If the universe is finite, how can you not believe in God?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm having a dense moment here. Could you explain what exactly you mean?

The point of the thread seems to be based on the following reasoning:

The first origins of the universe can be traced to the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe was created by something. This something is god.

Now you are saying:

It is completely logical to say that the first origins had to be uncreated.

So which is it, do you think?

Or are you free to choose which things do and do not need a creator in order to be brought about?

Peace

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you AntiKarateKid;

I don't think the specifics are relevant to this. All I am proposing is an uncreated omnipotent being. His details could be debated in other threads.

If God the creator of the universe exists fully and totally, then he has to be the most important being in our lives, there is a great need to search for God.

In the spirit of searching for a just and merciful God

Eric

 

[Muslimlearner]

Everything is by CHANCE for the atheist,so what to explain?
This is the easiest way..

 

[abdullah_001]

That only works towards a theory of a sudden cataclysmic explosion and a universe clustered together tightly at that point. It says nothing about that being the origin of the universe or of matter within it.


I haven't heard anybody in this thread mention the END of the universe. Why is the end of the universe (or its going on for infinity) not as controversial as its begining (or lack thereof)?

The whole point of the post was to explain the origin of universe (which was from a, you guessed it, big bang) and that was proof for the big bang which i presented... I dont think you read the article from the link i posted earlier.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


The point of the thread seems to be based on the following reasoning:

The first origins of the universe can be traced to the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore the universe was created by something. This something is god.

Now you are saying:



So which is it, do you think?

Or are you free to choose which things do and do not need a creator in order to be brought about?

Peace

Oh I see. I meant that the "originator" had to be uncreated, if that clears it up at all.

 

[abdullah_001]

Everything is by CHANCE for the atheist,so what to explain?
This is the easiest way..

If everything is by chance then how do we not see a human being come into existence out of nowhere by chance? or how do we not see a plane just come into existence by chance?

We don't even need to get into the intricacies of cosmic and microscopic phenomenons to conclude that we have a creator. Do you think the universe is finite or infinite (on a time scale)? How can you say that we are a result of a random probability when we as humans, as advanced as were are, can't even manufacture a camera that could even be comparable to the human eye? If the human eye is complex then the human body is much more complex, and the universe is far more complex than the human body, and when it is really outrageously absurd to think that a human being is an outcome of chance then it is much more absurd to think that universe is just an outcome of chance.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

how do we not see a human being come into existence out of nowhere by chance? or how do we not see a plane just come into existence by chance?

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think the specifics are relevant to this. All I am proposing is an uncreated omnipotent being. His details could be debated in other threads.

But you are proposing specifics. You are proposing that the force that created the universe is a being, a sentient one, and a "him".

Do you expect there to be any real answer?

Surely there is an answer. Do I think we will ever know it? I highly doubt it, and I'm ok with that. I feel no need to make up or adopt an explanation so I can say I know.

Pygo, from your post, it seems that you are averse to being specific? ^o)

You guess right. The more specific your claim, the more likely you are to be wrong. I myself make no specific claim, no.

And some of us are brave enough to say we DO know in a world that needs answers about where we came from and hat the purpose is. You are completely right that religion gives answers to questions that you will never be able to solve without it.

Completely agree. Religion gives answers where there would otherwise be none (or as yet be none). Gods used to be the explanation for thunder and lightning. God of the gaps and all that.

I don't follow, honestly. What is wrong with saying the first thing was Allah who has no beginning or end.

Nothing wrong with saying that. It just isn't any more likely or credible to me than any other creation story, like the cyclical one I proposed (which I don't actually endorse)

A cyclical universe is hardly an answer at all. When did the cycle begin and where did the components for the cycles come from?

Those are meaningless questions to a cyclical universe and timestream. There would be no particular starting point, as its cyclical. You couldn't name the begining of time just like you can't name the edge of the earth (it being cyclical/round).

Actually thats a pretty cool idea and should be in a sci fi film. Time as cyclical and us as eventually being what creates the universe (and thus the earth, and thus ourselves).

As for my leaning towards the physical always existing being caused by my materialism... I'd have to agree. Just as your leaning towards the physical having a starting point is caused by your belief in the supernatural. As I said above, all either of us really have to go on is gut feelings and faith. Neither of us can claim to know one way or the other with any credibility.

I suspect because were you to seriously entertains such an idea, you would see the necessity of believing in Allah.

Go back to the top of this post. It would not require a belief in Allah. Thats an awfully particular claim. It would require a belief in a creation force. Such a force would not necesarily be a being, or be sentient, or be a god, or be your particular God.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The whole point of the post was to explain the origin of universe (which was from a, you guessed it, big bang) and that was proof for the big bang which i presented... I dont think you read the article from the link i posted earlier.

If you were to prove that the big bang happened, you would not have proved that it started the universe. For all you'd know it could have been a phase the universe went through well after its creation (or its always having been).

 

[Pygoscelis]

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

This is true and I often see it in these discussions. Materialists do not believe everything happened by chance. I don't know where supernaturalists get that straw man. If anything it is the creation people who believe in chance creation. They presume that by mere chance a God existed in the first place.

 

[abdullah_001]

The strawman burns

The only school of thought that says anything about spontaneous formation complex life is a religious one...

Uh, hate to break it to you but that is what the theory of evolution states

Yes, if we agreed to spontaneous formation, it is very clear that the big bang theory supports this.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Trumble]

Uh, hate to break it to you but that is what the theory of evolution states

Nonsense. The theory of evolution doesn't involve the spontaneous formation of anything.

Yes, if we agreed to spontaneous formation, it is very clear that the big bang theory supports this.

The Big Bang theory might be compatible with it, but it 'supports' it no more than it does anything else. According to that theory and the mathematics used to construct not only don't we know but we can't know what happened. It is totally meaningless to talk of 'spontaneous creation' as no universe in which that phrase has any relevance existed or, to be precise, we can never know if it did.

Thinking back to my earlier post, there is actually rather more a case for 'God of the gaps' here than is usual as it at least seems likely (if not certain) that physical science as we currently understand it can never fill the 'gap' concerned. However, even if we are forced to resort to metaphysics - rather than, perhaps, just graciously accepting our fate - in this context the God hypothesis has nothing to recommend it over any other, as Pygoscelis said. If anything, why conjour up intelligence? There are clearly alternative metaphysical hypotheses that do not require it.

 

[abdullah_001]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...

In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?

Now, keep in mind that big bang theory has been PROVED through cosmic background radiation. I really don't think I need to add anymore.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...

He assumed you were doing the usual creationist "evolution says life pops out of nowhere" bit.

The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe, though, so of course it doesn't support any particular hypothesis.

 

[Azy]

for you to single this out as the one exception to the "has to come from somewhere" rule makes little sense.

I.. don't even know what to say here... Did I read that right?

 

[Ramadhan]

Those are meaningless questions to a cyclical universe and timestream. There would be no particular starting point, as its cyclical. You couldn't name the begining of time just like you can't name the edge of the earth (it being cyclical/round).

of course the earth has the edge. The edge of the earth is the boundary between its land and/water with the air/atmosphere.

EVERYTHING in the universe is finite. Even time itself has been shown to only start existing at the time of the big bang.

 

[Ramadhan]

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

 

[Trumble]

that was my point... theory of evolution DOES NOT support it...]

Now, keep in mind that big bang theory has been PROVED through cosmic background radiation.

No it hasn't. It hasn't yet been demonstrated to be incompatible with the observational data we have. It is the generally accepted theory, that is all.. just like Newtonian mechanics was before being shown to be wrong first theoretically, and then observationally. As Gubbleknucker says, the theory of evolution is totally irrelevant to this debate.

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

In metaphysics as in physics there is nothing remotely 'logical' or elegant about accepting what is by definition an infinitely complex solution to a problem ahead of less complex alternatives, even if you do have a neat three letter (or five letter) abbreviation for it.

Virtually ever facet of modern and recent cosmology that has at one time or another captured the public imagination was considered 'mumbo jumbo fantasy' by large numbers of people, including the conservative scientific establishment. That 'cyclical universe', as with parallel universes, is actually pretty mainstream now, at least as speculative hypotheses.

 

[Pygoscelis]

of course the earth has the edge. The edge of the earth is the boundary between its land and/water with the air/atmosphere.

EVERYTHING in the universe is finite. Even time itself has been shown to only start existing at the time of the big bang.

clearly, logic has deserted atheists for they reject the most elegant solution, and resort to mumbo jumbo fantasy such as "cyclical universe" and the likes

Is this a matter of english not being your first language or did you intentionally miss both of the points these quotes "respond" to and rudely attack your own straw men?

 

[Ramadhan]

In metaphysics as in physics there is nothing remotely 'logical' or elegant about accepting what is by definition an infinitely complex solution to a problem ahead of less complex alternatives, even if you do have a neat three letter (or five letter) abbreviation for it.

Virtually ever facet of modern and recent cosmology that has at one time or another captured the public imagination was considered 'mumbo jumbo fantasy' by large numbers of people, including the conservative scientific establishment. That 'cyclical universe', as with parallel universes, is actually pretty mainstream now, at least as speculative hypotheses.

how can you say that cyclical universe or parallel universes is an answer to the question as to how our universe exists?
They do not even answer the question and you are inviting more problems that are not even yet shown to exist!