Did God Create the Universe?

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0&feature=related

This guy jumps the gun a lot but he has some interesting points.

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:55 am

Cygnus wrote:

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0&feature=related

This guy jumps the gun a lot but he has some interesting points.

What interesting points? All I see is another argument from design, pointless and ridiculous as they all are. He sees design, I see natural forces as work. He probably blames demons for diseases too Rolling Eyes

His “big” scientific proof of the god he’s promoting would be the fact that the observable universe hasn’t always existed. However, he totally skips the fact that the stuff (matter and energy) of the observable universe probably has always existed (in one form or another).

Proof he says, huh, more of the same theological shenanigans.

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

That's what I meant by 'jumps the gun'. His hypothesis is, however, based on some scientific grounds. He only proved that it was still maybe possible for some kind of god to exist (yet he claimed it as proof, which is of course stupid). I didn't like his god argument, yet the Stephen Hawking lecture was interesting. Of course it doesn't necessarily point towards god, as god is a way of attempting to fill in the gap of things we still don't know. Maybe an appropriate title for this topic would be 'Origin of the Universe'.

I've been wondering if, as soon as the universe destroys itself it recreates itself. That energy has to go somewhere. Since matter cannot be destroyed, all matter has to go somewhere. Maybe the universe shrinks into a little ball and then explodes because of all the energy in it. I'm probably abusing some kind of law here, though.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 48

Cygnus wrote:

I've been wondering if, as soon as the universe destroys itself it recreates itself. That energy has to go somewhere. Since matter cannot be destroyed, all matter has to go somewhere. Maybe the universe shrinks into a little ball and then explodes because of all the energy in it. I'm probably abusing some kind of law here, though.

I used to follow this stuff pretty closely. The universe has one of two fates. A. The total matter of the universe is so great and everything is so close in proximity that gravity will eventualy halt the universes expansion and then sucks everything back into an massivily dense point and eventually we have a repeat of the big bang. This theory suggests that the universe is forever expanding and contracting like a galactic "accordian". It also means that we may have had this conversation before a trillion years ago. B. The total matter of the universe is insufficient to halt it's expansion and that all matter is drifting apart never to be fully rejoined. this of course means there was a specific moment that that the universe came into existence.
I'm not sure which of the two theories the evidence currently suggests but this stuff used to facinate me.

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:29 am

Cygnus wrote:

Maybe the universe shrinks into a little ball and then explodes because of all the energy in it. I'm probably abusing some kind of law here, though.

Unless space is flat, then the fate the observable universe becomes about as moot as the fate of a common star.

Quote:

His hypothesis is, however, based on some scientific grounds.

I would call his god hypothesis an assertion and nothing more.

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

What I meant is that he uses scientific theory to make assumptions. After the science leaves something unexplained or unknown, he just assumes the hell out of everything. I didn't really like his assertions; I just thought the science was interesting.

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:18 pm

Cygnus wrote:

What I meant is that he uses scientific theory to make assumptions. After the science creates an opening for more theories, he just assumes the hell out of everything. I didn't really like how his assertions;

Yeah, he's attempting to fill the gaps of our scientific understanding with his god; an old and tired trick of the religious.

Quote:

I just thought the science was interesting.

I prefer to get my science from less biased sources, ones that don’t twist the facts to make implausible mythology seem plausible. I’ll bet once he’s got you thinking God, he’d want you to step up to the plate for Jeebus.

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

Quote:

I prefer to get my science from less biased sources, ones that don’t twist the facts to make implausible mythology seem plausible. I’ll bet once he’s got you thinking God, he’d want you to step up to the plate for Jeebus.

Yeah, me too. I stumbled across it on youtube. Luckly, I caught his most of his fallacies the first time around.

Resident Joined: Aug 31, 2006 Posts: 315

God can't create the universe, if the universe has always existed...

Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 429

I don't think the universe needs a god for it to exists. Somewhere along the line, something had to already exist for something to happen. If the universe hadn't always existed, then there would have to be a creator or at least something to cause the thing. But we don't know if the universe has always existed. Creationists often ask: why does the universe exist? There must be a maker! The next step, logically, would be to ask: why is there a maker? Oh, of course, they never ask that, though.

Resident Joined: Aug 31, 2006 Posts: 315

The Cyclic theory puts a dent in all these arguments: the universe never had a beginning.

Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:41 am

josephpalazzo wrote:

The Cyclic theory puts a dent in all these arguments: the universe never had a beginning.

I saw a science channel presentation on the cyclic theory were Brane collisions periodically interact to produce "universes". Under this theory it doesn't matter if our universe eventually suffers heat death, for another new universe(s) will be produced again in the future. Very interesting stuff with no supernaturalism involved Very Happy

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

The chronic problem with deity claims is that they started out as naked assertions long before the microscope or Gallielo(sp).

What takes care of naked assertions quite easy is "Ocham's Razor".

"Out of all the given propositions to a claim, the most simplistic is the most likely answer".

Which makes more sense to you if someone were to assert the following as fact?

1. Thor is a real being who magically made lighting.

OR.

2. Someone made up that story because they liked it and then marketed it as fact even though it was false?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore