In my mind, it is not the existence of the universe that leads me to believe in a creator.

It is the complexity of the thing, from the pentaquarks to the constant C in Relativity to the extremely complicated biological response to foreign bodies that result in an inflammation, all culminating into the most beautiful thing in creation: consciousness.

If this universe were a collection of planets without biological life or consciousness, I would not be as impressed, and much less likely to believe in God.

quote:

---

I personally choose to believe that the universe is the thing which has always existed in some form

---

God has no form. He is not a "thing" with length, width, or mass. That is a major distinction.

"My point in all this is to say that the perceived need for creation is not a valid reason to believe in God.
I'd actually argue that by opening the door to a God as a needed explanation for creation, you're inviting the slippery slope ad infinitum argument I stated above."

I think you missed the point of the posts in the other thread. Considering one's self a deist is not position derived from the "perceived need for creation." Rather, it is where the evidence has lead me. See BusterAg's post - it is the magnitude and structure of universal order that seems implausible to attribute to random or spontaneous generation of governing laws, energy or matter.

Also, have you have fallen for your own paradox in the belief of an eternal universe? How is that different from the belief in an eternal God? For starters, we can trace the origins of the universe back to big bang, or point of origin for the current existence of the universe. Beyond that, evidence for an eternal universe is pretty similar to evidence for a creator...faith.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I personally choose to believe that the universe is the thing which has always existed in some form

---

God has no form. He is not a "thing" with length, width, or mass. That is a major distinction.

---

I meant thing in the loosest sense, not as a physical object.

---

But the universe is a physical object.

quote:

---

The reason I think my answer is better is because mine is simpler, it doesn't have the unnecessary extra layer of the supernatural things we have no evidence for.

---

What evidence do you have of a pre-Big Bang universe?

I think you used a lot of words there...in essentially agreeing with me...

As I said in the other thread. Deists and atheists are opposite sides of the same coin. The side you ultimately agree with depends on where the evidence leads you. The truth is that we don't and probably cannot know what existed prior to the singularity.

Appreciate the threads you start, though, because they draw me back to this board.

I was talking about the Big Bang last week with an old friend and she made an interesting statement I had never heard before.

She said there is no "before the Big Bang" because time didn't exist until the Big Bang occurred. The singularity was there and exploded and time began. Time is a byproduct of the Big Bang. I'm not sure how that meshes with our resident scientists but it was an interesting idea.

quote:

---

Continuity? There's no more reason to think that the universe started with the big bang than to think it started at breakfast. You know the Big Bang isn't a theory about the actual origins of existence right? Lots of things have been proposed about what came before.

---

Proposals and theories aren't evidence.

What evidence?

quote:

---

A mathematical proof that a metastable vacuum is able to produce similar phenomena.

---

So, another theory. Again, evidence?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A mathematical proof that a metastable vacuum is able to produce similar phenomena.

---

So, another theory. Again, evidence?

---

Are you trolling?

---

Not in the slightest.

In case you forgot your burden of proof:

quote:

---

The reason I think my answer is better is because mine is simpler, it doesn't have the unnecessary extra layer of the supernatural things we have no evidence for.

---

A simpler explanation because of evidence. I'm willing to concede provided evidence. A theory, hypothetical, proposal, etc... is not evidence.

quote:

---

The answer is probably nothing, as in no matter, just a metatable vacuum. I'm interested to see more tests of the wheeler-Dewitt equations in our lifetime, because if they're correct we have a really really good guess.

---

Probably? Really, really good guess? I'm not sure that this answer is as convincing as you think it might be...

Kidding aside, even if such a vacuum existed, one would assume that the laws of physics would need to exist prior to the spark...so really you are just continuing to work backwards towards the further unknown.

quote:

---

Whatever man.

---

To be fair, I'll post my opinion and postulate that it is, imo, simple, but not evidence backed. I think it logical and without paradox. Feel free to critique.

I believe in creation ex nihilio. I don't agree that a creating agent must also have a beginning. On the contrary, to create time and space, the transcendent cause must exist atemporally and non-spatially. Therefore, the agent must be changeless and immaterial; since timelessness implies changlessness, and changlessness implies immateriality. Therefore, the creating agent must be without beginning and uncaused. Sound familiar?

quote:

---

Kidding aside, even if such a vacuum existed, one would assume that the laws of physics would need to exist prior to the spark...so really you are just continuing to work backwards towards the further unknown.

---

I think that was part of his original point. You can reach an infinite regress by wondering where God came from or you can reach an infinite regress by questioning where any 'physical' existence came from. Both questions are probably equally un-answerable - so what makes the God infinite regress more plausible than one without God?

A summary of arguments that I've heard:
- Scientists believe the universe have a beginning. Everything that we observe has a beginning has a cause. What is the cause of the universe? Where did the material and energy come from?
- Humanity: We only observe that people with rational thinking minds are born into this world from parents with rational thinking minds. How does matter and energy floating in space produce a human with a rational thinking mind?
- God is not created and is eternal. He exists outside of time and is of a different nature than we are.

I cannot nor will be able to prove the existence of God, but I believe the evidence points to the God of the Bible being the real deal. I believe that the evidence for Jesus is reliable in a way that the other options are not.

quote:

---

The loosest sense of the word thing includes the class of physical objects.

I suppose I could have said, "I meant thing in the loosest sense, not limited to physical objects". Is that better? Do you have a point to make?

---

The universe is a thing. It is material with space, length, mass, etc. God is none of those. It is possible to talk about God being eternal, but not material things. You attempt to draw a comparison and make them the same in the OP. They are not.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Kidding aside, even if such a vacuum existed, one would assume that the laws of physics would need to exist prior to the spark...so really you are just continuing to work backwards towards the further unknown.

---

I think that was part of his original point. You can reach an infinite regress by wondering where God came from or you can reach an infinite regress by questioning where any 'physical' existence came from. Both questions are probably equally un-answerable - so what makes the God infinite regress more plausible than one without God?

---

Man, we are getting some face time today, huh?

I agree with your point that neither is a "knowable" position. In fact, you kind of make my point from earlier in the thread that the "God" paradox is remarkably similar to the "Eternal Universe" paradox. I think that slipped past Astro a bit in his posting. Whether you teeter to the atheist or deist position depends on how you interpret the available data and, when the data cease to exist (i.e. at a singularity), where you postulate the origin of the creative spark arose. Since philosophically I cannot rationalize the birth of a universe and existence from abstract nothing, I choose to believe in a divine origin. However, I fully recognize that I cannot defend that position any better than Astro can the eternal universe. It just works for me.

Cheers!

quote:

---

The laws of quantum mechanics would have to apply, but the whole "the laws of physics began at the Big Bang" thing refers to the macro/relativistic view of space-time. There's no indication that quantum mechanical rules began with the Big Bang, there are just a lot of misconceptions about it amongst the general public.

---

On this point we agree.

I do not think it is accurate to assert that the Great Watchmaker exists "outside space-time." I would describe it as "beyond mere space-time."

Consider a 3-dimensional universe that YOU create ... Length width and time, with no third spacial dimension (depth). You (as the Creator) do not exist "outside" the first three dimensions. You exist in the same dimensions as your creation ... plus one more.

quote:

---

I don't think Christians have a very good idea of where God supposedly exists besides saying "not here".

---

Well, it's really hard to pinpoint where an invisible Spirit exists unless He clues us in somehow, so I can sympathize the with the struggle in answering that question.

From what I read in the scriptures:
1. Nothing is hidden from His sight.
2. His Spirit indwells the body of every believer at the moment they place their faith in Christ.
3. He lives in heaven and Christ is currently at His right hand.

Thus says the Lord, "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?