How Can We Best Explain Our Existence ?

[sciencemike]

I'd like to say that Science Mike pretty much fucking ROCKS!!!!

 

Why thank you

 

The big bang theory, abiogenesis, evlolution.... these are all pieces of the puzzle, and we are learning more about the details all the time.

 

The information we already have through science, let us confidently say already, God is the most rational, and best explanation for these phenomenas.

 

 

God is one explanation, and isn't inherently the most rational. What about the Hindu creation myth of the world being suspended in space on the backs of elephants and turtles all the way down? For the early Hindu believers they had no framework of modern science on which to create a consistent and logical manner to describe gravitation. Likewise with early Christian believers and the entire first chapter of Genesis. I'm afraid I cannot give a more meaningful answer as to why physics acts the way it does other than it is what it is. We merely formulate equations to govern its possible states and from that first principle, derive or through experimentation piece these basic laws together in order to build a framework on which to describe more complicated phenomena (such as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, physical cosmology, etc.)

 

 

However, we will never have an answer that fully satisfies us.

 

certainly not, if you aloud only naturalistic answers. These will never satisfy.

 

 

I see nothing wrong with looking at the world from a strictly naturalistic, reductionist point of view. Psychology, biology, chemistry are subsets of physics, which have a spattering of mathematics embedded. Particles collide, molecules attract or repulse, form and reform into differing states, and so on and so forth until some form of ordered structure (life) comes along and decides to reproduce because reproduction is awesome (just look at all of the feel-good chemicals that results from sex) and the universe would be so much more boring without us around. We live our life seeking knowledge (even knowing we might not know everything!) in order to better understand the world we live in, and I'm completely content with that mindset.

 

However, our incomplete theories about the universe and its origins are much more closer to the truth than any magical explanation can ever hope to be.

 

chance ? kkk...... you are very credulous..... where is your skeptical thinking ?

 

Like I said earlier, it is better to acknowledge and accept that you can't fully know the truth than to accept a fairy tale as its substitute.

 

God is not a substitute for chance. God is simply the most rational and logical explanation. Wheter your biased thinking permits you to aknowledge it, or not.....

 

 

How are we biased? If we start looking at the world a priori there is no rational justification to state that a God created the universe based on what we know.

 

I think you are trying to convince yourself more than you are trying to convince us

 

I am already completely convinced.

 

Then why are you bothering us if you don't want to hear our side of the argument? I think its a bit rude to just ignore our viewpoints after all of this effort. We come from many different religious and educational backgrounds and it would be to your benefit to hear us out, if only to gain an appreciation for why we are so adamant for what we believe in (or not believe in to be more precise).

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

If God can do anything, then the God of the Bible isn't God, as he couldnt outrun iron chariots. Man, I feel bad for him if he had to come fact to face with a tank.

[sciencemike]

DNA can be viewed as information in a similar manner that data on a cd is information, but that's simply our abstract way of understanding it. There is nothing symbolic about dna.

 

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

 

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

 

http://nobelprize.or...cation/dna.html

 

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

 

http://nobelprize.or...e-code/how.html

 

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

 

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

 

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

 

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.

 

 

Take a look at this, the Last Universal Ancestor. Every single organism alive today shares these traits, showing that our knowledge of even the earliest organisms we know are probably still millions of years evolved from the first organism ever alive. If anything this should show the dynamic nature of the evolutionary process and how certain traits and genes are passed through generations.

 

 

 

http://www.cosmicfin.../dnanotcode.htm

 

DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's. If you can provide a empricial example of a code which arose naturally and spontaneously, by chance, you win my argument. All you need is one.

 

 

Considering that DNA is a code that arrived naturally and spontaneously, another is not required. However, take a look at the Game of Life. It is not sentient, but it is a mathematical construct that has four simple rules. From these four rules a variety of common shapes arise, and certain stages of equilibrium are established. Generalizing this concept to actual physical life, why can't it progress in a similar manner? We have DNA, RNA, amino acids all forming various proteins and other complicated biochemical molecules.

 

 

It is simply a reflection of the processes that create it. When a meteorite crashes into the earth and leaves a big ass crater, it leaves information.

 

Of course not. It leaves patterns, which are not information.

 

 

What? Patterns are information. If it isn't a random sequence and has some sort of structure you can classify that as information.

 

 

http://www.cosmicfin...anreadthis2.htm

 

To have information you have to matter and energy and will. Somebody has to decide to create information. Somebody has to write the music. The interesting thing about information is that you can have exact copies of it. You can have an exact copy of a book. I can send you an email and what can you do with it? You can read it on your screen. You can print it out on your printer. You can read it out loud. You could read it over the telephone. You could save it as a Microsoft Word document. You could post it on the Internet as a web page.

 

 

No no no!!

 

Nobody has to decide to create information. Prime numbers are prime regardless of what we call them and the sequence is definitely not decided before hand (if we knew all of the possible primes, Mersenne primes, and other prime numbers there would be no point in studying them). Even thinking of information in terms of bits is itself an inaccurate assumption. Information exists whenever you have a physical phenomena exhibiting patterned behavior that can be measured.

 

 

The Message is Not The Medium

 

Does the message change? No. The message is separate form the media that it comes in. That's what information is, and it requires thought. All information requires a thought process, which I will talk about. So really the fundamental question if you want to frame the fundamental questions of evolution and the origins question. The question becomes: Can patterns turn into designs? Can stuff on the left turn into stuff on the right? Is there a natural process that allows that to happen? And here's the big question: Is DNA a pattern or is it a design?The whole argument rests on the answer to that question.Tonight we are going to answer that question. And when you have designs how do they evolve? I'm going to discuss that towards the ends of my talk.

 

An intelligent design doesn't imply that patterns are the result of a designer. Stuff on the left can turn into stuff on the right if you rotate it or apply a transformation matrix. Yes, its called linear algebra. DNA is a pattern governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. If you actually look into the bonding processes you'll see that some of the base pair mechanisms (A-T, G-C) are energetically favorable and only occur for its opposing nucleobase.

 

 

please show the scientific proof, which disproves creationism.

 

Please show me the scientific proof which proves creationism.

 

Note: It would help if you tried contributing ideas of your own instead of copypasta, and lay off on the tags!

[MagickMonkey]

Like you, I did a lot of mental gymnastics to explain how god could still exist in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

please present a better explanation than God for our existence. Do you have any ?

 

 

 

 

I and others already have. I and others pointed out that even though they are incomplete and imperfect, the explanations (which have been basically enumerated) provided by science are better than the non-explanation of saying god created the universe, and that science DOES NOT point towards god as a creator. Please do not pretend we haven't addressed the question asked by the original post.

 

Creation by god is not a more simple explanation for the universe. If natural laws or "chance" cannot lead to the development of DNA, then how can an omnipotent or virtually omnipotent god capable of creating the universe just happen to exist? If it's hard to believe how we can exist by accident, how is it easier for such a being as a creator god to have existed by accident. If such a theoretically amazing god can exist without cause, then why can the universe not exist without cause?

 

 

 

[Guest Dibri501]

 

I and others already have. I and others pointed out that even though they are incomplete and imperfect, the explanations (which have been basically enumerated) provided by science are better than the non-explanation of saying god created the universe, and that science DOES NOT point towards god as a creator.

 

It seems you don't know what science does. Science does not provide answers to the question of what caused the universe into being. The deductions are basically personal and individual, neither does science favor one explanation over the other. science just explores the natural world, through historical and operational sciences, and describes the physical world. It cannot provide more that that. Philosophy and religion cover questions which go beyond.

 

 

Please do not pretend we haven't addressed the question asked by the original post.

 

So far, i have not seen anyone giving a better explanation to God, in my view. Chance is a very bad explanation.

 

Creation by god is not a more simple explanation for the universe. If natural laws or "chance" cannot lead to the development of DNA, then how can an omnipotent or virtually omnipotent god capable of creating the universe just happen to exist?

 

Why could it not ?

 

If it's hard to believe how we can exist by accident, how is it easier for such a being as a creator god to have existed by accident. If such a theoretically amazing god can exist without cause, then why can the universe not exist without cause?

 

For two reasons. First, because all scientific evidence points toward a finite universe. Secondly, because if the universe would be infinite and eternal, we would already be in a state of heath death, based on the second law of thermodynamics.

 

And :

 

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Valk0010]

 

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end,, immutable, Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

The stuff I bolded is only application to a idea, not something that comes from the idea of god. If a god exists, we shouldn't have to attribute things to it, since we can attribute wrongly. God's qualities should be obvious. But then again religion and even the god hypothesis, is a cultural and socially relative explanation to what is unknown. So for you, the culturally and socially relative explanation to the unknown is what I have bolded. What makes your own bias criteria more accurate then someone else?

 

What i left not bolded is all that could be accepted as a given if there was somehow a god.

 

For clarity I am going to summerize a point that I am going to try to make throughout.

 

The point i am trying to make, is that if you somehow prove a god created a universe your stuck, you can't prove your specific god.

[Dhampir]

I and others already have. I and others pointed out that even though they are incomplete and imperfect, the explanations (which have been basically enumerated) provided by science are better than the non-explanation of saying god created the universe, and that science DOES NOT point towards god as a creator.

 

It seems you don't know what science does. Science does not provide answers to the question of what caused the universe into being. The deductions are basically personal and individual, neither does science favor one explanation over the other. science just explores the natural world, through historical and operational sciences, and describes the physical world. It cannot provide more that that. Philosophy and religion cover questions which go beyond.

 

 

Please do not pretend we haven't addressed the question asked by the original post.

 

So far, i have not seen anyone giving a better explanation to God, in my view. Chance is a very bad explanation.

 

Creation by god is not a more simple explanation for the universe. If natural laws or "chance" cannot lead to the development of DNA, then how can an omnipotent or virtually omnipotent god capable of creating the universe just happen to exist?

 

Why could it not ?

 

If it's hard to believe how we can exist by accident, how is it easier for such a being as a creator god to have existed by accident. If such a theoretically amazing god can exist without cause, then why can the universe not exist without cause?

 

For two reasons. First, because all scientific evidence points toward a finite universe. Secondly, because if the universe would be infinite and eternal, we would already be in a state of heath death, based on the second law of thermodynamics.

 

And :

 

http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5231

 

I don't do much posting around here these days, but since you saw fit to (mistakenly) invoke the second law of thermodynamics, I'll step in here. If we're going to be accurate, which is what I do, the evidence of science shows us that the universe in it's Current State is indeed finite. What that does not say, is that the universe can't have always existed in some form or other, or that it can't have come from something else. And before you go seizing on the words I used, that "something else" need not be some intelligent... man... that created it, nor does it mean that it was necessarily "created".

 

As it stands, the little evidence we do have about the origin of the universe point to a number of different theories, of roughly equal validity. The universe could have pinched off from an existing universe, and expanded as a self-contained unit. With regard to the second law of thermodynamics, only the energy present within this universe is finite, as far as we have observed. That need not be the case for outside of it. Whether or not the universe is infinite, that it's state has and will change is a given, and the loss of energy (heat death) need not be permanent.

 

It seems you don't know what science does. Science does not provide answers to the question of what caused the universe into being. The deductions are basically personal and individual, neither does science favor one explanation over the other. science just explores the natural world, through historical and operational sciences, and describes the physical world. It cannot provide more that that. Philosophy and religion cover questions which go beyond.

This is terrible. First off, I have to pretty much guess what you mean in that second sentence, because of how poorly written it is. I'll assume you're saying that science does not address, or perhaps does not intend to address the question of how the universe came to be. Either way this is untrue. If you're asserting that science can't address this question, then I'll say that our current information, and our current information gathering abilities are undeniably insufficient to the task of providing a definitive answer for how the universe came to be. But I'll also say that science exists in lieu of the information, not because of it. If we had all the facts, we wouldn't need to look for answers. As we acquire more information, we'll be able to refine our processes and the conclusions it leads us to, till eventually we have a clear model for what most likely happened. THAT'S how science has always worked.

 

The deductions are basically personal and individual, neither does science favor one explanation over the other

I don't even know what the bolded part is trying to say, so I'll address the latter portion. Science most certainly does favor one answer or set of answers over another. Whatever explanation the evidence points to is the one that gets favored. If it points to 2 or more likely answers, then it points to those over the others that don't work. Scientific laws describe the natural world. Theories explain the functionality of the observed phenomena as codified by said Laws. Philosophy and religion are not the same thing, and neither address much of anything of import to the natural world. They are merely ways of looking at things that WE humans assign importance to.

[Ouroboros]

, but as soon as science disprove their precious religion they start screaming "bloody murder!"

 

what exactly is science disprooving ?

Crationism to name one. Healings trough prayer is another.

 

 

 

please show the scientific proof, which disproves creationism.

1-3% Neanderthal markers in people of European descent, lacking in the African population. Can't be explained by Neanderthals living together with Moses, can it now?

 

New species appearing on record in our life time. The vampire finch is one example.

 

Tests and experiments proving evolutionary process.

 

Six new strains of HIV in the last decade, not existing before, but mutated to "live" longer without host.

 

Etc...

 

---

 

Oh, I forgot, SN 1987A. Use regular trigonometric identities and assume a speed of light. Plug in. Get a result. It doesn't match 6,000 fucking years.

 

And on, and on...

 

But it doesn't matter. I could pour evidence over your head until you were buried under a pile big as Nevada and you wouldn't change your mind about your lunatic delusion. That's a fact you will keep on proving by just being you.

[MagickMonkey]

I and others already have. I and others pointed out that even though they are incomplete and imperfect, the explanations (which have been basically enumerated) provided by science are better than the non-explanation of saying god created the universe, and that science DOES NOT point towards god as a creator.

 

It seems you don't know what science does. Science does not provide answers to the question of what caused the universe into being. The deductions are basically personal and individual, neither does science favor one explanation over the other. science just explores the natural world, through historical and operational sciences, and describes the physical world. It cannot provide more that that. Philosophy and religion cover questions which go beyond.

 

 

 

I'm fully aware of what science does. Science does provide answers in general. Often, these answers lead to more questions, but it still provides answers. Science does favor truth. It does not need to explain more than the physical world, because, ultimately, that's all that there is.

 

 

Please do not pretend we haven't addressed the question asked by the original post.

 

So far, i have not seen anyone giving a better explanation to God, in my view. Chance is a very bad explanation.

 

 

Just because you're not satisfied with our explanations does not mean we haven't addressed your questions. Is chance a bad explanation for god? Why does god not need further explanation?

 

 

Creation by god is not a more simple explanation for the universe. If natural laws or "chance" cannot lead to the development of DNA, then how can an omnipotent or virtually omnipotent god capable of creating the universe just happen to exist?

 

Why could it not ?

 

 

I think you have missed the point of my comment. It is NOT a simpler explanation. Besides, there is no more evidence for a creator god than for santa claus.

 

 

If it's hard to believe how we can exist by accident, how is it easier for such a being as a creator god to have existed by accident. If such a theoretically amazing god can exist without cause, then why can the universe not exist without cause?

 

For two reasons. First, because all scientific evidence points toward a finite universe. Secondly, because if the universe would be infinite and eternal, we would already be in a state of heath death, based on the second law of thermodynamics.

 

And :

 

http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5231

 

 

 

Being finite does not mean the universe cannot exist by chance any more than being theoretically infinite explains how god can exist by chance. Besides, the evidence, from what I understand DOES NOT point to a finite universe. It points towards a possible beginning point of infinite density ( density -> infinity as t -> 0 from the right) to zero density as t -> infinity from the left. In fact, that does not exclude density approaching infinity as t approaches 0 from the left and density approaching 0 as t approaches negative infinity from the right.(in other words, negative time on the other side of the big bang). We just have no way of seeing on the other side of the big bang, so we cannot assume anything before t=0. So one can claim that science points towards the universe being infinite in the time domain in at least one direction(forward). ScienceMike, or anyone else, please feel free to correct.

 

I suspect the link you posted is a waste of time, but perhaps I'm wrong. I might check it out tomorrow. Time to go to bed.

[Galien]

Still doesnt appear to explain why so many christians are STILL self centred, proud ego driven assholes even after 30 odd years as christians.

[Ouroboros]

Still doesnt appear to explain why so many christians are STILL self centred, proud ego driven assholes even after 30 odd years as christians.

That's the only way they can keep their faith. Shuuun! Shuuuun! Shun the unbeliever!!!

[Guest Valk0010]

Still doesnt appear to explain why so many christians are STILL self centred, proud ego driven assholes even after 30 odd years as christians.

Ohhh but he will say, don't judge the shepherd by its flock. But he will willfully ignore the holy spirit.

[Darklady]

well having read this thread - I am again amazed by the circular arguments presented by our xian 'friends' who come here thinking we know nothing, and that they, wow this is so amazing, that they have all the answers and we just need to open our hearts and hear the message.

 

Where do they get off thinking this? Most of the people on this site (the exs) are well read intelligent people, many, including myself, have read the bible front to back more than one, we know all this stuff, often better than the xian trolls.

[Rev R]

if not God, what else ?

 

With belief in a god:

 

The Earth rotates on its axis.

Stars are "born" and stars "die".

Life arises, changes, and fades.

 

Without a belief in a god:

 

The Earth rotates on its axis.

Stars are "born" and stars "die".

Life arises, changes, and fades.

 

Hmmm no difference...

[Tabula Rasa]

I'm not so great with debates, and still believe in some sort of creator, but I have to ask the op this: If it was ever scientifically proven that the universe was created by a God, but it wasn't biblegod, would you accept the knowledge, or reject it thinking it's a trick of the devil?

[Guest Dibri501]

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end,, immutable, Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

The stuff I bolded is only application to a idea, not something that comes from the idea of god. If a god exists, we shouldn't have to attribute things to it, since we can attribute wrongly. God's qualities should be obvious.

 

why should they be obvious ?

 

 

But then again religion and even the god hypothesis, is a cultural and socially relative explanation to what is unknown.

 

Only , if God does not exist, and people invent their God.

 

So for you, the culturally and socially relative explanation to the unknown is what I have bolded.

 

actually, no. That follows rationally from the inference, that the universe had a absolute beginning, and beyond your universe, no time, no matter, and no space existed. Therefore, the cause had to be timeless, eternal, beginningless, spaceless, extremely powerful, and personal. And it fits perfectly with the biblical account.

 

 

What makes your own bias criteria more accurate then someone else?

 

scientific evidence.

 

The point i am trying to make, is that if you somehow prove a god created a universe your stuck, you can't prove your specific god.

 

I am not here to proof God. But the bible describes God exactly, as our scientific knowledge predicts he should be.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Dibri501]

I don't do much posting around here these days, but since you saw fit to (mistakenly) invoke the second law of thermodynamics, I'll step in here. If we're going to be accurate, which is what I do, the evidence of science shows us that the universe in it's Current State is indeed finite. What that does not say, is that the universe can't have always existed in some form or other, or that it can't have come from something else

 

 

Evidence that the universe had a beginning

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/16-03-2010/112596-beginning-0

 

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system.

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

 

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

 

 

That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

 

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

 

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

 

[justify]The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[/justify]

 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

 

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

 

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

 

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_the_singularity_come_from

 

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

 

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

 

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

 

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

 

 

As it stands, the little evidence we do have about the origin of the universe point to a number of different theories, of roughly equal validity

.

 

that is false. The most accepted theory by the scientific community is the Big Bang theory.

 

The universe could have pinched off from an existing universe, and expanded as a self-contained unit. With regard to the second law of thermodynamics, only the energy present within this universe is finite, as far as we have observed. That need not be the case for outside of it. Whether or not the universe is infinite, that it's state has and will change is a given, and the loss of energy (heat death) need not be permanent.

 

Onces the universe is in a state of heat death, it cannot change, unless it would be a open system. But that is not what is most plausible. Einstein aknowledged this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Overcame Faith]

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, , immutable, Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal

 

This God fits best to the God of the bible

 

How self-serving. You define god the way you want to and then you "discover" that your definition fits the god of the bible. You say nothing here.

[florduh]

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, , immutable, Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal

 

This God fits best to the God of the bible

 

How self-serving. You define god the way you want to and then you "discover" that your definition fits the god of the bible. You say nothing here.

This is a clear example of why there is no point in discussion. The True Believer makes an assumption and then twists/ignores/misinterprets everything else to support the foregone conclusion. A mind in this condition categorically rejects anything that doesn't fit.

[Overcame Faith]

Like you, I did a lot of mental gymnastics to explain how god could still exist in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

please present a better explanation than God for our existence. Do you have any ?

 

I think I'm convinced that god is (or, more precisely, gods are) responsible for our existence. And here's the true story of how that happened. FYI, the Algonquins are a native American tribe who now live in southern Quebec and eastern Ontario, Canada. I find this explanation to be far superior to bible god since bible god is an obvious myth.

 

And the following story fulfills my definition of gods: (1) They were born from a mother. (2) They can be both good and evil. (3) Death has no power over them so they are eternal and thus not subject to time. (4) They create. (5) They are alive today. And guess what? This story fits my definition so I am obviously correct.

 

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/AlgonquinCreationMyth-Algonquin.html

 

An Algonquin Legend

The Great Earth Mother had two sons, Glooskap and Malsum. Glooskap was good, wise, and creative; Malsum was evil, selfish, and destructive.

 

When their mother died, Glooskap went to work creating plants, animals, and humans from her body. Malsum, in contrast, made poisonous plants and snakes.

 

As Glooskap continued to create wonderful things, Malsum grew tired of his good brother and plotted to kill him.

 

In jest, Malsum bragged that he was invincible, although there was one thing that could kill him: the roots of the fern plant.

 

He badgered Glooskap for days to find the good brother's vulnerability. Finally, as Glooskap could tell no lies, he confided that he could be killed only by an owl feather. Knowing this, Malsum made a dart from an owl feather and killed Glooskap.

 

The power of good is so strong, however; that Glooskap rose from the dead, ready to avenge himself. Alive again, Glooskap also knew that Malsum would continue to plot against him.

 

Glooskap realized that he had no choice but to destroy Malsum in order that good would survive and his creatures would continue to live. So he went to a stream and attracted his evil brother by loudly saying that a certain flowering reed could also kill him.

 

Glooskap then pulled a fern plant out by the roots and flung it at Malsum, who fell to the ground dead. Malsum's spirit went underground and be-came a wicked wolf-spirit that still occasionally torments humans and animals, but fears the light of day.

[Legion]

I have a confession. I can explain my existence.

 

I exist because I’ve had my nutritional and environmental needs sufficiently met, and I have successfully defended myself from millions of malevolent micro-organisms and viruses and one time in junior high school from a bully named Craig. That is why I exist.

[Ouroboros]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/16-03-2010/112596-beginning-0

Pravda isn't a scientific publication.

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

IF, and ONLY IF, the Universe is ONLY explained with General Relativity. You're the one accusing science of being incomplete. And obviously, scientists know this, General Relativity CANNOT explain everything. It breaks down at quantum level.

 

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :

You have quoted this page link literally.

 

That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

 

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

Quote mined from here: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/01/16/opinion/srv0000004499704.txt

 

The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."

Quoted from W.L. Craig

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Quoted verbatim from here: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

 

Damn! I give up! Every word you have said in this post is from someone else and not your own. And you haven't even given them credit for it? Are you that dumb? You can't use your own words? You just quote a hundred different sources and hand to us to refute these idiots? You're doing nothing but pure plagiarism. It's unethical! Very unethical. Extremely dishonest! And you call yourself a Christian? If you ever wrote an essay in school, this would be an immediate suspension. Or if you did this in a published work, you'd be sued!

 

Stop this quote mining immediately. I give you one more chance. Your next post will be deciding if you get the hammer or not.

[Legion]

The finger is poised

Above the hammer ban

If he doesn’t get real

He’ll see the door slam

 

He came up in here

in the house of ex-C

Using other’s words

Thinking we wouldn’t see

 

The very next words

That come out his mouth

They’d better be contrite

And his eyes be south.

[Ouroboros]

I can do quote mining too. Here is a piece about current views on "open or closed universe":

The final state of the universe depends on the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th century and early 21st century. In a "closed" universe that undergoes recollapse, a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe approaching arbitrarily high temperature and maximal entropy as the end of the collapse approaches.[citation needed] In an "open" or "flat" universe that continues expanding indefinitely, a heat death is also expected to occur[citation needed], with the universe cooling to approach absolute zero temperature and approaching a state of maximal entropy over a very long time period. There is dispute over whether or not an expanding universe can approach maximal entropy; it has been proposed that in an expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively further away from heat death.[citation needed]

 

There is also some uncertainty remaining on the exact value of the current entropy of the universe. A recent analysis of entropy suggests that the visible universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the research concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[10]

 

Legion, you poet, you.

[MagickMonkey]

I have a confession. I can explain my existence.

 

I exist because I’ve had my nutritional and environmental needs sufficiently met, and I have successfully defended myself from millions of malevolent micro-organisms and viruses and one time in junior high school from a bully named Craig. That is why I exist.

 

Don't forget the part about your parents doing it.