Nothing should exist.

[laska]

Only none of it can be proven to be "God's creation" so science just studies the known universe. There is a reason cryptozoologists get laughed at.

Obviously cryptozoology is a psuedoscience. I am not saying scientists should allow their belief in God or belief in random chance to effect their research. All I'm saying is that I find the beauty in nature, a waterfall, a sun set, majestic mountain range, and I don't see random abstract art. It suggests a great artist, not random chance.

 

[spud_meister]

Obviously cryptozoology is a psuedoscience. I am not saying scientists should allow their belief in God or belief in random chance to effect their research. All I'm saying is that I find the beauty in nature, a waterfall, a sun set, majestic mountain range, and I don't see random abstract art. It suggests a great artist, not random chance.

So if God is a great artist, who created the parasitic wasp, the black plague, the platypus or the flesh eating version of staphylococcus aureus? They speak more to me of a deranged sadist than a great artist.

 

[laska]

So if God is a great artist, who created the parasitic wasp, the black plague, the platypus or the flesh eating version of staphylococcus aureus? They speak more to me of a deranged sadist than a great artist.

Evil exists not because of God. Meditate with your cheerios and you may figure it out.

 

[spud_meister]

Evil exists not because of God. Meditate with your cheerios and you may figure it out.

Those things I listed are not "evil", any more than waterfalls are "good". They're instinctive and amoral. If God did not create them, then either he's not the only creator, or they evolved...Duh duh duuuuuuuh.

 

[laska]

Those things I listed are not "evil", any more than waterfalls are "good". They're instinctive and amoral. If God did not create them, then either he's not the only creator, or they evolved...Duh duh duuuuuuuh.

Keep meditating.

 

[spud_meister]

Keep meditating.

:lol:

 

[Indeed]

Think about that for a brief moment. NOTHING SHOULD EXIST. Everything, came from nothing.

That, imho, is the most mind blowing, most anti-science reality of everything. It should NOT BE.

It's honestly, irreconcilable with all known science. From the lowliest quark to massive galactic clusters, none of it should be. Reality shouldn't be. Nothingness should have been.

It is irreconcilable with known science, but not with unknown science, of which there is an infinite amount. We'll figure it out eventually.

I personally think that a separate poked a peep hole in time/space and the pressure was really really intense. Come to think of it, maybe that peep hole is still there...

 

[Renae]

It is irreconcilable with known science, but not with unknown science, of which there is an infinite amount. We'll figure it out eventually.

I personally think that a separate poked a peep hole in time/space and the pressure was really really intense. Come to think of it, maybe that peep hole is still there...

One day yes, but to even understand the answer we don't even have the right questions. We're like cavemen trying to understand fusion right now.

 

[Indeed]

One day yes, but to even understand the answer we don't even have the right questions. We're like cavemen trying to understand fusion right now.

Yeah, but it'll happen eventually. Like getting the urge to drop kick a kitten, it often looks like it would never happen, but it will, given time.

 

[sookster]

Everyone learns of the enlightenment and automatically thinks that religion and science are separated. It is just a matter of time before they will forcefully collide.

 

[laska]

All you random chancers out there, new episodes of Finding Bigfoot on Netflix.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

All you random chancers out there, new episodes of Finding Bigfoot on Netflix.

What is a "random chancer"? Wouldn't theists, who believe in invisible beings that no one has ever seen, be more interested in Finding Bigfoot episodes than people who require evidence for everything they believe?

 

[laska]

What is a "random chancer"? Wouldn't theists, who believe in invisible beings that no one has ever seen, be more interested in Finding Bigfoot episodes than people who require evidence for everything they believe?

There's no strong evidence for random chance being the cause for it all, plenty for a Creator although I am sure you will disagree. So those who believe in random chance are not people who require evidence for everything they believe or they wouldn't believe in it. And even those agnostic scientists who truly do not know whether random chance or intelligence, if they just focus on secular type evidence will always be learning and never find the truth in this life. It limits them, and will limit them in the eternities.

 

[tecoyah]

Random Chance = Inevitable combinations over extreme time frames.


There has never been any evidence for a creator, and never can be. There are many books and hypothesis developed by mankind to postulate on the creation idea, but none have been in any way shown accurate in regard to the creator.

There is ample evidence pointing to the universe, planets, suns, and even life coming about due to the natural properties of matter and energy...and these are actually used to debunk a creation myth quite handily. There is a reason "Secular" scientists do not use God in their research, it is not useful when pursuing verifiable data.

 

[tecoyah]

All you random chancers out there, new episodes of Finding Bigfoot on Netflix.

Which is more likely to exist:

A residual population of Gigantipithicus that continued to evolve in isolation.

~OR~

An omnipotent invisible entity that does not care to show itself in any way.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There's no strong evidence for random chance being the cause for it all, plenty for a Creator although I am sure you will disagree. So those who believe in random chance are not people who require evidence for everything they believe or they wouldn't believe in it. And even those agnostic scientists who truly do not know whether random chance or intelligence, if they just focus on secular type evidence will always be learning and never find the truth in this life. It limits them, and will limit them in the eternities.

Random would imply that the outcome is random, which its not. The lifeforms with the highest level of adaptability to their environment statistically win out in the longer term.

The fact that you think evolution happens by random chance shows that you have absolutely no idea what evolution is or how it works.

Second, you said you have no evidence in "the secular sense ", which is basically a wank term for "I just believe it and I have no evidence".

You're more than welcome to believe that 6,000 years ago a wizard created the universe and everything in it, but there is irrefutable evidence that this simply isn't the case.

 

[Muhammed]

Did you read it? It sat the universe came from space without matter, or from a multiverse. Not from nothing.



This one uses Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, meaning even in nothing, there is still energy.

That's utterly ridiculous.

"Many physicists now believe that the universe arose out of nothingness during the Big Bang".

During the Big bang there was obviously something to go bang.

 

[grip]

What preexisted the known universe may have been an energy of such purity and vast magnitude that we have no current terms in our vocabulary or mental capacity to describe. Other words, "nothing" literally does exist and we're all part of an elaborate illusion of a vast conscious energy source. An experiment so to speak.

 

[Ben K.]

Think about that for a brief moment. NOTHING SHOULD EXIST. Everything, came from nothing.

That, imho, is the most mind blowing, most anti-science reality of everything. It should NOT BE.

It's honestly, irreconcilable with all known science. From the lowliest quark to massive galactic clusters, none of it should be. Reality shouldn't be. Nothingness should have been.

If nothing ever existed it would no longer be nothing.

Perhaps you should consider that time itself is something , and without time, cause and effect is not relevant (this is dependent on a temporal relationship). Something has always existed because existence depends on time and time is something.

If there's a God element to your conundrum it simply fails the smell test. If in the beginning there was nothing but God, or any prime mover/first cause, then that would mean time did not exist - in which case God would not be able to create anything because cause and effect don't exist without time.

 

[ludin]

Everything didn't come from nothing. It came from a lot of energy condensed in a very small point.
and since energy = matter ; when that very condensed point exploded (made a big bang) the universe started expanding.

Where did that come from?

 

[ludin]

If nothing ever existed it would no longer be nothing.

Perhaps you should consider that time itself is something , and without time, cause and effect is not relevant (this is dependent on a temporal relationship). Something has always existed because existence depends on time and time is something.

Time has a beginning point and therefore time was created it simply didn't exist.

If there's a God element to your conundrum it simply fails the smell test. If in the beginning there was nothing but God, or any prime mover/first cause, then that would mean time did not exist - in which case God would not be able to create anything because cause and effect don't exist without time.

Unless God created time itself. We know that time has a begining point. It is not out of reach that God can create time and then have their power to set things in time.

So there is no failure there.

 

[Renae]

If nothing ever existed it would no longer be nothing.

Perhaps you should consider that time itself is something , and without time, cause and effect is not relevant (this is dependent on a temporal relationship). Something has always existed because existence depends on time and time is something.

If there's a God element to your conundrum it simply fails the smell test. If in the beginning there was nothing but God, or any prime mover/first cause, then that would mean time did not exist - in which case God would not be able to create anything because cause and effect don't exist without time.

Please read the more then just the OP on a multipage thread. This isn't about God.

Now that we're past that. I'm talking about the simple concept of ANYTHING AT ALL EXISTING.

Time, Space, Matter, Anti-Matter. Anything.

Either it's always been, which IMHO is impossible or out of literally nothingness, arose everything. Equally stunningly impossible.
But one of these IS right.

 

[Ben K.]

Please read the more then just the OP on a multipage thread. This isn't about God.

Now that we're past that. I'm talking about the simple concept of ANYTHING AT ALL EXISTING.

Time, Space, Matter, Anti-Matter. Anything.

Either it's always been, which IMHO is impossible or out of literally nothingness, arose everything. Equally stunningly impossible.
But one of these IS right.

And I answered. Anything has always existed because time is something and the question you're posing necessitates the existence of time to be meaningful.

 

[Ben K.]

Time has a beginning point and therefore time was created it simply didn't exist.

What is a beginning without time? The term is meaningless if time doesn't exist.

Unless God created time itself. We know that time has a begining point. It is not out of reach that God can create time and then have their power to set things in time.

So there is no failure there.

You can't create something if time doesn't exist. Cause and effect have no meaning without time.

 

[ludin]

What is a beginning without time? The term is meaningless if time doesn't exist.



You can't create something if time doesn't exist. Cause and effect have no meaning without time.

go back read it helps when trying to make an argument.

God can create time first and then add the rest into it.

Time has a begining point almost all scientists agree on this. time has never just always existed.
Everyone from Einstein to hawkings has calculated that time has a beginning.