A creation...

[Jagador]

Ok... so we all know that we are made of millions of molecules, and atoms and etc... but what made EVERYTHING. That includes the planets, space, everything. And please try not to bring up God. I know that some people only believe god made everything, but it will get us no where.. already tested it with a group of friends.

Again.. question is What made Everything that is so far possible (with an effort to not mention god as the creator of all things)

Sorry if this was already up..=T

[INFERNO]

Since you don't want and answer of "god did it", I'm assuming you don't want any religious answer. If you want a scientific one, then the answer is one four-lettered word: wait. Wait for science to uncover the answers but until then, the other possible answer include religion or some other answer non-scientific and non-religious.

[Jagador]

well.. the reason i say no god is because who created god then? and if he was a real man, how in the world did he get here in the first place? My problem comes is that i answer god questions with even more questions that can't be answered..=T

[punkjake]

What is a creation w/o a creator?IS the Creator alive ,like the God u dislike in this debate,or a mere random events that happened called life,or a combination,a series of events pre-oreder for us to live,other wise known as destiny.This is my philosopher point of view.My scientific point is that a random events happened to create "reality" which caused a big explosion to keep expanding every second i type and you read,to create us.My religous view,which i know you do not want but i will explain it to just show the other side of views.That maybe when reality was created it need a creator to create it and other existing life forms to keep it alive.Other wise known as God ,i believe in this with kinda a mix of Catholicism.Its very hard to understand but its like this you need a seed to make a tree ,you need a tree to make a seed,and you need a enviroment for it to have existence.You need a tree and a seed for existence to even exist.So in the food chain us(humans)<>reality><God .So with out any of us god wouldn't exsit ,reality would fall apart blah blah.Yeah i know not very good :/

[Jagador]

i somewhat understand it, but in order to create life you need a creator, and to need a creator, you need something to create that creator, so what is it that ever started life? What started time? What created -to the religious people- the person you worship?

[quartermaster]

i somewhat understand it, but in order to create life you need a creator, and to need a creator, you need something to create that creator, so what is it that ever started life? What started time? What created -to the religious people- the person you worship?

Our finite minds and finite world and knowledge tell us everything needs a creator, but how do we know that to be a universal truth? How do we know the truth of the infinite if we live in a world of the finite?

I'm really just thinking out loud, not challenging your premise.

[Jagador]

Our finite minds and finite world and knowledge tell us everything needs a creator, but how do we know that to be a universal truth? How do we know the truth of the infinite if we live in a world of the finite?

I'm really just thinking out loud, not challenging your premise.

dun worry, this is a debating section, yours suppose to debate. And we don't know that it is a universal truth, but everything must come somewhere. How can anything exist without something to make it exits?

[INFERNO]

well.. the reason i say no god is because who created god then? and if he was a real man, how in the world did he get here in the first place? My problem comes is that i answer god questions with even more questions that can't be answered..=T

I agree, it leads to saying "well, who created that god-like thing" ad infinitum.

What is a creation w/o a creator?IS the Creator alive ,like the God u dislike in this debate,or a mere random events that happened called life,or a combination,a series of events pre-oreder for us to live,other wise known as destiny.This is my philosopher point of view.My scientific point is that a random events happened to create "reality" which caused a big explosion to keep expanding every second i type and you read,to create us.My religous view,which i know you do not want but i will explain it to just show the other side of views.That maybe when reality was created it need a creator to create it and other existing life forms to keep it alive.Other wise known as God ,i believe in this with kinda a mix of Catholicism.Its very hard to understand but its like this you need a seed to make a tree ,you need a tree to make a seed,and you need a enviroment for it to have existence.You need a tree and a seed for existence to even exist.So in the food chain us(humans)<>reality><God .So with out any of us god wouldn't exsit ,reality would fall apart blah blah.Yeah i know not very good :/

Your analogy isn't a great one to support your argument because although you need a seed to make a tree and that tree needs a seed, it isn't an endless loop of that. You'll find that something else led to the tree being evolved and so forth.

As for the argument of without us, god wouldn't exist, this goes against the entire idea that god was needed to create everything because you're implying we control god and not the other way around.

I do understand the general idea that you're trying to make, although your analogy is what makes it confusing because it revolves around a false premise.

Our finite minds and finite world and knowledge tell us everything needs a creator, but how do we know that to be a universal truth? How do we know the truth of the infinite if we live in a world of the finite?

Good question and the best answer I can give is this. We know that finite requires a creator. We know that finite + 1 requires a creator. We know that finite + 2 needs a creator and so forth. In other words, we know that the more we enlarge the definition of finite, we also know that the enlarged definition needs a creator. This enlarged definition isn't equal to infinity but the closer and closer we come to infinity (which is still finite) we know that a creator is required. So the question then becomes, if we know that finite very close to infinity requires a creator, then why should infinity be any different?

[Jagador]

I agree, it leads to saying "well, who created that god-like thing" ad infinitum.



Your analogy isn't a great one to support your argument because although you need a seed to make a tree and that tree needs a seed, it isn't an endless loop of that. You'll find that something else led to the tree being evolved and so forth.

As for the argument of without us, god wouldn't exist, this goes against the entire idea that god was needed to create everything because you're implying we control god and not the other way around.

I do understand the general idea that you're trying to make, although your analogy is what makes it confusing because it revolves around a false premise.



Good question and the best answer I can give is this. We know that finite requires a creator. We know that finite + 1 requires a creator. We know that finite + 2 needs a creator and so forth. In other words, we know that the more we enlarge the definition of finite, we also know that the enlarged definition needs a creator. This enlarged definition isn't equal to infinity but the closer and closer we come to infinity (which is still finite) we know that a creator is required. So the question then becomes, if we know that finite very close to infinity requires a creator, then why should infinity be any different?

Now im stuck on questions, but it is still mind boggling. I'm trying to think of questions that are so unexplainable...=T dun ask me why i do, im just like that. Then comes the "WHY" questions that go on forever and ever and cannot be stopped no matter what answer you give..=T

[Sapphire]

Due to our limitations as humans and the unfalsifiable nature of religious explanations, we are miles away from reaching a definite answer to this question.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Due to our limitations as humans and the unfalsifiable nature of religious explanations, we are miles away from reaching a definite answer to this question.

True, but I think we are much closer to finding a answer scinetifically then religiously

[Sapphire]

True, but I think we are much closer to finding a answer scinetifically then religiously
Scientific investigations rely on the importance of the falsifiability of theories. You can find supporting evidence for almost everything and so scientists go by the statement that accepted theories are just those which have yet to be disproved.
Theories which cannot be disproved are called unfalsifiable theories.
Religious explanations of the origin of the universe are impossible to disprove and as such are unfalsifiable.

So, the true origin of the universe will not be able to be proved one way or another because there will always be the possibility that religion holds the answer.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Scientific investigations rely on the importance of the falsifiability of theories. You can find supporting evidence for almost everything and so scientists go by the statement that accepted theories are just those which have yet to be disproved.
Theories which cannot be disproved are called unfalsifiable theories.
Religious explanations of the origin of the universe are impossible to disprove and as such are unfalsifiable.

So, the true origin of the universe will not be able to be proved one way or another because there will always be the possibility that religion holds the answer.

True true so its really hard to compose an arguement for either side if the evidence is cloudy at best.

[JackOfClubs]

The creation of the Creator isn't explainable yet. I know you don't want "God" as your answer, but I can't think of a better idea. And based on my 9th/10th grade Theology Classes, God has always been. So therefore He is the Creator.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Since we know that energy can not be created or destroyed (laws of physics FTW) is it so crazy to just posit that the Universe, and EVERYTHING that we would say "exists" inside of it has ALWAYS existed. I don't mean that the earth, stars etc. always existed but the energy/matter that would eventually BE everything has always existed, for example in the super-hot and super-dense state of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

[Jagador]

Since we know that energy can not be created or destroyed (laws of physics FTW) is it so crazy to just posit that the Universe, and EVERYTHING that we would say "exists" inside of it has ALWAYS existed. I don't mean that the earth, stars etc. always existed but the energy/matter that would eventually BE everything has always existed, for example in the super-hot and super-dense state of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

It is possible, but here i go again, what created the energy and matter? What is it that created the bigbang that created the thing that created it and so on and so forth..?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

It is possible, but here i go again, what created the energy and matter? What is it that created the bigbang that created the thing that created it and so on and so forth..?

I JUST SAID it was NOT created. It just always existed. Before time and space existed, there was still energy. When the universe expanded the energy turned into matter/antimatter and LUCKILY for us matter won out and we have a universe with life instead of a black cinder (an antimatter universe).

[quartermaster]

God has always been. So therefore He is the Creator.

We must be careful to not fall into fallacious traps in our own argumentation, your statement is known as non sequitur, as the implication of existence does not denote creation.


Good question and the best answer I can give is this. We know that finite requires a creator. We know that finite + 1 requires a creator. We know that finite + 2 needs a creator and so forth. In other words, we know that the more we enlarge the definition of finite, we also know that the enlarged definition needs a creator. This enlarged definition isn't equal to infinity but the closer and closer we come to infinity (which is still finite) we know that a creator is required. So the question then becomes, if we know that finite very close to infinity requires a creator, then why should infinity be any different?

Precisely, but, per adventure, that possibility of infinity being any different from the finite understanding we have of this world, makes it all the more interesting.

[RaeNose]

You realize that you're not going to get your answer?
So many questions lead to a billion other little questions.
The thing is, we're not going to know. We can theorize all we want, but our minds aren't that powerful to comprehend anything outside of our existence, outside the whole concept of space and time.

We can say it all happened by chance, that every little molecule has always existed and that everything just happened to fall into place.
We can say that the was a creator who made all of that matter and energy, and that he is beyond our comprehension to a point where we can't even fathom.
We just don't know.

[Rutherford The Brave]

I JUST SAID it was NOT created. It just always existed. Before time and space existed, there was still energy. When the universe expanded the energy turned into matter/antimatter and LUCKILY for us matter won out and we have a universe with life instead of a black cinder (an antimatter universe).

Yeah it is true matter cannot be created or destroyed it has always existed and always will thats like basic chemistry.

[Jagador]

I JUST SAID it was NOT created. It just always existed. Before time and space existed, there was still energy. When the universe expanded the energy turned into matter/antimatter and LUCKILY for us matter won out and we have a universe with life instead of a black cinder (an antimatter universe).

An anti-matter universe can't just pop out of no where like magic, SOMETHING must have put it there. If there is such thing as an anti-matter universe, then what is beyond that?

And i know i won't get an answer, this is merely something to debate on, and show your opinion, no matter how angry and strongly you feel, just post your opinion.

[Sapphire]

ThatCanadianGuy, science cannot fully explain the Big Bang at this point in time.However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

-- http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

[Awesome]

The universe is made up of thousands of gases that could be 500x the power of a nuke or more. The gases floating around end up mixing and creating stuff such as galaxies and well planets like Earth. Thats just the basics techniacally.

[Ortizitthisone]

SOMETHING must have put it there.

The ultimate in theological debates, the question of who or what created the Universe has been on the minds of humans since the beginning of time.

But don't say that something must have put it there, and then tell us not to say that God is the one who put it there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am an atheist-turned-Christian. I used to believe that the Universe came about as the result of a series of random, explainable events. The Big Bang started it all. The scientific community has reached a general consensus that the Universe started with the Big Bang. But the scientific community was also once under a general consensus that the Earth was flat. That black people were scientifically less than human. That masturbating causes hairy palms.

My point is, science and scientific theory changes. All the time. New evidence pops up to disprove a theory, and that causes a whole new stir of research and development of new theories. That's what science is all about.

You can't use science to disprove religion. No matter how close you get to explaining the origins of the Universe, you can never fully get down to the bottom of it with one hundred percent certainty. No theory (scientific or otherwise) can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On the other hand, you also can't use religion to disprove science. At the very least, science is testable. Even though they may be proven wrong, at least scientific theories can be tested. There is no scientific experiment that can be performed to find out whether a Creator exists. That's why they call it Faith.

I believe that, in finding new evidence for the origins of the Universe (and trust me unexpected new developments are coming up all the time), we find out who or what created it. Not with 100% certainty, because that's not possible. If there is a Creator (and I believe in my heart that there is), He would not have to create a way for us to find Him.

Put simply, I think that God wants us to find Him, and science is our way of doing that. That's right, I said it. I think that through science, WE FIND GOD.

Watch Lee Strobel's documentary "The Case for a Creator." It's a great resource for the atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, whatever views you may have.

[Dreaming Cannibal]

Ok... so we all know that we are made of millions of molecules, and atoms and etc... but what made EVERYTHING. That includes the planets, space, everything. And please try not to bring up God. I know that some people only believe god made everything, but it will get us no where.. already tested it with a group of friends.

Again.. question is What made Everything that is so far possible (with an effort to not mention god as the creator of all things)

Sorry if this was already up..=T

You can discuss one without the other. You need to have the scientific and religious point of view on the table to determine how was everything created.
You would also need the philosophical point of view on the table.

Scientifically the big bang big explosion and boom billions and billions of particles where created and mutated until the point in which right now we are.
… science and scientific theory changes. All the time. New evidence pops up to disprove a theory, and that causes a whole new stir of research and development of new theories. That's what science is all about.

In other words with science is pretty much impossible to know if its certainly the ultimate truth.

With religion is the same a god created everything and everyone but who created this being?

Now philosophically; you have three possible arguments; Ontological(http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/), cosmological(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/) and the design theory(http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/).

it's very long to read but its worth it. but as a summary of a summary of them all, the ontological argument states that because god its a conceptual truth it existed, the cosmological argument states that humans create a god because we need to explain our existence somehow and the design theory suggests that a intelligent being designed everything and all intentionally.

One last thing
On the other hand, you also can't use religion to disprove science. At the very least, science is testable. Even though they may be proven wrong, at least scientific theories can be tested. There is no scientific experiment that can be performed to find out whether a Creator exists.

You can't use religion sure but science isn't accurate at all, what if the theory that we are brains in vats its a reality? There is not proof that science can be 100% sure of what it says. Neither our mind nor our senses can be held as a proof since both at times are proven to fail.

[Jagador]

The ultimate in theological debates, the question of who or what created the Universe has been on the minds of humans since the beginning of time.

But don't say that something must have put it there, and then tell us not to say that God is the one who put it there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am an atheist-turned-Christian. I used to believe that the Universe came about as the result of a series of random, explainable events. The Big Bang started it all. The scientific community has reached a general consensus that the Universe started with the Big Bang. But the scientific community was also once under a general consensus that the Earth was flat. That black people were scientifically less than human. That masturbating causes hairy palms.

My point is, science and scientific theory changes. All the time. New evidence pops up to disprove a theory, and that causes a whole new stir of research and development of new theories. That's what science is all about.

You can't use science to disprove religion. No matter how close you get to explaining the origins of the Universe, you can never fully get down to the bottom of it with one hundred percent certainty. No theory (scientific or otherwise) can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On the other hand, you also can't use religion to disprove science. At the very least, science is testable. Even though they may be proven wrong, at least scientific theories can be tested. There is no scientific experiment that can be performed to find out whether a Creator exists. That's why they call it Faith.

I believe that, in finding new evidence for the origins of the Universe (and trust me unexpected new developments are coming up all the time), we find out who or what created it. Not with 100% certainty, because that's not possible. If there is a Creator (and I believe in my heart that there is), He would not have to create a way for us to find Him.

Put simply, I think that God wants us to find Him, and science is our way of doing that. That's right, I said it. I think that through science, WE FIND GOD.

Watch Lee Strobel's documentary "The Case for a Creator." It's a great resource for the atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, whatever views you may have.

A creator does not necessarily have to create a way to find him. What if there was a never ending continueum of time and space that went on forever? never to find anything, and this so called GOD cannot be what he is without something to place him in his ranks. Also, science is not 100% accurate, it fails quite often, so science won't be able to answer our question 100%, and neither can religion. Now the problem comes is if something were to have made everything, how can we know for sure it was a he/she or an it? My ultimate question is, are we but a little spec, hanging in some place in a even greater universe outside of all of space and time where the unknown is bound to be?

[INFERNO]

The scientific community has reached a general consensus that the Universe started with the Big Bang. But the scientific community was also once under a general consensus that the Earth was flat. That black people were scientifically less than human. That masturbating causes hairy palms.

My point is, science and scientific theory changes. All the time. New evidence pops up to disprove a theory, and that causes a whole new stir of research and development of new theories. That's what science is all about.


That is true, science is changing, however, at present times we are far more technologically-advanced than we were hundreds of years ago.

You are also correct in saying that scientifically we will be very unlikely (so unlikely it's reasonable to say impossible) to know whether something is true or false with complete, 100% certainty. However, the same can be said about religion; there are arguments saying that we and everything else may have been made by some divine being, however, how does one know whether or nor the divine being you're worshiping is the correct one? In this view, science and religion both rely on the philosophy that you cannot know anything with complete, 100% certainty. The ways in which knowledge is obtained for each is different and the paradigms that each adhere to are different.


If there is a Creator (and I believe in my heart that there is), He would not have to create a way for us to find Him.

Put simply, I think that God wants us to find Him, and science is our way of doing that. That's right, I said it. I think that through science, WE FIND GOD.

Now the question comes up of why would god want us to find him? After all, if we find him using science, then it's no longer a matter of having faith because we would have evidence showing he does or does not exist. In a way, it would take away the notion of it even being a religious belief and the question for this becomes, what would it be classified as and become?

But there is one rather large problem with saying that science is a means to find god. The problem is that science is a tool to figure out and explain natural phenomena, however, with the idea of using science to find god, which gods and goddesses to we look for? It's no longer a needle in a haystack, it's a potential non-existent needle in a haystack. The problem is further enhanced in that we have no way of testing whatever scientific theories because how can we test whether or not some all-powerful divine being that always has existed indeed does exist when we know next to nothing in the grand scheme of things? The very existence of god is so hard to fathom from a scientific point of view because we'd be trying to find something that can create whatever it wants out of nothing. And now for the largest problem: if he figure out that some sort of divine being exists, then how do we know which divine being it is and how do we know that it's not some crazily powerful thing and not really a god or goddess?

We're more likely to blow ourselves up or successfully use Mars as another planet to live on before we scientifically figure out whether or not god exists.

[Ortizitthisone]

Perhaps I should have clarified: when I say that 'we find God' through science, what I mean is that we get closer to finding God. I don't think we could ever truly prove whether a Creator exists through science (or any other means, really). I believe that God and God's work is all around us.

[INFERNO]

Perhaps I should have clarified: when I say that 'we find God' through science, what I mean is that we get closer to finding God. I don't think we could ever truly prove whether a Creator exists through science (or any other means, really). I believe that God and God's work is all around us.

But the problems are still present, such as, how do we know which divine being(s) it really is? Science cannot pursue something where there is no possible way to test anything, little scientific knowledge of the subject and any information that is available is so very subjective, we have no way to test any of that information. So I don't understand how science can bring people closer to finding god.

[Ortizitthisone]

But the problems are still present, such as, how do we know which divine being(s) it really is? Science cannot pursue something where there is no possible way to test anything, little scientific knowledge of the subject and any information that is available is so very subjective, we have no way to test any of that information. So I don't understand how science can bring people closer to finding god.

I suppose you're right, in that science can't prove the existence of a Creator. And even if it could, the all-important question would still remain: WHICH Creator is it? But once again, that's why they call it faith. Faith is about believing something to be true even if you have reason not to.

We can't find God through science. The only thing we can find is His work. And I think that if one is a believer (or if one is not sure of one's beliefs), then this can bring one closer to a more spiritual, faith-based belief system.

[INFERNO]

I suppose you're right, in that science can't prove the existence of a Creator. And even if it could, the all-important question would still remain: WHICH Creator is it? But once again, that's why they call it faith. Faith is about believing something to be true even if you have reason not to.

We can't find God through science. The only thing we can find is His work. And I think that if one is a believer (or if one is not sure of one's beliefs), then this can bring one closer to a more spiritual, faith-based belief system.

Absolutely correct, we can use science to analyze pretty much everything around us and everyone around us. I suppose that could lead to one being closer to whatever their god or goddess is, however, it cannot show that their god or goddess is the correct one. So it's still a matter of pure faith.