Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

The universe in its current form clearly isn't eternal as it began with the Big Bang. Whether the singularity/quantum fluctuations that "preceded" it have always existed in some form is another matter and science isn't yet at the point where it can answer that question.

I don't see why the "something rather than nothing" is seen as a convincing or powerful point because it's nothing more than the Anthropic Principle. We can only question and talk about this because there is something, allowing us to evolve. We are here because of the conditions. The conditions didn't think ahead and tailor themselves to us like would be expected from an intelligent design argument.

The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.

I'm not talking about whether or not the universe is designed for us. I'm just noting the fact that it exists, and asking for a credible reason why this is. The fact humans exist has no bearing on why there is something rather than nothing.

Saying 'the only reason we can talk about this is because we exist' is irrelevant to this point, and besides, the only reason we can talk about anything is because we exist, including science.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
Atheist: -_-

You're right. god isn't an event. god isn't anything but a made up story.
Again the big bang could've been the "eternal first cause". A hypothesis gaining ground, which stems from the multiverse hypothesis suggests that the big bang has always been happening. Here's one of many links that you can check out.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html

Don't worry, if you don't understand, the rest of use scientifically literate people do. Perhaps you can pray to the flying spaghetti monster ( http://www.venganza.org/about/ ) or whatever made up god you believe in.for knowledge.

Just when I think you finally understand about the absurdity of the outside of the outside of time, you then show that you don't by believing god exists outside of time. If something can exist outside of time, then why not the outside of outside of time?

Really, before you reply just take a bit of time to think about this.

Again, eternal / eternity are indeed an application of time and so can't be outside of time. It's like saying 'south' isn't an application of direction as it exists outside of directions. I don't claim to be a quantum physicist, but I do tend to read a variety of scientific articles and if something piques my interest, i'll seek out academic papers, so i'm pretty sure I have a stronger grasp of such concepts. I believe that education is very important. If only you people believed in facts as much as you believed in fairy tales the world would be a better place.

Now, if you feel the need to go to the bible to find a way to contradict peer-reviewed studies, then you can't hope to understand such concepts.



I'm not confused. Although, i'm not a physicist, I do read around the subject. I make a huge amount of sense. I would implore you to educate yourself. If you disagree with my stance then read around the subject and link in some peer-reviewed science to justify your position. Otherwise, you'll remain ignorant and that would be a shame when we live in a world when we've more access to information than we've ever had. Thanks, science.

But I didn't get proven wrong. I stated something and you said basically said, "That's not right. It's god, innit". That's not proof. That is a counter statement not backed by anything. If I were you, I wouldn't think of going to university just yet. You'll acquire unnecessary crippling debt by answering every question with, "god did it, innit".

Your beliefs are totally misguided. If everyone had your beliefs then we'd be having this conversation still living in the dark ages. Again, thanks science.

Science has never and can't ever harm anyone. People harm people. No-one ever said, "I will kill you as Charles Darwin demands in the book, 'The origin of species'. But people have and do still kill stating that that is what god demands in the bible.

Your cringy LOL's are getting weird. LOL

LOL Again, you've offered no proof of anything. So there's no need to worry about my education. I consistently obtain firsts so i'll be okay. LOL

LOL I probably did prove your logic...on opposite world. Unfortunately for you, this is Earth where facts and logic prevail over superstition. You should visit this plant more often to get used to it. LOL

Just read up on the big bang and and the cyclic hypothesis.
Uh oh, but that would mean educating yourself about something. We can't have that, can we.

LOL

If you can have an eternal creator, why not an eternal universe?

Also, if the creator is eternal, isn't she really just another name for that universe?

The Anthropic Principle is a very important and oft-used fallacy. It is completely relevant because your question subtly implies that there is a reason why there's something rather than nothing. There isn't, or at least there's no evidence for this.

I'm not actually sure what you're trying to get at. Something exists just because it does. It's like asking "Why does God exist?" or "Why is an atom with 6 protons carbon?" The point being that there doesn't need to be a reason as this implies there is an underlying intelligence that had reasons for doing so and there is no evidence of that. Matter and energy are unthinking and unconscious.

Religious person: Something can't come from nothing, therefore something must have created the universe/world/whatever.
Atheist: Okay, so there's God. God is something. God could not come from nothing. So where did God come from?
Religious person: Oh, he was always there.
Atheist: -_-

Even better:

Religionist: something can't come from nothing therefore the universe must have had a creator.

Atheist: so what did God create the universe (i.e. everything) out of?

Religionist: nothing.

The idea of 'nothing' is dreamed up in the world of something"Something predicates the absence of nothing. You have one or the other and never both or anything in between.I.E. If something ever existed at all, then something is all there ever wasAlso, if nothing existed, then it would be something by virtue of existing.

Not even how it goes

Born-again Christian: Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

Atheist: Who created God?
Born-again Christian: That question sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

Atheist: Stupid theists, always bending the rules - how do you even know that?

Born-again Christian: How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.



(with help from gotquestions)

Also, if the creator is eternal, isn't she really just another name for that universe?

The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator

If the Universe was eternal, there was no Big Bang which I'm guessing you believe in.

Actually, the article is simply a theory saying there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang - don't try and connect that to the 'a Big Bang is happening right now' - trying to change your beliefs mid-argument just makes you look funny as we are talking about one Big Bang so if there were Big Bangs before it still couldn't be eternal.

Your condescension is quite funny but you know. If you wanna say he's a made-up story then sure.



whoa - a round of applause for that strawman - it was magnificent but unfortunately not what I even said.

South is an application of direction but something that is south of you isn't an application of direction. So just because the word eternal relates to time, doesn't mean the thing it is describing can't be outside of time. There is no outside of the outside of time because the outside of time is the Metacosm - how can there be an outside of an outside without you even acknowledging that that outside exists.



Loving those peer-reviewed studies that didn't even go against me. Wow, someone says they made a huge amount of sense - they're obviously not biased. There's no point in hypocritical judgement in fact the Bible says it's wrong. Do not ask people to educate themselves in such a rude way. without you yourself being educated.



Another strawman - do I need to reassure you I am not a crow?

I never said, because you're wrong 'god did it, innit' - just because scientists have no empirical proof for abiogenesis (which evolution depends on) doesn't mean 'god did it, innit' but it means that people who cry for empirical proof of God are only deceiving themselves when there is 0 empirical proof for abiogenesis.

I believe God is the eternal first cause and I proved you wrong by saying the Big Bang as an EVENT can't be eternal - that's not attributing it God. You've been holding this strawman up the whole argument and that's the real misguided belief.



I doubt it because religion isn't even against science. I'm sure we would have gone further if people took Christianity for what it actually was.

As you can say science has never and can't ever harm anyone - I can say a relationship with God doesn't harm anyone. People harm people.



It's pretty funny how I used 'LOL' twice in my post and you used the smiley 10 times which if you didn't guess is 5 times as much as my usage but I guess you get triggered easily. You used the smiley after almost every sentence and it's funny how you just use the LOL in the same way in a hypocritical and worse way than mine own.

As said before, hypocritical judgement is wrong and just plain embarrassing.

I'm loving that clear empirical proof for the Cyclic Hypothesis - o wait there is none.

How can you be so rude in a simple internet argument? I guess it just comes down to how triggered you are - but I shouldn't worry about your self-control - you don't believe in any real lasting consequences of your actions anyway (wait was that just a gross misrepresentation of your beliefs - yes it was - and it's exactly what you've been doing this whole argument with strawmans left, right and centre)

I have no superstitions but if you actually knew what the Big Bang was, you'd know an event couldn't be eternal and that the Cyclic Hypothesis doesn't even say the Big Bang is Eternal :/

rip don't force it and the Multiverse theory (which if you actually believe in - you are having as much faith as Christians in Christ) together to pretend as if you're right.

If the Universe was eternal, there was no Big Bang which I'm guessing you believe in.

Actually, the article is simply a theory saying there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang - don't try and connect that to the 'a Big Bang is happening right now' - trying to change your beliefs mid-argument just makes you look funny as we are talking about one Big Bang so if there were Big Bangs before it still couldn't be eternal.

Your condescension is quite funny but you know. If you wanna say he's a made-up story then sure.

whoa - a round of applause for that strawman - it was magnificent but unfortunately not what I even said.

South is an application of direction but something that is south of you isn't an application of direction. So just because the word eternal relates to time, doesn't mean the thing it is describing can't be outside of time. There is no outside of the outside of time because the outside of time is the Metacosm - how can there be an outside of an outside without you even acknowledging that that outside exists.

Loving those peer-reviewed studies that didn't even go against me. Wow, someone says they made a huge amount of sense - they're obviously not biased. There's no point in hypocritical judgement in fact the Bible says it's wrong. Do not ask people to educate themselves in such a rude way. without you yourself being educated.

Another strawman - do I need to reassure you I am not a crow?

I never said, because you're wrong 'god did it, innit' - just because scientists have no empirical proof for abiogenesis (which evolution depends on) doesn't mean 'god did it, innit' but it means that people who cry for empirical proof of God are only deceiving themselves when there is 0 empirical proof for abiogenesis.

I believe God is the eternal first cause and I proved you wrong by saying the Big Bang as an EVENT can't be eternal - that's not attributing it God. You've been holding this strawman up the whole argument and that's the real misguided belief.

I doubt it because religion isn't even against science. I'm sure we would have gone further if people took Christianity for what it actually was.

As you can say science has never and can't ever harm anyone - I can say a relationship with God doesn't harm anyone. People harm people.

It's pretty funny how I used 'LOL' twice in my post and you used the smiley 10 times which if you didn't guess is 5 times as much as my usage but I guess you get triggered easily. You used the smiley after almost every sentence and it's funny how you just use the LOL in the same way in a hypocritical and worse way than mine own.

As said before, hypocritical judgement is wrong and just plain embarrassing.

I'm loving that clear empirical proof for the Cyclic Hypothesis - o wait there is none.

How can you be so rude in a simple internet argument? I guess it just comes down to how triggered you are - but I shouldn't worry about your self-control - you don't believe in any real lasting consequences of your actions anyway (wait was that just a gross misrepresentation of your beliefs - yes it was - and it's exactly what you've been doing this whole argument with strawmans left, right and centre)

I have no superstitions but if you actually knew what the Big Bang was, you'd know an event couldn't be eternal and that the Cyclic Hypothesis doesn't even say the Big Bang is Eternal :/

rip don't force it and the Multiverse theory (which if you actually believe in - you are having as much faith as Christians in Christ) together to pretend as if you're right.

God is a "He" you feminist witch :fuhrer:

I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.

We are humans. Our knowledge is limited , yet we must use our senses that the creator has given us.

We humans cant even look at the sun for more than 5 seconds yet we demand evidence for a "God".

Posted from TSR Mobile