  

If u can show that the universe was "created" out of nothing, this could fly. But simply asserting that means little IMO. From my experience something can not come out of nothing, so based on that I have no reason to believe the universe did.

[li]the only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator[/li]  

Or three creators. Or a creator that created it for amusement and committed suicide. or a universe that grew out of a preexisting something kinda like a plant goes from a seed. I can keep going. Why are those u stated the only 2 options? That IMO is another faulty premise.

[li]science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe, it is known that the universe began at a point[/li]  

Let's say science has disproved the concept of eternal universe,  It does not follow that universe came out of nothing, or was created. It just shows that the expansion started at some point, and very little about what exactly brought it about

[li]therefore, an eternal Creator exists[/li]
[/list]

And his name is Jonathan Goodluck  

@thehomer:

That energy you say was present at the big bang, where did it come from? What was its source? If it always was there, then you destroy your assertion immediately above that you are not proposing an eternal universe. That would be lying. If it came from someplace, you destroy your assertion that the energy was present at the big bang. another lie? Well, which lie is preferable to you, sir, for us to consider?

"Time" is not special pleading, Sir. You yourself define the commence of existence by appealing to a specific "time" - your big bang. Is it ok for you but not for him?

Lets suppose there are 20 creators or 5 creators. What difference does that make to this issue? What matters is there was "creation". And how would you define a location for an entity that exists across realms?


Your resorting to one-liners and defensive tactics takes nothing away from the arguments against you. Where you find a bad analogy, please give a good one as example. You say nobody has evidence. Please show yours so we know what real/good evidence should look like. And as justcool said, you ought not feel hurt except you're a religionist hurt at the defilement of your sacred places/beliefs.

justcool:

@Deepsight

I cannot thank you enough! You have done my work for me. Logged in to treat Krayola's, Chrisbenogor's and thehomer's concerns, only to find out that you have correctly treated these concerns. The funny thing is that a critical analysis of their posts shows that these gentle men are actually saying that the universe has a non-physical creator. It would be more understandable if they claim that this creator or whatever it is that caused the universe to exist does not necessarily have to be a living entity; that would be better and more scientific argument for them to make. A better argument and not necessarily the Truth.

And when you expose this implication of their argument; they will just give a very short replies like, "says who?" "No one says this," "then what," or "this is  a bad analogy."

Hey they were bad analogies.

justcool:

@thehomer
The only thing I will like to add to you to the reply that Deepsight gave you is this:
First critical or scientific thinking led me to believe that there is something out there because the universe could have created itself. Then my intuition told me that the creator is God.

How did you scientifically arrive at a creator? Because I'm yet to come across evidence demonstrating this.

justcool:

So my knowledge of God came from my intuition which is the voice of my spirit.

Your intuition could be wrong. Especially considering the numerous beliefs out there.

justcool:

This view is not held generally by man. Most people do not hold this view. What makes humans peculiar is their desire to find the meaning of it all, to find a creator or to find God.

This desire to find meanings could also be a problem which manifests itself in situations where there actually is no pattern yet humans form patterns.

justcool:

The fact that in modern times a few people hold this view of non-belief in God does not make this view the view that humans generally or usually hold.
How many people do you mean by “a lot.” Compared to the total numbers of all the humans that have ever existed, the number of people who are or were atheists is insignificant.  I can equally say that a lot of people drink blood. Does this make blood drinking the general or usual behavior of man?

Well drinking blood is not "un-human". It is part of the diet of some tribes. So what if people in the past did not believe this, many in the past also had some strange beliefs themselves.

justcool:

I do not give preference to religious views; I only respect what people hold as sacred.
As an atheist you shouldn’t hold any view sacred; if you do, then you qualify as a religionist. This is why in my initial post on this thread, addressed to deepsight, I said “alleged atheists.”  If a person claims to be an atheist yet sill hold his views as sacred; then such is dogmatism which makes such atheism another religion.

I never said I was offended. In fact, I said I was not offended.

justcool:

Yes, People who parade unscientific views as scientific truths should be criticized; because such practice is falsehood and deception. The religionist is honest enough to know that some of his views are unscientific; they, although not necessarily wrong, are beyond the scope of science.
Athesisit should also be honest enough to admit that his views have not and cant be scientifically proven, and hence unscientific.
Some atheists do more harm to science than religionists.

Atheism is not contrasted to religion but to theism.

justcool:

Wonderful!! I am very impressed with the definition of religion that you gave, from wikipedia. “A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred”
Notice the part “held sacred.” A scientist never holds any view sacred until it has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Since your atheists beliefs or views have not been proven scientifically; then by holding them sacred you are only being a religionist.

I don't hold my views sacred.

justcool:

By taking offence when your atheists views are attack, you show that you are not a true atheist, but a rather a religionists hiding under the cloak of atheism.

Never said I was offended.

justcool:

And expansion doesn’t imply movement? Expansion doesn’t imply motion of particles or parts of the universe away from each other

That is movement within the universe not movement of the universe relative to something else like maybe another universe or God or whatever object (if any) "outside" the universe.

justcool:

All those things are false; they were made up by fanatics and religions enthusiasts. People float in air by a vehicle(Airplane for example); people can also walk on water on a ship or when the water is frozen.
Any miracle that goes beyond the laws of physics, simply did not happen. They are all ferry tales.

So are you a religious person? If so, what religious denomination?

justcool:

No I don’t. I expressed that in my perception such views are unintelligent; not necessarily that the person holding the view is unintelligent. I already explained this to you. I will not go round and round on one issue.
I have seen religionists who forgive easier when people insult their beefs or views, even though they hold these views sacred. As freethinker you should allow people to express their opinions on your views. I repeat: If you hold your views sacred; you are not and atheist.

I never said or implied that my views were sacred.
Ok then.

justcool:

Deepsight treated the rest of your posts extremely well. I agree with the replies he gave.

And my responses to them?

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

That energy you say was present at the big bang, where did it come from? What was its source? If it always was there, then you destroy your assertion immediately above that you are not proposing an eternal universe. That would be lying. If it came from someplace, you destroy your assertion that the energy was present at the big bang. another lie? Well, which lie is preferable to you, sir, for us to consider?

Thank you for presenting so articulately the irretrievable contradiction that thehomer has set out in his surmise.

Such a self-evident and undeniable logical inconsistency. I would like to see him address this one.

Its easier to accept than the universe had a cause than to say it was uncaused. Proving or providing evidnce for the cause seems to be the problem here.

cogicero:


this is of no consequence to the argument presented.   where is the bachelor's wife? how does color blue smell? what is the procedure required to weigh a tonne of fire.

It is of grate consequence, how did you come to the conclusion that it is just one creator, why not many external creators? You have to provide evidence to show that there is only one creator or your argument become as baseless and that of the athiest who claims that there is no creator/creators of the universe IMO.

And just to emphaize thehomer's contradiction again.

He states that universe-like objects may simply be the default state.

He then says that he is not propounding an eternal universe.

Both statements are irretrievably contradictory. If universe - like objects are the default state, then ofcourse we have an eternal universe.

I think an eternal universe is a possibility. Just like a creator God. I'm open to all possibilities. Just keep em coming. Na una wey wan narrow am down to one answer I think say dey miss out

I think you all need to go down the rabbit hole, first. You are all tackling an area you know nothing of. You are all just using conjectures to argue against conjectures.