Your question is related to the cosmological argument for a First Cause of everything:
One needs to have a formalized understanding of logic and philosophy to understand the topic of God's existence. Here is a starting point:
Premise: Every event has a cause
Premise: The universe has a beginning
Premise: All beginnings involve an event
Inference: This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event
Inference: Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause
Conclusion: The universe had a cause
For something to have caused the universe it must have existed outside of the universe and time. That First Cause could only have been an omnipotent supernatural agent, God.
Another argument is one from design:
1. The universe began to exist
2. The universe has complexity, order and fine-tuning
3. Complexity, order and fine-tuning imply design
4. Design that began to exist implies a designer
5. Therefore, the universe has a designer
Premise 1: See Big Bang theorem (Hawking, Penrose) All matter and time itself began at this moment
Premise 2: Universe has complex designs, e.g, cellular DNA, Laws of Physics, fine-tuning for life on earth, etc.
Premise 3: Nothing ordered can come from chaos, an orderer is required. Laws of Nature are often cited as counterexamples, yet these very Laws are themselves ordered.
Premise 4: Self evident. If something did not exist, there is no beginner or designer
Thus, the universe has a designer, God.
Once I conclude logically that a designer exists, I must then look to evidence of this designer's will. After investigating, the bible appears to me to be the most reliable revelation of this supreme being. You can review the two links below for discussion about the reliability of the bible.
Accuracy of bible:
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm
While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world we do not fully understand, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all accept the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I have also taken the time to spend years in universities studying theology as well as science (have a Ph.D.), so I could more fully understand what I have staked my eternal soul upon. I don't advocate everyone do this before making a decision one way or the other, but I do suggest folks go beyond the rhetoric in these forums, the media, and elsewhere, so they can be more grounded in their beliefs.
2007-03-01 10:25:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6
·
4⤊
4⤋
Sorry, but I will not lie to you and you seem to really want a legitimate answer. I have just finished a very long answer to someone else proving creation over evolution. There are only 2 answers when you shave away all the hoopla and technical/ scientific/mathematical/theoretical stuff. One is evolution which by its own definitions and parameters of what it can be and what it cannot be, every part of it must-if it is not created ON PURPOSE by a sentient being-be random or by chance or mistake, if you will. And you know even if you have only studied the very basics of math and science that random and/or chance happenings do not, indeed, CANNOT be right that much more than it is wrong(or heads 95% and tails the other 5%) without messing with it. So, logically, we should NEVER have "evolved" this far up the "evolutionary ladder" without some nightmarishly wrong "random happenings" occurring to us. Especially with us having DNA code that is, essentially, billions of right choices or at least some not-so-wrong ones with the billions of right ones all in a row. NO WAY!! CAN'T HAPPEN!!!
So, your only other option is it is SOMEBODY'S fault!! Some one did this...all of this most likely. I mean, yeah, the Deists believe that God was, God created, God went on permanent vacation to leave us to fend for ourselves. Okay...I know that is not true, but you asked nicely for no faith stuff. So I am trying my best. I personally go with the flow and call Him what most people feel or think He wants to be called: God. You? Call Him Jimbo Rosita Eugene Rumplestiltskin if you want. But if you do not subscribe to the first choice, you gotta call HIM something (or her if you want, I suppose). There is too much order in everything for me to even consider the first choice. Not to bring God into this too much but just to explain something that I am fairly sure won't offend. I stopped believing in Evolution because of all the holes in it in the 3rd grade. I only became a Christian 4 years ago and I am between 30 and 40 years old. My point is that I did not "switch" from evolution to God overnight or even over the course of a decade or two. Logic is logic and you cannot MAKE something make sense if you have an open mind which it seems you do or are trying to keep an open mind (I can relate there...opinion gets in the way and I can HEAR the doors in my head slam shut!) Good luck with all this...it is not easy, I know.
2007-03-01 10:43:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by MICHAEL C 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, God was playing twister and he stretched just a little too far (after eating lots of beans the night before) and farted and that created all the matter and energy that is the Universe. That is as plausible as saying some all powerful and mighty being snapped his fingers and created everything, but just sits back and watches his science experiment spin around and around.
One of the laws of physics is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How did God get around that one? Where exactly does this God of yours exist? Can you tell me the coordinates as I need to have a good look at him and want to see his home? At least there is evidence to support the Big Bang, as for God well there is nothing.
2007-03-01 10:27:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by cor001000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing. Time and space was created at the big bang. But recently scientists are exploring new theories about the creation of the universe which says that the big bang after which we are living is nothing but one of the many such bangs that happened repeatedly. After each bang, the universe expanded and later on contracted to form a big crunch and then again another bang. This is called the cyclic model. Newest theories of the cyclic models are based on brane-world scenario and uses string theoretical ideas. So far these theories have not been substantiated or refuted.
Cyclic model:
In the 1930s, theoretical physicists including, Richard C. Tolman, proposed cyclic model for the universe as an alternative to the Big Bang. But their theories could not explain the decrease of entropy due to contraction of the universe as, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy should never decrease, as a whole for the universe.
Paul Steinhardt (Princeton) and Neil Turok (Cambridge) have recently proposed a model for the cyclic universe, in which space and time exist forever. The big bang is not the beginning of time. Rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era. The Universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big crunch and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between. The temperature and density of the universe do not become infinite at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a finite bound (about a trillion - trillion degrees).
There is no inflationary era in the new cyclic model after the most recent big bang. The current homogeneity and flatness were created by events that occurred before the most recent big bang. The seeds for galaxy formation were created by instabilities arising as the Universe was collapsing towards a big crunch, prior to our big bang.The transition from big bang to big crunch is explained by recent developments in superstring theory that suggest that the cosmic singularity is otherwise.
Cheers.
----------------------------------------
NOTE:
Superstring theory relies on the idea that the Universe contains nine or ten spatial dimensions, depending on the formulation, all but three of which are curled up in a compact manifold of microscopic size. In this framework, the big bang and big crunch may be an illusion. Expressed in the usual variables of general relativity, it may appear that our usual space and time are disappearing. However, viewed with the proper variables, our usual space dimensions actually remain infinite and time runs continuously. The transition from big crunch to big bang is due, instead, to the collapse, bounce and re-expansion of one of the extra dimensions. For example, in a variant known as M theory, the Universe consists of two branes (surfaces) bounding an extra dimension, and the singularity corresponds to a collision and bounce of the two branes. The temperature and density of ordinary radiation and matter remain finite at the bounce, and particles move continuously in a natural and intuitive way. By dispelling the myth that the big bang is a beginning of space and time, superstring theory opens up new possibilities for the cosmological history of the Universe.
-----------------------------------------------------
2007-03-04 00:31:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dalilur R 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Blindly accept a scientific hypothesis?
I think that you need to improve your understanding of how scientific methodology works. Maybe then you'll see how string and quantum theory are pieces of a larger puzzle.
Do you know EVERYTHING there is to know? Neither do scientists, so why trash them?
2007-03-01 10:30:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by The angels have the phone box. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The matter and energy that existed before it. Even if there wasn't a "big bang", still, the matter and energy that existed before the object/s that came into being caused them to come into being just like everything else in the universe, to include matter, concepts, thoughts, the mind and so on.... also, we don't believe in finite beginnings and finite "ends". When something you perceive "ends" it's actually simply becoming something else...
_()_
2007-03-01 10:25:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by vinslave 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
>If our universe replace into created in the process the great Bang (in case you suspect in this theory), and there replace into not something earlier it, the place did the potential FOR the great Bang come from? by definition, out of nowhere. If it got here from someplace, that could necessitate that something exist earlier it. That suggested, the great Bang theory purely describes how the Universe got here into existence as considered from the interior. It says little or no approximately what would exist exterior the Universe, and in my view i think it replace into particularly brought about by some organic technique happening exterior the Universe in some timeline which will or would possibly not correspond to our own timeline. >the place did the potential that is needed for the great Bang theory come from if the regulation of Conservation of potential is to stand/be upheld? in actuality in case you prefer to fulfill the regulation of conservation of potential, you're left with 2 thoughts: a million. some style of potential existed in some style earlier the great Bang and alter into 'injected' into our universe in the process the great Bang. 2. The regulation of conservation of potential did not stick to to even though technique brought about the great Bang. the two of those 2 thoughts is fullyyt achievable in accordance with our contemporary information. in addition to, you do not even would desire to %. between them; the two would have been the case.
2016-12-18 03:38:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by suire 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No idea.
And you don't either.
Michael: If the extent of your understanding of science is elementary school, then it is no wonder you have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you put down you coloring book, clean off the paint from your fingers, and try reading a scientific journal. At least then you might not make such stupid statements as "Came from nothing, and poof here we are."
2007-03-01 10:30:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, physicists have evidence that they make available for criticism. I can't say the same for people who believe in creation.
And I too believe that it has always existed
2007-03-01 10:26:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
One theory I heard is our universe in one of many universe in a multiverse. But no one really knows.
2007-03-01 10:26:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by jetthrustpy 4
·
1⤊
0⤋