Skyrad 0 #51 October 13, 2011 If the universe is every rapidly expanding then it makes sense that its started from an originating point so what existed before the big bang? I have no idea on the origins of a creator any more than you have an explanation for the big bang. It seems a bit of a double standard that I'm expected to know the origins of a creator when no one knows the origin of the big bang. So for all the science the origin of the big bang theory remains as elusive as scientific proof of God. Our science is in its infancy, To say that the creator is 'nowhere to be found' is quite funny seeing as mankind is limited to one planet and has traveled no further than the moon. We have not even begun to explore our solar system let alone the universe. Oh, we have radio telescopes but who says God is a DJ? When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #52 October 13, 2011 bunk argument(s), sorry. QuoteI have no idea on the origins of a creator any more than you have an explanation for the big bang. Except that there is real evidence of the big bang, whereas there is NO evidence of God. QuoteSo for all the science the origin of the big bang theory remains as elusive as scientific proof of God. The big bang is only partly elusive - we are closing in on it every day. in other words, PROGRESS is being made. Religion is attempting to keep us in the dark about the origins of the universe with no real stated purpose for doing that. QuoteOur science is in its infancy, To say that the creator is 'nowhere to be found' is quite funny seeing as mankind is limited to one planet and has traveled no further than the moon. Science is in its infancy, but it is still growing and willing to scrap the old theories when the evidence no longer supports it as well as modify and develop new theories as the evidence is gathered. We have physically only travelled to the moon, but obviously you missed the stories of the Pioneer program nor do you realize the usefulness of radio telescopes in seeing into the depths of the universe. QuoteOh, we have radio telescopes but who says God is a DJ? Change the definition of god all you want to fit your arguments, but the fact is that the Christian religion, as a whole, does not subscribe to anything other than the dogmatic 'fact' that the world is 6000 years old. Science has proven that wrong. period. As for 'sarcasm' being the lowest form of wit, that is an opinion, but it comes from the 'highest' form of intelligence, hence my basis that sarcasm is actually the highest form of wit. No one likes having it used against them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #53 October 13, 2011 Why are you banging on about Christianity for? You seem unable to understand the concept of a creator and religion.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #54 October 13, 2011 If everything needs a Creator, who created God Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #55 October 13, 2011 Quote If everything needs a Creator, who created God Another one of your stupid sources. Defining the problem away doesn't make it go away, it just means that anyone who thinks that way is gullible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #56 October 13, 2011 QuoteQuote If everything needs a Creator, who created God Another one of your stupid sources. Defining the problem away doesn't make it go away, it just means that anyone who thinks that way is gullible. Who should define God? Your dictionary or God Himself? Scripture dictates the attributes of God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #57 October 13, 2011 QuoteIt seems a bit of a double standard that I'm expected to know the origins of a creator when no one knows the origin of the big bang. No, it's not a double standard. You introduced the argument of "Well what happened before?" so you must be willing to follow it through. The double standard is you insinuating that a god needs to exist to explain where the universe comes from but ducking any question of where that god came from. You can't just move the problem one step back and claim to have solved it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #58 October 13, 2011 If something was needed to create God, there would be an infinite regression. However, seeing as how, by Biblical definition, God is eternal and nothing created Him, there is no problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #59 October 13, 2011 Quote If something was needed to create God, there would be an infinite regression. Exactly. Quote However, seeing as how, by Biblical definition, God is eternal and nothing created Him, there is no problem. Oh right, well if the Bible says soSeriously though, if you don't think there's a problem with an eternal then you shouldn't have a problem with an eternal universe cycle, which renders your 'creator' argument invalid and your god unnecessary.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #60 October 13, 2011 Quote Seriously though, if you don't think there's a problem with an eternal then you shouldn't have a problem with an eternal universe cycle, which renders your 'creator' argument invalid and your god unnecessary. I don't have the problem of infinite regression but you do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #61 October 13, 2011 >If everything needs a Creator, who created God Everything doesn't need a creator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #62 October 13, 2011 Quote>If everything needs a Creator, who created God Everything doesn't need a creator. Ultimately, it does unless you're talking about God. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #63 October 13, 2011 QuoteQuote Seriously though, if you don't think there's a problem with an eternal then you shouldn't have a problem with an eternal universe cycle, which renders your 'creator' argument invalid and your god unnecessary. I don't have the problem of infinite regression but you do. If infinite existence is not a problem then why do you think infinite regression is?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #64 October 13, 2011 Quote Quote >If everything needs a Creator, who created God Everything doesn't need a creator. Ultimately, it does unless you're talking about God. Yeah, because you've simply decided to define God as the only thing that can exist forever. Yeah, I'm really impressed.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #65 October 13, 2011 Quote If infinite existence is not a problem then why do you think infinite regression is? Because infinite existence can only apply to God. I have no problem with that. Naturalism, on the other hand has a problem with infinite regression because it points to a designer/Creator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #66 October 13, 2011 Quote Yeah, because you've simply decided to define God as the only thing that can exist forever. Yeah, I'm really impressed. Scripture dictates the attributes of God, not your dictionary or even my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #67 October 13, 2011 How do you know the Bible is right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaybird18c 4 #68 October 13, 2011 QuoteHow do you know the Bible is right? That's a whole other thread. No way to answer that in one post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #69 October 13, 2011 QuoteBecause infinite existence can only apply to God. Why? QuoteNaturalism, on the other hand has a problem with infinite regression because it points to a designer/Creator. Why?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #70 October 13, 2011 Quote Quote Yeah, because you've simply decided to define God as the only thing that can exist forever. Yeah, I'm really impressed. Scripture dictates the attributes of God, not your dictionary or even my opinion. Oh, great. So scripture has simply decided to define God as the only thing that can exist forever. I'm even more impressedDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #71 October 13, 2011 >>Everything doesn't need a creator. >Ultimately, it does . . . Why do you think that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #72 October 13, 2011 How can it not? If the universe is not only rapidly expanding and even accelerating then clearly it once started from a point somewhere. If not can you tell me what your understanding is?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #73 October 14, 2011 not necessarily - it could also have be expanding and contracting for all of eternity. To say that 'it clearly...' demonstrates that you are not open to other possibilities. It may not have started from a 'point' i.e. infinity small with infinite mass, but it may simply have been smaller. And who knows, our 'universe' may simply be an atom in yet another larger universe where the people endlessly argue about 'god' and creation and whether or not Horton heard the Who..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #74 October 14, 2011 Maybe, but but the most important word in your post is 'could' lets face it at the moment its impossible to tell how it started. Your expanding contracting theory is an interesting one but personally to say that the small mass has always been and will always be is a lot less plausible to me than the theory that the mass was created somehow at some point. Maybe we are all in a CERN type collider somewhere and our universe has been produced by a sub atomic collision but even if that is the case there would still be a creator, is just that it would be a sandwich munching physics nerd in a control room somewhere.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #75 October 14, 2011 QuoteYour expanding contracting theory is an interesting one but personally to say that the small mass has always been and will always be is a lot less plausible to me than the theory that the mass was created somehow at some point. By something that always was and always will be, or by something that was itself created?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
