Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 8 2012 03:32pm)

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 8 2012 03:32pm)

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 8 2012 03:32pm)

Perhaps the Big Bang singularity has existed always, or was at one point in a different state. Perhaps the universe goes through some sort of cycles, where it expands and then contracts again, only to explode outward, forever and ever for reasons we just haven't figured out and possibly never will

Maybe there was no Big Bang.

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 8 2012 03:32pm)

Besides, our "laws" of science are descriptive, not prescriptive. Matter doesn't obey our laws, our laws just describe what we see the best way we can. Maybe matter can be created or destroyed under circumstances we simply never encountered before. As we learn more about antimatter and quantum physics, maybe these laws will follow the path of Newton's gravity - "good enough" for most situations, but not all. At one point people used god to explain the existence of lightning and wind, now you are using god to explain the existence of matter and energy. It's an argument from ignorance, and it's a sad, sad thing.

What you are expousing here isn't science.  It's faith.  What you are saying is that you have FAITH that as we learn more about the universe that we will learn that matter and energy can be created.  That isn't science.  According to science as we know it, matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 8 2012 03:32pm)

But even all of that aside, what exactly makes you think that this "creator" is the Christian god? Why not Allah? Pretty sure he has always existed and created the universe too. How about Zeus? Ra? Vishnu? FSM?


Ahh, now we are making progress right?  Let's explore why this Creator must be the Christian God shall we?

Quote (balrog66 @ Apr 10 2012 07:09pm)

I don't really want to add anything to the topic, but I do want to thank you that you no longer make new threads every time for the same post.

That really got old fast.

Quote (russian @ Apr 10 2012 09:45pm)

If god could exist without a cause, we would see gods coming into existence on their own all the time. Religion, science, and common sense are not on your side

I understand that it defies logic, faith does come in there.  I must admit that.  We are left with 2 choices, either matter always existed or God did.  However, if we look further at the evidence for whether it was God or matter, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being God that always was. 


Our laws of science describe the universe as it is in its present state. So no, no laws of science are being broken. Whether or not these same laws of science applied before the universe existed is unknown and even unlikely. Your assumption that conservation of mass and energy must have applied during the creation of the universe is just that - your own assumption. Nobody else thinks so, so you are arguing against yourself.

What would cause the laws to suddenly change without reason?  Everything has a cause and an effect.  Without God, this is impossible. 

The big bang is the most plausible explanation we have for the state of the universe as we know it. It likely did, in fact, happen.

It doesn't explain where the matter came from.


No, what I'm saying is that science isn't absolute, and doesn't claim to be, unlike religion. Science recognizes the fact that what we think is true now may turn out to be false in the future, as it many times has in the past. We've never experienced the creation of a universe before, so we can't possibly know anything about it. Applying our current limited scientific understanding to circumstances we can't even begin to imagine is pointless, since we can only guess about which of our current scientific laws would apply. It's backwards and naive to say that the creation of the universe violates our limited, primitive understanding of it, and therefore could not have happened. It would be more correct to say that it violates our laws, and therefore our laws do not fully describe the universe.

Science is based upon fact.  Believing in things that you cannot observe or demonstrate is not science, it's religion.   


In the holy book of the FSM, it states the monster created the universe with his noodly appendage. Clearly the christian god is nothing more than an imposter and a copy-cat. I will pray for you to turn away from your path of heathen wickedness and find the TRUE lord and savior.


No, the Christian God is not a copy cat and cannot logically see how you could dirive that from a simple statement such as this one.

Ramen

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 11 2012 01:03pm)

My response is in bold

Quote

I understand that it defies logic, faith does come in there.  I must admit that.  We are left with 2 choices, either matter always existed or God did.  However, if we look further at the evidence for whether it was God or matter, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being God that always was. 

Quote (xfrodobagginsx @ Apr 11 2012 10:03am)

I understand that it defies logic, faith does come in there.  I must admit that.  We are left with 2 choices, either matter always existed or God did.  However, if we look further at the evidence for whether it was God or matter, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being God that always was.
There is no evidence at all that points towards god's existence, let alone an overwhelming amount of it, let alone an amount that is overwhelmingly more so than the evidence for matter to have existed

What would cause the laws to suddenly change without reason?  Everything has a cause and an effect.  Without God, this is impossible.
I don't think you fully understand what a "law of science" really is. These aren't laws of the universe, that must remain unchanging for reality to exist as we know it. If we discover something new that contradicts a previous "law of science", that doesn't mean that a miracle has happened and god, through his infinite power, has changed the law, bending the very fabric of time and space. All it means is that our "law" was flawed. That's all. Our understanding of whatever the law described was incomplete.

To give you an analogy that you might understand, I could postulate a law that states that apples must always fall down, after seeing a whole bunch of apples fall that way. Then, I would accidentally observe an apple rising in a powerful jet of air (say, a small tornado), and I would proclaim that it's impossible and violates my law, therefore the apple falling in the wrong direction could only be an act of god.


It doesn't explain where the matter came from.
No, it doesn't, but why did you bother saying that it might not have happened? Was it simply the only thing you could possibly respond to out of that whole paragraph, even though it had nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Science is based upon fact.  Believing in things that you cannot observe or demonstrate is not science, it's religion. 
What's your argument? What exactly am I believing in without being able to observe it? I'm just saying that the creation of the universe does not violate our laws because we don't HAVE any laws that apply to a state of non-existence.

No, the Christian God is not a copy cat and cannot logically see how you could dirive that from a simple statement such as this one.
It has been shown many times that Christianity has taken many customs, events, stories, holidays, names, etc, from many other religions. It is, most certainly, nothing more than one of the older examples of copy-paste. There is almost nothing original about the story of Jesus Christ, even his name is just a slightly changed Horus the Krist. Walking on water, conjuring bread, virgin birth, curing the sick, Lamb of God, crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, etc, etc, are ALL borrowed, mostly from the Egyptians. I'm not saying other religions don't do it, or that people in general don't do it, but pretending that Christianity is somehow fundamentally different from a hundred other religions is just lying to yourself.