For all of those skeptics about the existence of a creator here's scientific proof. All you need is one question....How was the universe created/ formed? There are only three scientific possibilitys 1) It has alway existed and always will. 2) It created itself out of nothing. (which could support the big bang theory) or 3) It was created. Scientific law says that neither matter nor energy can be made nor destroyed. Its simply put into another form of matter or energy. Thats a fact. Therefor the universe could not have always existed because matter/energy can not be made or destroyed. The universe had to be made somehow. The same princible means that the universe can not make itself out of nothing. Therfor the universe did not make itself. There is only one other possibility, I'm not saying that the christian god is the creator. But something definatly created us and the universe. Do you believe this is suffeciant proof.
2007-12-05 15:58:20 · 41 answers · asked by Hate the ignorant 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm sold but then I am a Christian.
2007-12-05 16:01:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your arguments are non sequitur. Conservation of matter/energy (since matter and energy are different forms of the same stuff, I propose this be rephrased as the Law of Conservation of Substance) in no way implies the universe could not have always existed; an eternal universe would be more compatible with the Conservation Law since it would not require any creation of substance.
You're treating your assumptions as facts. If a god created the universe, the universe would exist. If the universe always existed, then it still would exist. There's no way to tell either situation apart. Even the expansion model doesn't necessarily mean the universe was "created" at some point - it just means the universe is expanding. It may have been expanding infinitely - even when it was infinitely small, that just means the entirety of the universe - and everything in it - was infinitely small too.
2007-12-06 01:27:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Correction, energy transduction is a scientific law, not a fact. This law will or can change if proof that it is incomplete is found.
Your rhetoric is no proof, but rather a simple view on things. Have you taken your time to inform yourself better on what big bang is really all about? In my opinion, not even the greatest minds and technologies of our age is capable of explaining existence and the beginning of the universe. What makes you so sure that a God is a posibility at all? It's as good as saying I made it, or you made it, or some super complicated, obviously more complicated than the universe-being (ofcourse, we just CANNNTTT doubt his existence, we'd go to hell, but how did he come to be? more questions. Why did he make the stars, he only made the universe for us.... he made us for him.... come on)
Why did he have to make everything seem like it was chance? Where's his signature? Where is he? Hiding?
That's no solution. God is an invention. You only get to the point where you see that you DONT UNDERSTAND the beggining, the singularity, nor do I. But God? or Big Brian, or Zeus? Where did he come from? My head. not reality
2007-12-05 16:08:53 · answer #3 · answered by snakker2k 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
1) How do you know the universe hasn't always existed, just not in its present form? 2) The Big Bang theory does not say "something from nothing," instead it says "something from something." The universe came from an incredibly dense and hot singularity. As it exploded, spread, and cooled, the four forces were able to separate and the current laws of physics applied. 3) Even if the Big Bang theory is eventually disproved, you still have your first statement to fall back on. Just because we can only think in terms of beginnings and endings doesn't mean that there must be always be beginnings and endings.
So, no, the Law of Conservation of Matter is not sufficient proof of a creator.
2007-12-05 16:08:30 · answer #4 · answered by Muffie 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Good job. Got any more?
Science usually relies on facts not theories. Answers, not questions.
It is theories that make science very much like religion.
The stupification of science will bring about more theories, but God will always be an infinite question. Science will always be baffled by the beginning of Matter or God.
The spirit of God, like matter, cannot be created nor destroyed.
God is beyond all time and matter. Matter is the infinite creation of God, thusly everything that ever was or will be.
With existence we see from your paragraph there is neither a beginning or ending of the Universe. God is the beginning and ending, The Alpha and Omega. The infinite.
2007-12-05 18:28:35 · answer #5 · answered by Curlyc+ 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
According to your stated parameter "matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed", the best option is 1) "it has always existed and always will".
That's the only choice of the three you offered that does not require matter/energy to be created. If matter/energy cannot be created, then there cannot be a creator.
Option 1) does not undermine the Big Bang theory, btw.
2007-12-05 20:19:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Therefor the universe could not have always existed because matter/energy can not be made or destroyed. "
Uh, is there anyone actually in there? If energy can not be created, then the universe has always existed. (nevermind that conservation of energy is under attack in the scientific community anyway)
2007-12-05 16:04:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It has alway existed and always will. If the universe was made, what was it made from? If the cosmos wasn't always here, what was here before it......I don't think we will ever come to grips with infinity..........by the the way, the big bang theory only deals with this universe, there are many universes, and it in no way has any thing to do with the cosmos.
2007-12-05 16:07:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All causal arguments for a deity are nonsense, since any cause of the universe would have to be outside of space/time, and the word cause requires time (before and after) to have a meaning. This is why God avoids the infinite regress argument (needing a cause that would be another God, etc.), because God is said to be outside of space/time. So, while you seem to have asked a question, you have not.
2007-12-05 17:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am confused by something that seems so obvious to me and other atheists. If you need a creator to explain a creation, then how can you accept the creator's existence unless there was a creator that created it? Your proof is neither scientific or logical.
2007-12-05 16:18:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
First off, you are not presenting proof, you are playing a semantics game. Second: You contradicted yourself rather badly about halfway through.
The Big Bang does not ever claim that the universe "came from nothing". It came from a singularity. Look it up.
Look up the definition of "evidence" while you're at it. And "science".
2007-12-05 16:11:36 · answer #11 · answered by Scott M 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋