|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 8, 2015 14:02:15 GMT -5
Probably getting a little ahead of myself with this topic so early, but it seems we're heading in that direction quickly. Guest4 postulated that the reason for creation was to teach us God/Love. But does our universe have a creator at all? And if it does, why on earth do we tend to lump our creator into the same pot as the source of the God-experiences we share? Is Guest4 purely guessing?
My head tells me probably were created. To me, it's just numbers: our development on earth is advancing exponentially, and it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe. And if we could, I'm sure we would. Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes? And if that is so, what are the odds that our own universe was created?
I am suggesting that our own universe, however it came to be, is likely to spawn many more universes of our own creation ("we" being the inhabitants of our universe). It would therefore seem statistically probable that we have a creator. More life-bearing universes are being created than are naturally happening. But if we do, and if he/she/it (our creator) is anything like we humans, he probably created us just to see if he could.
OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Dec 8, 2015 14:26:50 GMT -5
Probably getting a little ahead of myself with this topic so early, but it seems we're heading in that direction quickly. Guest4 postulated that the reason for creation was to teach us God/Love. But does our universe have a creator at all? And if it does, why on earth do we tend to lump our creator into the same pot as the source of the God-experiences we share? Is Guest4 purely guessing? My head tells me probably were created. To me, it's just numbers: our development on earth is advancing exponentially, and it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe. And if we could, I'm sure we would. Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes? And if that is so, what are the odds that our own universe was created? I am suggesting that our own universe, however it came to be, is likely to spawn many more universes of our own creation ("we" being the inhabitants of our universe). It would therefore seem statistically probable that we have a creator. More life-bearing universes are being created than are naturally happening. But if we do, and if he/she/it (our creator) is anything like we humans, he probably created us just to see if he could. OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Quote: what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Creation itself!
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Dec 8, 2015 14:36:33 GMT -5
My logic is science which tells me there is no creator. Life started in a primordial soup and evolved.
I admit I can't explain what life is or how the first spark of life came to be... yeah, I know all about those simple sugars, etc, but that tells me nothing I can wrap my head around. Life consumes, which is the best explanation of what defines life, but what life "is" is beyond my comprehension.
Simply because I have no better explanation, doesn't leave me buying into a creator. What I believe has to make sense to me. A creator doesn't make sense, especially in light of all the questions I've had over the years that have never been answered to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 8, 2015 14:37:10 GMT -5
" it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe"
I don't know about that! The Bible (and most people) aren't so concerned with what's technologically possible but with the personality of God. We're all suffused into the question of [God] as we're asked what our ultimate values and objectives are. What has ultimate meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Dec 8, 2015 15:28:19 GMT -5
How is G-D's wonderful universe can we imagine that we exist without providential design cause andr purpose.
Truly it would be a strange and supernatural phenomenom for us to evolve with only a minute and vain design to have eyes to see (and we cannot see)
this is my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 16:54:08 GMT -5
OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? I tend not to get too fixated with the creator debate. For me it is one of the those futile debates where no one is ever able to convince those of a different viewpoint. Personally I no longer believe in the existence of a creator but who cares what I believe, beliefs are irrelevant on this thread. What I have noted is that those who promote the existence of a creator most strongly here tend to be those who also believe in [what might be best described as] the Christian God. While I do understand the arguments for the existence of a creator, what I really struggle to understand is the argument (if it can even be described as an argument) that (i) the wonder and splendour of nature provides evidence of creation, (ii) evidence of creation is evidence of a creator and (iii) evidence of a creator (somehow - I'm not sure how) proves the existence of the Christian God. As far I as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever to support the argument that (even if we accept that the world was indeed created) it is the soul saving character in the bible who created the world. The wonder and splendour of nature may indeed provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of a creator but it certainly doesn't provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of the son sending, dead resurrecting character in the bible. I can never quite grasp why bible believers think it does. So, instead of engaging in yet another act of futility and debating the existence (or non existence) of a creator, it may be more useful if we all simply accept (solely for the purposes of this search) the existence of a creator and invite believers to set out the basis on which they make the rather large leap from a position of ..... the wonder and splendour nature proves the existence of a creator ...... to a position of ..... the wonder and splendour of nature proves the existence of the flood sending, Amalekite slaughtering, jealous, vengeful, rib removing character of the Old Testament. It surely doesn't. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 8, 2015 17:18:34 GMT -5
How is G-D's wonderful universe can we imagine that we exist without providential design cause andr purpose. First you would need to explain exactly what you believe makes the universe so wonderful. Second would be to explain what leads you to believe that humans are of a good design and for what purpose.Given the short time Homo sapiens have been around and the probability that they, like the other 99.9% of species that once existed, will become extinct nothing seems strange.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 8, 2015 18:31:51 GMT -5
OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? I tend not to get too fixated with the creator debate. For me it is one of the those futile debates where no one is ever able to convince those of a different viewpoint. Personally I no longer believe in the existence of a creator but who cares what I believe, beliefs are irrelevant on this thread. What I have noted is that those who promote the existence of a creator most strongly here tend to be those who also believe in [what might be best described as] the Christian God. While I do understand the arguments for the existence of a creator, what I really struggle to understand is the argument (if it can even be described as an argument) that (i) the wonder and splendour of nature provides evidence of creation, (ii) evidence of creation is evidence of a creator and (iii) evidence of a creator (somehow - I'm not sure how) proves the existence of the Christian God. As far I as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever to support the argument that (even if we accept that the world was indeed created) it is the soul saving character in the bible who created the world. The wonder and splendour of nature may indeed provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of a creator but it certainly doesn't provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of the son sending, dead resurrecting character in the bible. I can never quite grasp why bible believers think it does. So, instead of engaging in yet another act of futility and debating the existence (or non existence) of a creator, it may be more useful if we all simply accept (solely for the purposes of this search) the existence of a creator and invite believers to set out the basis on which they make the rather large leap from a position of ..... the wonder and splendour nature proves the existence of a creator ...... to a position of ..... the wonder and splendour of nature proves the existence of the flood sending, Amalekite slaughtering, jealous, vengeful, rib removing character of the Old Testament. It surely doesn't. Matt10 But I think DD just took the argument for a creator an entirely different direction. Far from the creator being the soul-saving bedroom-peering child-head-dashing wall-pissing god of the bible, what if the creator was just a dude named Joe (or, more likely, a dudette named Tasnim) from a predecessor universe with a test tube, a cyclotron, a large hadron collider, a nuclear reactor and some other piece of technology that we won't discover for another millennium or 12?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 8, 2015 18:38:42 GMT -5
Probably getting a little ahead of myself with this topic so early, but it seems we're heading in that direction quickly. Guest4 postulated that the reason for creation was to teach us God/Love. But does our universe have a creator at all? And if it does, why on earth do we tend to lump our creator into the same pot as the source of the God-experiences we share? Is Guest4 purely guessing? My head tells me probably were created. To me, it's just numbers: our development on earth is advancing exponentially, and it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe. And if we could, I'm sure we would. Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes? And if that is so, what are the odds that our own universe was created? I am suggesting that our own universe, however it came to be, is likely to spawn many more universes of our own creation ("we" being the inhabitants of our universe). It would therefore seem statistically probable that we have a creator. More life-bearing universes are being created than are naturally happening. But if we do, and if he/she/it (our creator) is anything like we humans, he probably created us just to see if he could. OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? That's just downright fascinating. I suspect you're not the first person to suggest this, but in spite of the fact that I am VERY well-read from my childhood (Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew) to the present day (Agatha Christie, Harry Potter) I have to admit this is a new idea to me, and for that, I thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 8, 2015 22:52:08 GMT -5
lol, you're welcome, Gene!
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Dec 8, 2015 23:29:40 GMT -5
My logic is science which tells me there is no creator. Life started in a primordial soup and evolved. I admit I can't explain what life is or how the first spark of life came to be... yeah, I know all about those simple sugars, etc, but that tells me nothing I can wrap my head around. Life consumes, which is the best explanation of what defines life, but what life "is" is beyond my comprehension. Simply because I have no better explanation, doesn't leave me buying into a creator. What I believe has to make sense to me. A creator doesn't make sense, especially in light of all the questions I've had over the years that have never been answered to my satisfaction. Come ON, guys! Didn't you watch the opening scene from Prometheus? All kidding aside, for the same, or opposite reasons stated by annan, my brain is incapable of conceiving of the creation of life as exists now without some kind of intelligent guidance. I can buy into a random combination of proteins and sugars causing some kind of "lifelike" organism, but what I CANNOT fathom is the random creation of DNA. Life can occur accidentally, but cannot reproduce and evolve. That is my humble opinion on creation.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 8, 2015 23:57:05 GMT -5
I can buy into a random combination of proteins and sugars causing some kind of "lifelike" organism, but what I CANNOT fathom is the random creation of DNA. How do you feel about RNA?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Dec 9, 2015 0:21:19 GMT -5
I don't fully comprehend the difference between DNA and RNA.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 9, 2015 0:50:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 1:10:53 GMT -5
" it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe" I don't know about that! The Bible (and most people) aren't so concerned with what's technologically possible but with the personality of God. We're all suffused into the question of [God] as we're asked what our ultimate values and objectives are. What has ultimate meaning. Lee, its true. Given the physical requirements of the Big Bang, it is in theory possible to replicate it, and maybe easier than we think. The trouble is we can't duplicate the nothingness which existed sometime prior to the Big Bang because it would mean more than removing time, matter, energy and space - we have to remove the rules of physics, and even maths itself. Good luck on that one.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Dec 9, 2015 1:15:57 GMT -5
That's all interesting, but if its true, then something has to have created the water heat and molecules in the beginning and mixed them together in the right order. Or, created that little pond that created life!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Dec 9, 2015 2:39:10 GMT -5
maryhig you wrote "That's all interesting, but if its true, then something has to have created the water heat and molecules in the beginning and mixed them together in the right order". If you apply the premise that there has to be a cause (your term is a creator) for the origin of life, then what is the cause (or creator) of the creator? To believe that a complex being, capable of generating all life forms, just magically appeared is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 9, 2015 9:20:07 GMT -5
That's all interesting, but if its true, then something has to have created the water heat and molecules in the beginning and mixed them together in the right order. Or, created that little pond that created life! Ahhh, maryhig! This is always the response when events that were thought to be possible only with action from a paranormal being are discovered just to be natural phenomenon. It happened to Thor and it happened to Neptune. Something did create all of the parts - they are products of the big bang. When you ignite gunpowder do you believe the production of potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, etc. require the action of a paranormal being?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Dec 9, 2015 11:02:58 GMT -5
That's all interesting, but if its true, then something has to have created the water heat and molecules in the beginning and mixed them together in the right order. Or, created that little pond that created life! Ahhh, maryhig! This is always the response when events that were thought to be possible only with action from a paranormal being are discovered just to be natural phenomenon. It happened to Thor and it happened to Neptune. Something did create all of the parts - they are products of the big bang. When you ignite gunpowder do you believe the production of potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, etc. require the action of a paranormal being? No, but they need something to ignite them! Left alone, gunpowder won't do anything, it needs a spark. And our spark on creation, our big bang was, let there be light! Naturally and spiritually. Regardless of how we came into being, or as joanna asks how God came into being is beyond my human mind. But what I do know is that, the air I breath, the rain I feel, the sun shining, the flowers springing into life in summer. All these things I believe must have a greater mind behind them. Even having a conscience, something that goes against my nature and tries to show me the right thing to do in my life. That has to come from somewhere. I know God is there, I feel his love in my heart that reaches far past caring far only those in my own family. And I feel an overwhelming peace inside that nothing in this world can give. I may have troubles and things do happen to me. But I have faith, and God pulls me through and gives me strength. And I love him from the depths of my heart! I know he's there, I no doubt whatsoever!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 9, 2015 11:30:39 GMT -5
Mankind has yet to know a moment without serious political, contention and division. What business do we have creating new planetary systems? Assuming we could influence such a system after its creation, who would determine who controls and owns what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 13:31:58 GMT -5
I tend not to get too fixated with the creator debate. For me it is one of the those futile debates where no one is ever able to convince those of a different viewpoint. Personally I no longer believe in the existence of a creator but who cares what I believe, beliefs are irrelevant on this thread. What I have noted is that those who promote the existence of a creator most strongly here tend to be those who also believe in [what might be best described as] the Christian God. While I do understand the arguments for the existence of a creator, what I really struggle to understand is the argument (if it can even be described as an argument) that (i) the wonder and splendour of nature provides evidence of creation, (ii) evidence of creation is evidence of a creator and (iii) evidence of a creator (somehow - I'm not sure how) proves the existence of the Christian God. As far I as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever to support the argument that (even if we accept that the world was indeed created) it is the soul saving character in the bible who created the world. The wonder and splendour of nature may indeed provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of a creator but it certainly doesn't provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of the son sending, dead resurrecting character in the bible. I can never quite grasp why bible believers think it does. So, instead of engaging in yet another act of futility and debating the existence (or non existence) of a creator, it may be more useful if we all simply accept (solely for the purposes of this search) the existence of a creator and invite believers to set out the basis on which they make the rather large leap from a position of ..... the wonder and splendour nature proves the existence of a creator ...... to a position of ..... the wonder and splendour of nature proves the existence of the flood sending, Amalekite slaughtering, jealous, vengeful, rib removing character of the Old Testament. It surely doesn't. Matt10 But I think DD just took the argument for a creator an entirely different direction. Far from the creator being the soul-saving bedroom-peering child-head-dashing wall-pissing god of the bible, what if the creator was just a dude named Joe (or, more likely, a dudette named Tasnim) from a predecessor universe with a test tube, a cyclotron, a large hadron collider, a nuclear reactor and some other piece of technology that we won't discover for another millennium or 12? If our search reveals that the creator turns out to be a guy named Joe you can be assured that there'll be no one more delighted than me. It would give me great satisfaction to prove that both sides taking part in the frequent futile debate on this issue here have erred in their belief. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 9, 2015 21:58:35 GMT -5
maryhig, I understand how difficult it is to imagine no "original cause" (prime mover, creator, whatever), and I understand your feeling of God's love. Why do you lump the two together?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 9, 2015 22:24:25 GMT -5
Mankind has yet to know a moment without serious political, contention and division. What business do we have creating new planetary systems? Assuming we could influence such a system after its creation, who would determine who controls and owns what? Well,- that being true, that "(Man) -Humankind has yet to know a moment without serious political, contention and division. " Has the "biblical creator " done any better?
I don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 9, 2015 22:53:14 GMT -5
Ahhh, maryhig ! This is always the response when events that were thought to be possible only with action from a paranormal being are discovered just to be natural phenomenon. It happened to Thor and it happened to Neptune. Something did create all of the parts - they are products of the big bang. When you ignite gunpowder do you believe the production of potassium carbonate, potassium sulfate, etc. require the action of a paranormal being? No, but they need something to ignite them! Left alone, gunpowder won't do anything, it needs a spark. And our spark on creation, our big bang was, let there be light! Naturally and spiritually. Regardless of how we came into being, or as joanna asks how God came into being is beyond my human mind. But what I do know is that, the air I breath, the rain I feel, the sun shining, the flowers springing into life in summer. All these things I believe must have a greater mind behind them. Even having a conscience, something that goes against my nature and tries to show me the right thing to do in my life. That has to come from somewhere. I know God is there, I feel his love in my heart that reaches far past caring far only those in my own family. And I feel an overwhelming peace inside that nothing in this world can give. I may have troubles and things do happen to me. But I have faith, and God pulls me through and gives me strength. And I love him from the depths of my heart! I know he's there, I no doubt whatsoever! It always amazes me that when people insist that GOD MUST exist often use the same kind of reasons as claimed; "the air I breath, the rain I feel, the sun shining, the flowers springing into life in summer."
They NEVER mention the "air" that becomes a tornado or the "rain" becomes a typhoon that destroys.
Also The idea of having a "conscience," in order to treat others in the same manner that you would want yourself to be treated does not at all have to come from a "creator!" It simply evolves from the reciprocity that people have needed in order to live together to help one another and be able to trust one another without fear.
Of course some people have no doubt that "GOD" exists, -because they need to feel safe & comfortable. A furry teddy bear or warm blanket would no doubt be just as effective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 4:35:40 GMT -5
Atheists love miracles. How else did the world create itself? How else could the laws of physics and mathematics just appear out of nothing? Did nothing just decided to become something? How is that possible - and with what did it manage to do this? Easy, it was a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by Partaker on Dec 10, 2015 5:49:43 GMT -5
Atheists love miracles. How else did the world create itself? How else could the laws of physics and mathematics just appear out of nothing? Did nothing just decided to become something? How is that possible - and with what did it manage to do this? Easy, it was a miracle. Gosh, Bert, I was trying to figure that one out for a long time now,thanks man.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Dec 10, 2015 6:22:02 GMT -5
Atheists love miracles. How else did the world create itself? How else could the laws of physics and mathematics just appear out of nothing? Did nothing just decided to become something? How is that possible - and with what did it manage to do this? Easy, it was a miracle. Good point
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Dec 10, 2015 6:40:53 GMT -5
[quote , I understand how difficult it is to imagine no "original cause" (prime mover, creator, whatever), and I understand your feeling of God's love. Why do you lump the two together?[/quote]
In my opinion, my earliest thought on this subject Was that G-D must have created our Creator.
A cause needs an origin, there can be many Causes, but we only perceive the causes that Produced .
As we know , "Wisdom is justified of her children"
(Wisdom ((Father)) ,The cause ; Children- produced )
|
|