It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Central Limit Theorem prove a Creator/Deity?

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Man John, if you could just see the CREATION outside my Clearwater Tower, sun clouds, the gulf, not to mention the pool
...

I wish you all could SEE it!

OT Sunning..with a hat on tho...




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
So, by using the most simplest answer, the universe is infinite and follows the laws of physics as they exist.


OK, thx...

How do you rationalize the huge waste of space?

I mean if the universe is eternal, why has 'it' focused all energies on earth? I know we haven't seen all of the neighborhood, but we've seen a WHOLE lot, granted, right?

And yet its just us????? Seems an illogical outcome with your stated premise?

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Back to the universe and 'it's' masterful job with the earth....


The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4


source: www.everystudent.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Back to the universe and 'it's' masterful job with the earth.... part 2


Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
www.everystudent.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
part 3...

the universe is an effect friend....


Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."12

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."13
www.everystudent.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Thoughtful article here on the UNIVERSE beginnings...thoughts?

Link: www.everystudent.com...

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


John I found this on CHANCE, thought you'd like it...

source: www.iamnext.com...


Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation.

Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance?

Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.

This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"(9)

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
EVIDENCE: What about our capacity for 'right'????

If we followed the "universe" would not the WEAK be eliminated, or atleast minimized?


4. Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained. There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?

And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.
link: www.iamnext.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


What wasted space are you referring to and what do you mean by focused all it's energies on us? I'm going to need more information on these two lines of thought as I have not got a clue what your talking about.


The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury.


Correct in the sense that it's perfect for how life exists on this planet. Life on other planets of different sizes and different atmospheric compositions would be seemingly perfect for them, but not so for us. It's a moot argument.


Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it.


This is not entirely true. We couldn't live without it, and most life on our planet does rely on it, but even on our planet there are forms of life that don't require water, nor do they use any sunlight as a source of energy. So, in a sense to claim that no living thing can live without it is a bold faced lie, unless one was previously unaware of these other lifeforms on our own planet.

Not only that, there has been some research suggesting that silicon could be a basis for life on other planets, working similarly as to how our carbon based life does. So life doesn't necessarily need water, light or carbon in order to exist. Look up some research papers on silicon based life, I believe if I remember correctly that it would require ammonia in a similar manner that we require water.

There is also a lot that we don't know about how the brain functions, so lack of knowledge is not a valid argument. Nor does the eye process any information, let alone seven million colors. You may want to research what your sources are saying before using them in argument.


How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?


The laws of physics haven't been seen to change, but the universe is far from orderly. Order demands predictability, yet we can not predict with accuracy any event within our universe, making it a chaotic universe, or unpredictable.


Thoughtful article here on the UNIVERSE beginnings...thoughts?


Interesting article. I've got a few issues with it however. First, it's putting modern theory in the bible, not even the pope would approve. Second, it's using the big bang theory inability to show HOW the universe went boom.

I personally don't believe in the big bang for a lot of reasons. We see old galaxies near the supposed beginning of time, we see galaxies as young as a few hundred million years near our own galaxy, not all galaxies are flying away as if they were moving from a central explosive point with some moving towards us, some moving away from us, some going left, some going right, and even a huge grouping of them all moving to one central point in space as if something larger was out there gravitationally pulling them towards it.

Too many inconsistencies with the BBT and too much need to invent invisible forces, much like your god really. BBT is just an atheistic form of religion really, just not one I subscribe to.


John I found this on CHANCE, thought you'd like it...


There is no such thing as chance. Give an example of a chance happening and you'll soon learn why it doesn't exist.


Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained. There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong.


This is such hogwash. Different societies and cultures all have different ideas of what is right and wrong. What's right in one culture is wrong in another. We think it's right to eat a cow, another culture thinks it's wrong because they worship cows. We think it's wrong to kill, but a cannibalistic culture see's no problem with dismembering their neighboring tribes and eating them in times of war or famine.

Back in the time of Jesus, they thought it was ok to stone someone to death. Do you still think that's ok?

John, I'll get to you tomorrow, my wife wants me up stairs now. Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to your post. Tomorrow morning I'll hop to it. OT, looking forward to learning something about this wasted space idea of yours.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


sirnex, your last post was your best friend....very balanced, settled, kinda cool!!!



I dunno, imagine a 4 ft by 4 ft room and it was all that existed, but for some reason in a distant corner of the room, the size of .0000001 by .0000001 life began, goodness happened....

Concluding that the 4by4 room did it..... isn't 'level', why would the space allow 99.99999999999999% to go without goodness and life....I'm trying here...its just hard to put into words....if the 4by4 room did it, it seems to me the goodness would be "stratified" friend...???

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex, I’m listening to my ipod touch, hitting the sack….and these two songs came on, and I thought of you….

Song one lyrics here: aberrantlynormal.blogspot.com...

Song two video here: www.youtube.com...

Sleep well…

OT



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   


Originally posted by sirnex
So, by using the most simplest answer, the universe is infinite and follows the laws of physics as they exist.
Response by OT.

OK, thx...How do you rationalize the huge waste of space? I mean if the universe is eternal, why has 'it' focused all energies on earth? I know we haven't seen all of the neighborhood, but we've seen a WHOLE lot, granted, right? And yet its just us????? Seems an illogical outcome with your stated premise?


Is there actually any 'space' wasted? The fact that we are able to experientially appreciate a concept of space arises not from space itself, but from the content within it existing in relative postional coordinates to each other. Without such content, our concept and appreciation of space would be non-existent.
As for the universe focussing all it's energies upon earth, one wonders how you are able to arrive at such an idea? Clearly, you are attempting to anthropomorphize the universe by subtly suggesting that it 'sentiently' focusses all its energies to one particular coordinate within its vastness...which of course would suit your argument for a (God present) determinate universe. This is nothing more than a pre-Copernican medieval concept, and has clearly been established to be false.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


I dunno, imagine a 4 ft by 4 ft room and it was all that existed, but for some reason in a distant corner of the room, the size of .0000001 by .0000001 life began, goodness happened....

Concluding that the 4by4 room did it..... isn't 'level', why would the space allow 99.99999999999999% to go without goodness and life....I'm trying here...its just hard to put into words....if the 4by4 room did it, it seems to me the goodness would be "stratified" friend...???


Well firstly, it's silly to think that the room was trying to make life (nothing in about biology is inherently good - "good" is an abstract concept).

Secondly because life appeared rather quickly, it is likely that life has emerged billions of times throughout the room in different places.

Furthermore, morals are an evolved trait because morals are beneficial to have in a social group. That's why other social animals with higher brain functions have morals as well. There is nothing divine about morals.

The assumption that the whole universe is about us is a disgustingly narcissistic one and I am surprised by your short sightedness.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


In your example your demanding that there must be an intelligent hand behind the fundamental forces of the universe. I don't understand this concept of the universe needing an intelligence force behind it to create life.

When a gas cloud condenses to form a star and individual planets, do they need an intelligence behind it or are they just simply following the laws of physics coming together by various interaction?

It's the same thing with life, once we have a planet that exists in the right location or a planet that has the right variables to allow life to exist, then life will exist. At one time Mars and Venus both had viable chances for life existing, but something went wrong on both planets. Venus ended up with a run away greenhouse effect and Mars' core cooled to quickly. But had they not had those problems and continued to be supportive of life and had life to this day, I highly doubt we would say that life is perfect to our world only.

Would we then argue that god created the three life sustaining planets with intelligence on each so that we may learn from one another? I mean, what new religious thoughts would we develop under such an existence?

I'm sorry, but I see no observational nor experimental evidence that dictates the universe must or only can exist by the hand of a creator. You have to understand, these 'proofs' don't exist and that is the very basis behind the belief in faith. You exercise faith in your belief in a god because there is no physical evidence of a god and none will ever exist. We think the universe requires a beginning, and so we try to answer where that beginning came from. In your argument you call god to the stand, only he refuses to show, making your argument that much less viable. In science, they call the big bang theory to the stand and they do show a lot of compelling evidence, but they ignore a lot of other evidence that show's it never happened.

Just look up some of what I've said in the last post. When we actually observe the cosmos, we don't see one of order or one born from any apparent beginning. There is young and old equally together throughout and the same distance seen in every direction and all the galaxies going in every different which way direction. What we really see, following the laws of physics is more of an eternal universe than one with a beginning.

I believe that is what man should be focusing on now. For thousands of years we've assumed a beginning, yet now with technology we see a universe that defies a beginning. For all intents and purposes, it appears that not only is religion wrong in it's inability to show god, but science is also seemingly wrong on it's ideas of a universe that requires a beginning.

I mean, based on what we see out there, one now has to ask, does the universe really need to have had a beginning or is there something we're just not understanding or just don't know yet and need more time to learn before we can answer truthfully?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Why do you have the belief that the creator is the cause and effect to the universe? Can you show that the universe first had a beginning through observational evidence and can you further show that the universe requires a creator to exist in the first place?

The big bang theory in my opinion is false. When we look "back in time" with our telescopes, we don't see an orderly universe that started off with young galaxies all moving away from a central point. We see young and old galaxies mixed together and moving in all directions, either towards or away from each other and such.

This doesn't sound like a universe with a beginning to me! I have another thread trying to discuss the observational evidences that point to an eternal universe rather than one with a beginning. No one wants to discuss it though it seems.

Neither the religious nor the scientists have shown that the universe requires a beginning in order to exist, both parties only claim it had a beginning, but both parties also ignore for whatever reasons the observed evidences that point to a universe without a beginning.

Cause and effect may be supportive of the god theory, but it is equally supportive of the big bang theory. Yet the god theory lacks one critical important piece of evidence, and that is god. Not only that, but which god out of the thousands worshiped through out mankind's history is that god? The god theory has a lot of work ahead of it if it is to be taken seriously by freethinkers. One can't shout because I said so with a smug grin and expect to be taken at face value. Show the work that lead to the conclusion that it was god or that a god is needed or that the universe even had a beginning.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


Originally posted by sirnex
So, by using the most simplest answer, the universe is infinite and follows the laws of physics as they exist.
Response by OT.

OK, thx...How do you rationalize the huge waste of space? I mean if the universe is eternal, why has 'it' focused all energies on earth? I know we haven't seen all of the neighborhood, but we've seen a WHOLE lot, granted, right? And yet its just us????? Seems an illogical outcome with your stated premise?


Is there actually any 'space' wasted? The fact that we are able to experientially appreciate a concept of space arises not from space itself, but from the content within it existing in relative postional coordinates to each other. Without such content, our concept and appreciation of space would be non-existent.
As for the universe focussing all it's energies upon earth, one wonders how you are able to arrive at such an idea? Clearly, you are attempting to anthropomorphize the universe by subtly suggesting that it 'sentiently' focusses all its energies to one particular coordinate within its vastness...which of course would suit your argument for a (God present) determinate universe. This is nothing more than a pre-Copernican medieval concept, and has clearly been established to be false.


Hey my three skeptics, good morning...

So its cause and effect? hmm???

Also I never mentioned God...no anthropomorphizing friend...

Take it for what it says, pretty simple illustration.....a very very very small portion of space had life, if the universe happened to bring life in one area, it should be seen in others...either the spread is random, or biased.

If it isn't focused, as you say...THEN ITS RANDOM...the EFFECT shows "focus", sorry....

OT



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Why do you have the belief that the creator is the cause and effect to the universe?


It makes sense.



Can you show that the universe first had a beginning through observational evidence and can you further show that the universe requires a creator to exist in the first place?


No. But you cannot demonstrate the universe does not require a creator or a beginning.

ID leads me to belive in a designer. The constellations show ID. The Divine Artist/Creator has left His signature in everything He created.
So it's no stretch of imagination for me to believe a designer/creator is the cause of the universe.

Can you show observational data for evolution taking place millions of years ago?

How does anyone test and observe the evolution processes that is said to have happened millions of years ago? Forget adaptive responses and variations in species.....which does not prove evolution one bit.

I do not believe the Big Bang theory either, so it Looks like we found some common ground.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


So it makes sense that there was an eternal complex creator, but not an eternal complex universe? That sounds very contradictory to me, we can believe in on infinity but not the other because it's not tied to man made religious doctrine?

I understand you don't like being called out on certain observations, but such a structured belief system is the very definition of what a hypocrite is.

It makes no logical sense to believe in one infinity without evidence, but dismiss another infinity that shows some evidence.


No. But you cannot demonstrate the universe does not require a creator or a beginning.


True, I can't show that at some point there was no beginning either through natural forces or through a god like entity. However, if we base logic and reason on what we see, we don't see a universe with a beginning of sorts. We just see everything going in whichever way it's going and not in any orderly fashion at that.


ID leads me to belive in a designer. The constellations show ID. The Divine Artist/Creator has left His signature in everything He created.
So it's no stretch of imagination for me to believe a designer/creator is the cause of the universe.


I don't understand where your getting that constellations show ID. Man picked arbitrary points of light in the night sky and "drew" pictures out of them. It's like connect the dots only on a cosmic scale.You can pick pretty much any starting point and connect however many adjacent stars you want to form just about any picture. That isn't ID, that's humans making pretty pictures. It's like seeing shapes of things in clouds, no different really.

Your going to have to show that constellations are proof of ID.


Can you show observational data for evolution taking place millions of years ago?


Can I show it physically happening as in travel back and time and say see? No, that's impossible, but it has been shown that evolutionary processes do take place today and there is no real reason to doubt that magically at some point in the past the same processes never occurred. That's just silly.


Forget adaptive responses and variations in species.....which does not prove evolution one bit.


Those processes are part of the very foundation of evolutionary theory. It's like saying I understand how ice cream is made, but I don't believe in ice cream. It just sounds silly and infantile.


I do not believe the Big Bang theory either, so it Looks like we found some common ground.


I'm honestly surprised that you don't believe in the big bang considering it was first formulated by a religious scientist. It was in my opinion at least probably a way of him showing how god did it. Big bang theory and god are practically hand in hand. Unless you have a different theory on how god did it?

It just amazes me how people come up with these fantastic ideas when everything we see paints an entirely different picture. We somehow feel a need to be 'right' and so we invent invisible untestable "truths" that no one can argue against or in favor of. Then we arrogantly and smugly stick our noses out when people try and show that those arrogant truths are false.

Like I said, if we go on observation alone without bias of religious doctrine or scientific thought, we don't actually see any of that out there in the cosmos. We just see an endless universe with old and young intermixed in equal enough proportions all going about their own paths and not in any discernible orderly path as would be intuitive of a universe with a beginning.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Why do you have the belief that the creator is the cause and effect to the universe? Can you show that the universe first had a beginning through observational evidence and can you further show that the universe requires a creator to exist in the first place?
You raise some good questions, and although they are directed at John Matrix I would like to discuss them too.
For me, the idea that the universe has a creator is logical. Via the time reversal of isotropic expansion(observed) we can considered that there was a beginning. By considering causality we can also show a requirement for a creator or cause for a beginning of the observed isotropic expansion of the universe.


The big bang theory in my opinion is false.
Fair enough. But how do you account for isotropic expansion?

When we look "back in time" with our telescopes, we don't see an orderly universe that started off with young galaxies all moving away from a central point. We see young and old galaxies mixed together and moving in all directions, either towards or away from each other and such.
Who said there was an "orderly start" to the universe. Galaxies moving towards each other and away are being influenced by gravitational forces on a local scale and galaxies dies and are torn apart by each other, Like the Triangulum Spiral galaxy being torn up and eaten by Andromeda.
The Big Bang theory and the expansion, or metric expansion is done on galactic superclusters and above, in scale.


This doesn't sound like a universe with a beginning to me! I have another thread trying to discuss the observational evidences that point to an eternal universe rather than one with a beginning. No one wants to discuss it though it seems.
I have been party to many discussion on an Eternal Universe here on ATS. How do you explain an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, any ordered system(i.e. our existence) tends into disorder and chaos. We observe this on all levels in the universe. If this process is indeed eternal, then disorder and chaos would be infinite.


Neither the religious nor the scientists have shown that the universe requires a beginning in order to exist, both parties only claim it had a beginning, but both parties also ignore for whatever reasons the observed evidences that point to a universe without a beginning.
What evidence is there that shows the universe is eternal.


Cause and effect may be supportive of the god theory, but it is equally supportive of the big bang theory. Yet the god theory lacks one critical important piece of evidence, and that is god.
Can you show me a universe that is eternal, how do you do that. How do you show an infinite universe or an infinite being? Your argument is as valid as a God hypothesis in that it is just as impossible to show or prove.

Not only that, but which god out of the thousands worshiped through out mankind's history is that god? The god theory has a lot of work ahead of it if it is to be taken seriously by freethinkers.
There is only one religion that is supported by the Big Bang Theory. Most free thinkers know this.

One can't shout because I said so with a smug grin and expect to be taken at face value. Show the work that lead to the conclusion that it was god or that a god is needed or that the universe even had a beginning.

Think of things that humans have created, like languages, music, science, art, poetry, architecture etc. Consider these mere creations that have been born from our human consciousness! A consciousness on a quantum scale in relative terms so to speak when considering a much larger consciousness. Now consider the Universe, do you know how many fine parameters exist that are required for it to actually exist as it is? There are many, many, many of these. Consider the Laws of Physics that have to exist first, all the parameters defined and already existing. Think about the actual processes involved in all progression from chemical, stellar, planetary, cosmological and biological evolution including abiogenesis as aspects. All ordered processes, governed by rules and laws and parameters. Sounds like something that would come from a consciousness. I mean how can Laws and rules and parameters just exist eternally. How do you explain a form of logic that is apparent in the universe as just being, and eternal?
As an effect of a consciousness it appears more logical? That would have to be considered on a massive scale(infinite and eternal some would argue) compared to what our little human (quantum) consciousness can create or make. Logically speaking, I consider these valid considerations when contemplating a "god" or superior creative consciousness.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
1. Universe was created in seven days by a series of miracles, no man will ever understand how.

2.God has exactly set a few laws and constants so that the universe created itself.

Which explanation is more beautiful and fascinating, more worth of god? Number one is boring, it is how man would do it.
Number two shows the true elegance of god's solution, complexity from simplicity, countless emergent phenomena. Allows us to recognize through cause and effect how god did it, thus bringing us closer to him. He did it this interesting and mysterious way for us, our joy and curiosity.
This is why (apart from obvious evidence) most of world's religious people have no problem with naturalistic explanation of the universe!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join