If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing wit

1. 62

   jstfishinmanposted 11 years ago

   If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God?
   
   There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator would explain a lot of things.

   replyreport
2. 72

   Tusitala Tomposted 11 years ago

   This one going to generate a lot of answers!   There'll be all sorts wanting to say something about this.
   
   Is there really such a thing as nothing? To even say nothing is a 'thing' makes its something.   We possible gather the concept of northingness from not being able to recall anything when we've had a good sleep.  But, of course, there was something.   Anyone who witnessed our having a good kip could testify to that.They saw us sleeping
   
   Then there are those who have been declared clinically dead and have later been revived.  Some thirty percent or so say they've have a near death experience and can remember it.  The other two thirds say they experienced nothing.   Once again, their physical bodies were still around, so there was something.
   
   But what if they died and their bodies were no longer there?  Gone back to...dust to dust, ashes to ashes...but ashes are something.   
   
   Then you could say, if the universe began with the big bang, what surrounded the big bang?  Nothing?  No, space.  And space is something, even if it's only a concept viewed from the deductions made by our minds from the evidence of our physical senses.   
   
   But we know our senses are limited to certain spectra, e.g. we can see via vibrations reflected off objects if the frequency range is below ultra violet ray range above infra red range.   Same sort of thing applies to hearing, taste, touch, smell.  So what's in the rest of the infinity of spectra?   Something, of course.
   
   You know, these it getting tedious.  My postulate (love that word) is that there is no such thing as northing.  There is only every thing and EVERYTHING. 
   
   Perhaps that which is observing it absolutely objectively and without evaluation is God...or part of God.  Every think of that?
   
   Wadja think?

   replyreport
   1. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The premise for scientific study is how did all this begin. There was a starting point in nothingness with no atoms, no molecules. The question is always the beginning.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Surely the question is always the beginning.... of our awareness.   The awareness of the here and now is the end of our search.   Being content and totally integrated with the NOW.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Lee Teaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You raise the interesting idea about the difference between a physical presence separate from our awareness, and then wondering if an absolutely objective awareness is God, or part of God.  Is our unbiased awareness God?  I like that food for thought

      replyreport
3. 0

   jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years ago

   I have no problem with that proposition.   It's the "god" that watches over us to then punish us in the event of putting our foot wrong.... that is the "god" which is concocted by humans with the objective of controlling others....I do not accept his/its existence. 
   Humans set the laws, set the punishment and do the judging.... to control.
   The creator is only a theory.... but much more acceptable and holding the infinite potential for "making" us and the physical universe.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      a mental state of personal concoction does not make an environment. the Spirit of the Lord does not control, but leads by example. every individual is personally responsible for themselves. the Creator exists because the Spirit of the Lord is alive.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Jonny, I believe God creates us, from there we make the choices. Our ultimate eternal fate will be judged by God. His one eternal criteria is, did you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Our fate is sealed with that one choice. Choices are important.

      replyreport
4. 60

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   In the beginning, the Creator constructed the earth, filled it with vegetation, and made man in his image.
   This has been taught from the beginning.  It is difficult for scientists to accept because they cannot detect it physically.  This leads them to a faulty hypothesis.
   The answer is simple when one looks at the world through the Spirit of the Lord.
   Trees and other vegetation consume the output of man and other animals while producing the items necessary for man and the animals to consume.  This phenomena was not a miracle big-bang, but an orchestrated creation by the Creator. 
   One does not need a science degree to understand that man was made by the Creator to care for and supplement the earth.  However, due to the composition of man, good and evil exists.  This dichotomy then presents a divisional composition within mankind.
   Many ask why such would be permitted by a Creator that does not like evil.  However, the Creator made man in his image and that includes respect for personal decisions.  It is through the choice of each person that the Creator either lives or dies.  Scientists cannot fathom this in their laboratories, therefore, in their limited minds, it does not exist.
   Those who ensure that the Creator lives know that this single acceptance by themselves will ensure a fruitful and loving life.  Those who follow the faulty teachings of the scientists will find only an environment of dead-end conclusions.
   The knowledge of a Creator is what scares most physical seekers.
   Acceptance of the Spirit is very easy for those who seek the truth, but very difficult for those who only seek the physical.
   This controversy will remain because the division between the two is very great.
   God, the Creator, explains a lot of things.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      " It is through the choice of each person that the Creator either lives or dies..."  Exactly!   So the Creator exists only in the human mind.

      replyreport
5. 37

   Borsiaposted 11 years ago

   According to Stephen Hawking's latest theories it can happen but I for one can't claim to understand how the Big Bang went boom without some source of energy.
   As to where that energy came from I don't have the answer. But I'm sure there is one.
   If you demand to know where that initial energy came from then, likewise, you must demand to know from where a god came. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest, demanding proof on one side and not the other.
   We are just beginning to grasp the concepts of quantum physics and is has always been the case that we don't know far more than we do,,, but we are learning.
   All of this considered one can only say that we don't know,,, yet.
   The answer is 42, perhaps one day we will grasp the question.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest hold-up in scientific analysis is close mindedness. Anything proving a Creator has to be wrong. If you allow for a Creator, then you can follow the science and prove or disprove a creator without pre-existing ideas stopping the truth.

      replyreport
   2. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the problem is that there is nothing proving that any form of a god exists and science is all about proof, reliable, repeatable testing and results. that is the very definition of science.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest hold-up in having a living, plausible faith is close-mindedness?

      replyreport
   4. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who is more close minded, someone who believes in science only or someone that believes in God and science? Philosophically science only is more close minded, God and science open up all possibilities.

      replyreport
   5. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Using a god in science is like using the joker in a card game. it might simplify but it will never have validity.  Its like using a question mark as part of a math equation and calling it whole.

      replyreport
6. 96

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   You are correct that there are many unanswered questions. However it makes no sense to make up an unprovable creator to explain things. Why do we NEED to explain these things? Why accept anything that can not be proven?
   On a side note I do not believe "nothing" exists.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution itself is unprovable and can not be duplicated in a lab or in nature and yet many choose to believe it. I believe we all make choices as to what believe. Some believe the internet, others what they learned in school. My answers lead to God.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's a misunderstanding to say "believe in" evolution.   That's putting your own religious spin on it.   Evolution is simply a suggested process, born out in many cases with scientific research.  Never an end in itself.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      jstfishinman - unfortunately, you're dead wrong. We HAVE observed evolution. Why do you need a flu shot every year? The flu virus evolves! We have plenty of proof of evolution, that's why it's a scientific theory (which means pretty much fact).

      replyreport
   4. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Scientific theories are postulated and then science looks to dis-prove them.
      Scientific fact is repeatable observations, which can change as time goes on.
      The flu virus may change it's characteristics, but it's still the flu virus, not another matter

      replyreport
   5. 74

      aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution to "something totally new" takes millions of years. But even in our time, we observe change in life based on genetic selection. How do you think chihuahuas came from wolves? Scientific theories are research-proven explanations, not guesses.

      replyreport
   6. 94

      cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'll take liberties with your own words:  Creationism itself is unprovable and can not be duplicated in a lab or in nature and yet many choose to believe it."  hmmm, it really fits well.

      replyreport
   7. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      aliasis, evolution says that something changes from a big lizard  to mammals then man. Your examples are not evolutionary , the flu is still the flu, a dog is still a dog.

      replyreport
   8. 74

      aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As I said, millions of years BECAUSE of genetic selection, which we HAVE observed. This IS evolution. Yes, we can trace humans back, from our direct ancestors to apes and finally to single cell organisms.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      aliasis .... If what you say is true, then why have we stopped evolving. Why are there still apes?

      replyreport
   10. 81

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       JThomp, look at the top of your head and tell me if you see your hair growing. Will you then state that hair doesn't grow? That isn't proof, it is myopia.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       ".....evolution says that something changes from a big lizard to mammals then man."   !!!!   Oh does it?  What utter nonsense!   Sorry Sir, but your religious bias is influencing your thoughts, I suspect.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry sir.... your atheists beliefs are overcoming your reasoning

       replyreport
7. 81

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   I think you are confused. There is no reason science couldn't have God as an answer there would just have to be an actual link between the answer and the question beyond simply imagination. They don't toss out any data. There is no data to the tossed. A creator explains nothing. It is merely an imaginary explanation which has as much validity as does the giant purple elephant god did it or Zeus did it.
   
   And even with your creator created us mythology, you are still left with the question of who created the creator. You can't just say "he always was" or "he just popped into existence" because your entire premise doesn't allow someone else to say that the universe always was or simply popped into existence. If that doesn't work for them then it shouldn't work for you either and we are right back where we started: nobody knows, but some people pretend to and then wander around as if their imagination is worthy of conjuring God.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Dr. Leaky in the 1940's believed our earths C-14-Co2 levels would be equal. He took air samples to back his theory up. the scientific belief being carbon equalizes after 30,000 years. All of the air samples showed no equalization. The data was tossed

      replyreport
   2. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      One guy doing bad science doesn't = God.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This happens many times. Many scientific lecturers will tell you God can not be the answer. That data is flawed if they can't explain it by natural means.
      A very close minded approach to research, but it happens more than you know.

      replyreport
   4. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that the disproved data was tossed is proof of how science doesn't accept any bad data but instead continues to search for real answers . Adding a mythical answer and claiming that it is somehow valid corrupts science.

      replyreport
   5. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Borsia, is it more open minded to toss data, or use it. Especially since the data is a true measure of what you took. Pure science should never proceed with a predetermined outcome. They should, as CSI puts it, follow the science where ever it leads.

      replyreport
   6. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly and csi tosses anything that proves too be incorrect no matter how hard they worked to get the data.
      Science only accepts true provable data everything else is just dust.
      Nothing is gained by including uncertainties
      .

      replyreport
   7. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      33% of scientists believe in God, an additional 18 % believe in deity or a higher power, while only 41% don't believe in God or a higher power. These %'s have been about the same since the 1920's despite what college students are led to believe.

      replyreport
   8. 81

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A large percentage of scientists believe in Allah and Shivu as well. Some of our scientific forebearers believed in Zeus and Thor, but 100% of scientists believe in science, and that is what matters.

      replyreport
8. 68

   Michele Travisposted 11 years ago

   Nothing can come from nothing.  If you believe in the big bang.  Movement did not exist before time.  So, if nothing could move, then how could enough pressure have built up enough to cause the big bang?  It could not have happened that way.
   so, there was no big bang.  Or if there was, the first thing that happened after the big explosion was light.  And in the bible God says " let there be light"
   Maybe God created science.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When you are asleep, you have no conscious awareness.  The same when you are under anaesthetic. You were in a state of Nothingness. Somethingness existed without your knowledge.  No proof except you woke up again.

      replyreport
   2. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Science isn't a "thing" it is a way of proving theories a methodology of repetitious controlled testing and observation of results. A creation of man

      replyreport
9. 74

   aliasisposted 11 years ago

   Unfortunately, you are very much simplifying the big bang theory. It's not "nothing" - energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change forms. I recommend you read Stephen Hawking and other leading scientists in this field to better understand modern theories of the universe's origin.
   
   But the God thing is kind of funny. If you think God made the world, how long did he exist before he decided to go do it? If god existed forever, why didn't he make the world sooner? In infinite time, things can't exactly be made spontaneously. And what made god? Is he born from other gods? Did he suddenly sprout into existence one day? Oh, then that would be something created out of nothing, I suppose... For that matter, what did he make the universe out of? Nothingness? Or did he make it out of the only thing that exists... God himself? So, we are all God. Every thing in the universe is god, from humans to rocks to excrement. Actually, that's kind of a cute theory...

   replyreport
   1. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am an avid reader and have read Stephen Hawking. Everything has a beginning, a start if you will, even energy. What started energy? I have always found that aside from a creator, there is no explanation for things beginning in the science.

      replyreport
   2. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If you have studies Hawkins then you know that he sees no need for a creator for the beginning of the universe.

      replyreport
   3. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I understand that, but it doesn't explain the beginning. The physical science says there had to be something. The cosmological science says there had to be a beginning a start. The question remains what is the starter and how did it get there.

      replyreport
   4. 37

      Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Which of course boomerangs back to where a creator came from?
      As you say nothing can come from nothing.

      replyreport
   5. 73

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And yet before Bang, what? What created time, space and energy?
      
      God is Source. He is the perfection of Cause. He is the one-sided Zen coin of creation without consisting of effect. This is a hard concept for scientists. Discontinuity

      replyreport
   6. 74

      aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Lonestar and Jstfishinman, you comment on (your lack of understanding about) the Big Bang theory. Yet... you can't refute my point about how Creationism is illogical. So? Where did god(s) come from? where were they before? Are we all made of God?

      replyreport
   7. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Aliasis, I have considerable knowledge of The Big Bang  and Evolution. The problem with both is, how did they start. If you believe in God, I AM THAT I AM, you also believe that God always was and always will be. God has the power to create.

      replyreport
   8. 74

      aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I would say "existence" always is and always will be, and "existence" has the power to create. Energy is not created, that's not what the Big Bang theory implies. If one universe was created, infinite universes could exist - multiverse theory.

      replyreport
   9. 62

      jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So instead of God you use "existence" in the place of God. That's an interesting choice of synonyms.

      replyreport
   10. 74

       aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Except "existence" is not a supernatural, personified entity. It's what we can describe everything, this universe and the possibility of other universes. It's science, not magic or mythology.

       replyreport
   11. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Existence - Merriam-Webster Online
       www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence‎
       c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being . d : sentient or living being : life. God fits this definition.

       replyreport
   12. 74

       aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Oh, so you're saying the universe is made out of God, and we are all made out of God, because we're all a part of existence. I'm God, you're God, my cat is God. Quite an animistic thought to come from you.

       replyreport
   13. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       God is all around us, It totally depends on your relationship with Jesus whether He is in you. I would never claim to be God, but all "existence" is dependent on Him. The Beginning and The End.

       replyreport
   14. 57

       Fuginagasakiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       actually aliasis if you are looking from a Christian's point of view then yes everything is made up of god and his creations, just read how the angels are described to look and revelation will pretty much some it up as far as how strange things look.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       jstfishinman , taking you back to the reference: Existence - Merriam-Webster Online;   that dictionary simply is a record of the American use of language.   Are you right to call out a "definition" from it?  Hardly a universal meaning for all.

       replyreport
10. 60

    Dantex460posted 11 years ago

    We can't possibly know how the universe started or if it was always there, no one can yet and it is ignorant to pretend we do 100% without real proof. Saying the universe couldn't create itself or could of always been here, then after saying your god can is hypocritical.
    Not only that but to create a god that applies by your bible's rules is much more complex and demands a greater explanation then the universe itself.
    
    Also, what makes your god the one to create the universe and not someone else's?
    Why add a god into the equation and not powerful wizard fairy's and goblins?
    Why did he make me an atheist and try so hard to make it look like everything can be proven without needing a god?
    If your god said he created himself, how do you know his own gods didn't trick him into thinking this like, the gods today trick us with dinosaur bones and evolution while just really being an 'ignorant' atheist?

    replyreport
    1. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       As a Christian that is always searching for answers, I found God in my studies. When I would try to look for other explanations God kept coming up as an answer. I know that the evidence of God is present if you look for Him. Some refuse to look!

       replyreport
    2. 37

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If you look at a problem with an answer in mind you will always find it in your answer.

       replyreport
    3. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Isn't that how science does it? They are trying to prove what they all ready theorize. That was the point of the question!

       replyreport
    4. 61

       Winston Smith 84posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Um, no. If they can't prove the theory, they modify it or abandon it. They don't continue to cling to it despite continuous evidence contradicting it.

       replyreport
    5. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You are nieve,right now science is trying to disprove variable speed of light,because it will destroy all the science since Einstein. Check out VSL Australia has all ready proven it and verified it.

       replyreport
    6. 74

       aliasisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       jstfishinman - conspiracy theory. The very nature of science is to make conclusions based on research. If a scientist experiments hoping to find a specific answer, or bends research to suit an agenda (for example, religion), it's not real science.

       replyreport
    7. 96

       peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Most scientist are willing to look at previous claims and evaluate if they are in fact accurate. I have to ask jstfish, are you willing to do the same to your Christian belief?

       replyreport
    8. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I am always doing research for my three blogs. This research leads me to many sites. One of those is variable speed of light that is all ready documented and destroys the last 100 years of science based on a constant speed of light. OOPS!

       replyreport
    9. 96

       peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm not asking if you can reevaluate scientist beliefs. I am asking if you will ever be able to reevaluate yours in the same way you expect scientists to.

       replyreport
    10. 62

        jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I am always evaluating what I believe, haven't found anything better than my relationship with God.

        replyreport
    11. 0

        jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        jstfishinman, whatever satisfies you in terms of "evidence," is fine for you.  But religiously, where each opinion is founded mainly on belief, not proof, you evidence is unlikely to satisfy others.

        replyreport
    12. 68

        Lee Teaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        No, science does not try to prove what they already theorize.  Science uses the scientific method, designed to unbiasedly test hypotheses.  There's no need to bastardize science because you're religious - science is a tool for understanding reality.

        replyreport
    13. 37

        Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        there is no deity integer in a legitimate equation, no gods in science.
        Something is either true or false by repetitive testing. Scientist can't cheat to fit their desires. The result is fact.

        replyreport
11. 61

    Winston Smith 84posted 11 years ago

    A Creator would indeed, explain a lot of things. Everything, in fact. That's the problem. A Creator negates the need to think at all. Just believe what your told unquestioningly and blame the world's problems on anyone who doesn't.
    
    As far as the universe is concerned, how do you know the universe "started"? How do you know it hasn't always existed? How do you know it didn't evolve from something else we may never understand?
    
    Humans like answers. We don't like not knowing. That's why we created science. But before science, we created a catch-all answer to satisfy our curiosity about anything we couldn't understand.

    replyreport
12. 71

    getitriteposted 11 years ago

    And why do you presume that the creator would be "GOD"  ?
    "God" is not the same as Creator.  Gods are imaginary characters invented by men to explain that which they do not understand, however, ALL gods are fictional, therefore, no gods have ever created anything.  If there is a CREATOR, it is certainly not one of your fictional Gods.
    
    Furthermore, a creator explains nothing.  It's just an excuse for a lazy mind to give up on searching for the REAL truth to the dilemma.  The concept of science is not to have a preconceived conclusion.  Any scientist who does that is not a scientist, period.  Through the work of science, cars run, planes fly, computers work....and still, this same science finds no need for, or any evidence for a God.
    
    It seems that you believe in this illogical premise, because of your rigid indoctrination and nothing more.  This is certainly not using reason.  Of course the thoroughly indoctrinated mind can't discern reason from folly.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There are "many" scientists who are professed Christians! The same all jargon from the same old argument.

       replyreport
    2. 71

       getitriteposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry, JT, but I fail to see your comment as nothing more than irrelevant to anything I have stated.  Or did I misread your response....or maybe your response needs editing or maybe you didn't complete the thought?

       replyreport
    3. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There are "many" scientists who are professed Christians!  True.
       "The same all jargon from the same old argument."  Maybe this is the reason you would not make a good scientist, JT.

       replyreport
    4. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Probably so jonny. I have never aspired to be a scientist.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       How about if I re-phrase your statement ?  "The same old jargon from the same old arguments," directed at you as a christian.   I no longer aspire to be a christian - don't accept the claims of christianity or the indoctrination that comes with it.

       replyreport
    6. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       This is your choice jonny. Have a great day.

       replyreport
13. 0

    Rayne123posted 11 years ago

    Scientific answers are not always right sometimes they just raise more questions than answers.
    
    I believe that we should never question the unknown. The unknown is our path to destiny. If we were suppose to know something there would be an answer/fact to that very question.
    
    God created the universe, some things he left to our knowledge while others are a mystery.
    This means its of unimportance. Anything in the past we have no knowledge of is left for us to enjoy and move on.
    
    What you cannot explain should be left to faith, therefore it will make for more stress and full of more unneeded questions.
    
    this reminds me of a passage from the scripture
    1 Timothy 1:4-6
    
    GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
    
    4 and occupying themselves with myths and endless genealogies. These myths and genealogies raise a lot of questions rather than promoting God’s plan, which centers in faith.
    
    Great question
    Blessings
    Laurie

    replyreport
    1. 94

       cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You said, "I believe that we should never question the unknown. The unknown is our path to destiny. If we were suppose to know something there would be an answer/fact to that very question."  If we followed this path, we would still live in caves.

       replyreport
14. 85

    M. T. Dremerposted 11 years ago

    God is a constantly moving idea that hides in the shadows of scientific theory. Every time we find out something new about our past, present or future, that does not support the idea of god, god them moves further away, finding something else that is unexplained so that he can take credit for that. Since we will never know everything about our universe, god will always be there to fill the gaps. The difference between theists and atheists is that atheists will look at the things that are unknown and say 'I don't know' and the theist will look at the same unknowns and say 'that's god'. Sure, god fits as an explanation, but so does the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't mean that the explanation is right or that it even makes sense.

    replyreport
    1. 94

       cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I am not an atheist, but I do believe that you are correct in your assessment of most who believe in a god.  Very well put.

       replyreport
    2. 37

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Very true MT.
       My first question to anyone who asks if I believe in god is to define what a god is? Very few can actually give an accurate description, if I then ask for an address; well, I suppose that is just kicking the tires,,,lol

       replyreport
    3. 73

       lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Misinterpreting God is a clever way to hide from Truth.

       replyreport
    4. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       And I suggest mis-engendering "god" is a way of distorting whatever "truth" happens to be.

       replyreport
15. 63

    mintinfoposted 11 years ago

    It is called a permutation process where by pure energy waves flux (their frequency gets so compact that a sub-atomic particle forms). There was no Big Bang. See my hub http://hub.me/acPSy

    replyreport
    1. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Even when talking about energy, something or someone had to start energy in motion otherwise it just sits there like a couch potato. Not only that but energy of any kind would have to have a start, a beginning, if you will.

       replyreport
    2. 63

       mintinfoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Read my hub. Intelligence needs a reactor to be generated in human brain cells. The intelligence of the universe needs no reactor. It is of its own will. Because some do not understand it they call it god. We either fear or worship the unknown.

       replyreport
16. 94

    cam8510posted 11 years ago

    Biblical creationism and any other form of creationism that begins with a living creator obviously begins with something.  Evolutionism begins with something as well.  Both begin with something.  For creationists it is God.  For evolutionists it is matter in some form or another.  Both have the very same issue here which each side begs the other to resolve in itself.
    
    Creationists demand that evolutionists explain how matter can be eternal.  Evolutionists demand that creationists account for the beginning of the existence of God.  Of course neither can answer these questions.
    
    Your premise is wrong in that evolutionists, at least the ones I know, do not believe that the universe began with nothing.  You are creating a "straw man" here.  Better that you spend your time explaining the existence of an eternal god.  I am not an atheist, but I choose to allow people to choose their own way in these matters. 
    
    As a former evangelical, former minister and former missionary, I must say that it is my observation that attempting to evangelize by first insulting the people you want to win, is very ineffective. 
    
    Civil debates, asking questions, admitting you don't have all the answers, listening and learning; these  are the qualities of intelligent, caring people.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       My question was designed solely to create dialogue. Physics says that nothing produces nothing. To begin with something I agree demands an explanation. I also know science or any other human endeavor will never explain our complex universe.

       replyreport
    2. 94

       cam8510posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sciene does explain the universe.  We landed on the moon and returned because they understand.  What practical things have  creationists done that proves their position.  Scientific claims must be supported by the natural world or they are useless.

       replyreport
17. 0

    AK Chenowethposted 11 years ago

    Man's logic usually gets in the way of accepting what he has decided could only be impossible.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Rebecca Furtadoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I f we accept that man , "was made in the image of God" we understand God in terms of our human experience. Hence, Religion might be 'manmade " but not completely wrong on the nature of God. Science helps us understand God the Creator ,

       replyreport
18. 78

    brblogposted 11 years ago

    That is a good question  . . . but the question I have been asking recently is "where did God come from" (assuming there is a God)? Since everything we know has a start and finish, so must the creator. Who created the creator? What was before God? How did God come to be? Another interesting question I wonder about, "what was God doing all that time before he created the heavens and the earth and us?" Was he just hanging around in a void for an eternity? This is not meant to be sarcastic or belittle your question . . . I really do wonder about these things. Some think science is the answer, some think God is the answer but neither can tell me what came before . . .

    replyreport
    1. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I AM THAT I AM tells us that God always was, if you believe the Bible. We can also read how the angels and heaven were created before light on the earth. My belief in God is a personal relationship built on my findings about the beginning.

       replyreport
    2. 37

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       But then why have any problem with one saying that the universe always was and always will be, that its form might vary but it never needed to be created?
       It makes just as much sense and has far more direct evidence.

       replyreport
    3. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm cool with that,but it would do away with a few branches of science. Then what would all those graduate students my taxes pay for, study then.

       replyreport
    4. 37

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm curious which branches you would do away with & why?

       replyreport
    5. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Cosmology  and astrology come to mind.

       replyreport
    6. 37

       Borsiaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Well, of course, astrology isn't a science. It is just an old superstition about how the position of stars & planets affect lives,,, pure BS and proven to be.
       Cosmology; the study of the formation of the universe is a valid study.

       replyreport
    7. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That would depend on the country, some recognize and teach astrological science.

       replyreport
19. 68

    Lee Teaposted 11 years ago

    Consider a pulse that changes what IS, now, into the next thing it becomes, like tapping rhythmically on the side of a kalidescope.  That there is, was, and ever shall be only this now moment, and it changes along with the beat of this tapping drum. 
    
    You are the observer, the one looking through the kalidescope.
    The pulse you can consider to be God - some call creator but may more be a rearranger.  Either way, without it, things remain static.  With it, things change in this moment from one formation to the next to the next.  We perceive this as time.
    to go a step farther...
    The sun is Jesus, the one that illuminates, feeds, heals, and sustains you so you can see (bear witness to) what's going on.
    
    This is at least what the lessons of my life have taught me to understand.
    
    Be well.

    replyreport
20. 92

    Billie Kelpinposted 11 years ago

    or the whole IS God - maybe every atom that exists in no matter what form of existence is God - constantly moving constantly changing - maybe all is a manifestation of one being -  oops there goes the Catholic attribute of "immutability" out the window -

    replyreport
21. 60

    desaiamarjeetposted 11 years ago

    What I think is "EVERYTHING" now is an Energy, which is changing its form. And to know where does it come from to change its property, we think with our limitations to discover it. But there should be/is something beyound. Challenging the mear existance of "God" is chanlleging the "Energy" is what I feel. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, as stated above, but can change its form. We live and for living we need energy. We eat food which is again an energy. An animal died or killed to be eaten same as a fruit or vegetable. They all are again an energy which have taken shapes and now they are released or changed its properties. Likewise, an energy somewhere and somehow took its form and started changing its form. Our body is made up of 4 elements; Earth, Water, Air, Fire which will change its form back. I am, too, trying to trace back the changing forms of energy to know as to how was the first form of Energy.
    The creator did required some energy and He is also an energy. I am blank.

    replyreport
22. 73

    lone77starposted 11 years ago

    As humans, we're quite familiar with cause-and-effect or Newtonian action-reaction. We've become familiar with the equivalence of mass and energy and the conservation of these. But these are physical laws that were created.
    
    Creation is a completely different animal.
    
    Science studies the products of creation, all of which have continuity. Science has a hard time studying discontinuity.
    
    Creation is a "discontinuous" thing. Engineering students and scientists might understand this "discontinuity" thing, if they remember their calculus classes.
    
    Science and spirituality (the true heart of religion) have quite a lot in common. They both seek answers. The both have a love of Truth. Science strives toward that elusive perfection all the time.
    
    The thing that gets in the way is "ego." This "ego" is the heart of selfishness. It pretends to be good and always right. It remains vulnerable and is easily bruised.
    
    Science could understand creation, if only scientists were humble enough. And -- voila -- some scientists are! Some scientists believe in God. I'm one of them.
    
    But some believers can get sidetracked by ego, too. They toss out reality (science) and pretend it's evil or wrong. They make up things and pretend it's "creation science," when in actuality, it's an abomination.
    
    God created the universe and everything in it. He created the laws of physical reality. Those who take the Bible literally (both skeptics and believers) miss out on the Big Picture. Some Fundamentalists feel that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Pity. Science proved that wrong, ages ago.
    
    So, Fundamentalists who cling to a false interpretation of Biblical Truth make up all manner of nonsense to avoid the real Truth. Science studies the products of creation and has done a great job of it. Some Fundamentalists have been lazy and arrogant thinking that they have it all figured out, but only because they take the Bible literally. Pity, again. 2 Cor. 3:6 cautions against the literal, for it leads to death; only the spirit leads to life.
    
    I discuss "science and religion" in more depth at,
    http://thebibleshiddenwisdom.com/scienc … ligion.php

    replyreport
    1. 92

       Billie Kelpinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It seems to me that the concept of creation is exactly contiguous with cause-effect, action-reaction whereas "mass can neither be created nor destroyed" opens up the mind to the concept of an un-caused cause.

       replyreport
23. 35

    edhanposted 11 years ago

    It is always like the egg and chick question. I always believe there is a beginning where God Himself made us what we are and all the creatures in the evolution. It is normal to have doubts but through questioning, one may reach the answer that they are looking for in life.

    replyreport
24. 36

    thomasczechposted 11 years ago

    My 10year old son said what you asked. How can nothing produce nothing? You are correct that God is the answer to everything. God created all things. Did you know that Charles Darwin did not accept his theories as fact? He just looked at the world and questioned everything, he had theories that he himself never proved, could not prove. This is why he did not want his booked put into print for the public.
    The best I can do if asked how the universe was created is to tell people to ask God.

    replyreport
25. 40

    ChristinSposted 11 years ago

    Yes but "God" in this context would not be a deity or some man in the sky type thing as is taught in religions.  "God" as a connecting, creative force that flows through all of existence I can believe - God as a diety not so much. I would be more apt to believe that all of existence is "God" because we all come from the same origins. There's nothing supernatural about it though that I have been able to see.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Rayne123posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thats a good response. See but you also brought up a good point "that you have been able to see", what we see is only temporal its the unseen that is here forever. The unseen that does amazing things sometimes

       replyreport
    2. 62

       jstfishinmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       A deity is a super natural being, a creative force that flows through all of existence is a super natural being, or a deity. Is it the term God that you have a problem with?

       replyreport
    3. 40

       ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       an energy or source is not a supernatural being - nor is it a "God".  Gods are created by man, not the other way around. Existence itself or a collective consciousness is part of us, not separate from us.

       replyreport
    4. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I would agree with Christin.  Others will not, of course.

       replyreport
26. 59

    Rebecca Furtadoposted 11 years ago

    There are elements and chemistry.. there is never really 'nothing'. Creation is an ongoing  process. There may have been a moment when all things came together. This is the latest add on to the big bang theory. If God is the process of ongoing creation, then it makes more sense to a lot of people. Does this inform our theology? We yes because if creation is an ongoing process, then there is always hope and to some degree purpose. We all play unknown roles in this process of ongoing creation. To move forward and to become are then sacred tasks with out the dogmatic hoopla of traditional religion.

    replyreport
27. 60

    Martin VKposted 11 years ago

    Science can per definition not operate with an untestable hypothesis. Therefore God is incompatible with science. God is a brilliant explanation to many things as you say, but he will always remain an unscientific explanation. Some scientists believe in God but their beliefs have nothing to do with science. A Danish professor once proposed the existence of a "God" who would prevent the Higgs boson from being created. Not only was this "God" testable, but he was also put into quotation marks, and the professor clearly mentioned how this was not a real God, but only some sort of power or instance with the characteristics of a God. Perhaps it was not very wise to use the name God, because people were quick to draw lines between science and religion, something which the professor had never intended.

    replyreport
28. 66

    PhoenixVposted 11 years ago

    It would seem that in the end or the beginning, depending on how you look at it there must be an ultimate or absolute reason for reality. It would also seem that, that absolute reason would have qualities much different than the reality.

    replyreport
29. 73

    Dan Barfieldposted 11 years ago

    This is a great question - that old philosophical quandary: Why something rather than nothing?
    
    I like the idea of juxtapositions creating meaning - i.e. things that are diametrically opposite imply each others existence. In fact - each actuality is meaningless without its contrasting partner. For example, valleys cannot exist without their mountainous counterparts, up means nothing without contrasting directions, stillness is nonsensical without motion...
    
    Likewise non-existence implies existence. Almost as if one state entails the other. Reality is like a wave form - a peak and a trough. Like the curving line that dissects yin and yang. Being exists at the crest - a rolling inevitable divergence from non-being that occurs because that is simply the nature of both being and non-being - to imply and enact one another. Not a conflict of dark and light, but rather a dance of male and female archetypes... this is just a metaphor for a concept far to big to be confined effectively by the limitations of linguistic communication of course... still I had to give it a go eh?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I like your way of thinking Dan.  For me, what you say is true and the only way I can arrive at the "truth."

       replyreport