How do you explain a ordered universe without a Creator?

[Foxfyre]

On the first day, God said let there be light. I'm not sure about you, But think that a all powerful Being can create the universe however He wants to.

While I agree, I also believe God to be honest, just and fair. God made the rules of the universe and, per those rules, we developed brains to investigate and try to understand it.

Is that any doubt that God could also have created the Big Bang 13.77B years ago knowing that, billions of years later, life would develop on Earth according to the rules set at the Big Bang?

Of course he could. I once had an atheist friend who explained it as the vacuum cleaner theory of creation. All the bits and pieces of the universe came together in an enormous sack. And as the sack was shaken, given an unlimited length of time, all those pieces would at some point come together in the form of a working vacuum cleaner. Thus our existence now is just that point in all of eternity that the pieces came together as they are.

Then the scientists, based on observed movement of visible objects in space, came up with the big bang theory. It was all gathered together until somehow it all blew apart with the universe ever expanding ever since.

And the proponents of the Big Boss theory concur with those possibilities but with the caveat that something had to shake the sack or something had to light the fuse.

The fact is that none of us really know how matter came to be in the first place or how it came to be in the forms that we have. But it provides endless exercises in speculation, theory, experimentation, and hypothesis. And those of us who intuitively appreciation the improbability of it all happening purely by chance.

Probably we'll all be surprised when the full truth is revealed to us.

If it's ever revealed or discovered by mankind in our lifetimes.

The Universe itself doesn't appear to be eternal, but finite. It had a definite beginning and, even in current theory of expanding, accellerating Universe to a cold, dead end, will still be devoid of all life and light at some point.

Maybe. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Simple question, really. Why do so many people have a problem with it? Think about it. Order cannot come from chaos. At least not in this universe. Every bit of scientific knowledge we possess says it just can't happen. The universe is extremely ordered. It also contains vast amounts of information. Information has one source. Intelligence. Earthly intelligence is also the result of information. Can you say catch 22? This proves that information has a source that is outside this universe. What is this source? I believe that it is God. Can you come up with any other explanation?

It is kind interesting that nothing appears to not have order in the universe. Take the concept of a line. A line is just a geometric shape that we have created and it is useful for breaking things down easily. Yet, it shows up in nature quite often such as an object moving in a straight line. It is kind of strange and I have no reason why that is. Are we projecting our own notions of order onto things? If so, things would have to have some kind of order to them such that we can predict what is going to happen. I have no answers on that one.

 

[edthecynic]

Man cannot create or destroy matter or energy. Who says that God couldn't do it?

Nature, and Nature is supreme.

 

[Lutroo]

Man cannot create or destroy matter or energy. Who says that God couldn't do it?

Nature, and Nature is supreme.

It would be interesting to hear about how you know this. Where's your evidence?

 

[edthecynic]

Everything that happens is the result of something causing it to happen..., there had to be a primal cause that was itself uncaused.

Some people can't see a contradiction even when it is right in front of them!

 

[edthecynic]

Man cannot create or destroy matter or energy. Who says that God couldn't do it?

Nature, and Nature is supreme.

It would be interesting to hear about how you know this. Where's your evidence?

Because God is powerless to violate Nature Law.

 

[Lutroo]

Man cannot create or destroy matter or energy. Who says that God couldn't do it?

Nature, and Nature is supreme.

It would be interesting to hear about how you know this. Where's your evidence?

Because God is powerless to violate Nature Law.

Where's your evidence? Why do you think nature is all powerful? Allow me to use one of the favorite arguments of atheists. Who created nature? You seem to believe that nature is all powerful, yet deny that God has any power. You worship the created rather than the Creator. You are in for a rude awakening.

 

[IndependantAce]

Order in the universe does logically prove the existence of a creator, therefore I'd say atheism is disproven entirely on those grounds alone.

Many atheists simply don't want to believe there is a God, so they avert the issue simply by claiming "there's no physical evidence of it", even though it's pretty nonsensical to demand physical versus logical evidence for creation, just as it would be silly to look at the inner-parts of a computer to find "proof" that someone made it.

Plus it's dishonest. If an atheist saw a brand new Ferrari in a parking lot, they would logically conclude that it was manufactured; they wouldn't demand physical proof (such as a video recording of the manufacturing process) before concluding it was created, or otherwise assume it was "more likely" that a tornado hit a scrap yard by random coincidence and forged the pieces into a Ferrari.

Yet they purposely demand "proof" of God which they know by very definition it would be impossible to prove anyway; so it's simply about denying the obvious existence of a creator by any means necessary.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Order in the universe does logically prove the existence of a creator, therefore I'd say atheism is disproven entirely on those grounds alone.

Many atheists simply don't want to believe there is a God, so they avert the issue simply by claiming "there's no physical evidence of it", even though it's pretty nonsensical to demand physical versus logical evidence for creation, just as it would be silly to look at the inner-parts of a computer to find "proof" that someone made it.

Plus it's dishonest. If an atheist saw a brand new Ferrari in a parking lot, they would logically conclude that it was manufactured; they wouldn't demand physical proof (such as a video recording of the manufacturing process) before concluding it was created, or otherwise assume it was "more likely" that a tornado hit a scrap yard by random coincidence and forged the pieces into a Ferrari.

Yet they purposely demand "proof" of God which they know by very definition it would be impossible to prove anyway; so it's simply about denying the obvious existence of a creator by any means necessary.

Well, if that makes you feel better.......

 

[Divine Wind]

The evening and the morning were the first day. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old?

The Bible should be taken literally, unless it is clear that it should not be. Such as apocalyptic prophecy. Context should be used when interpreting Scripture. There is plenty of context to use in this case. There is nothing to suggest that days were not 24 hour days. The evening and the morning were first day.

Disagreed. Like God violating the very rules God created, it doesn't make sense to give man a brain and then expect him to not to use it.

 

[IndependantAce]

The evening and the morning were the first day. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old?

The Bible should be taken literally, unless it is clear that it should not be. Such as apocalyptic prophecy. Context should be used when interpreting Scripture. There is plenty of context to use in this case. There is nothing to suggest that days were not 24 hour days. The evening and the morning were first day.

Disagreed. Like God violating the very rules God created, it doesn't make sense to give man a brain and then expect him to not to use it.

Mot logical arguments support the existence of God, so the brain and God go hand in hand.

As mentioned, one would never assume that a computer assembled itself as a result of completely random natural processes, so it's illogical to assume that the universe was as well.

 

[Mudda]

The evening and the morning were the first day. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old?

The Bible should be taken literally, unless it is clear that it should not be. Such as apocalyptic prophecy. Context should be used when interpreting Scripture. There is plenty of context to use in this case. There is nothing to suggest that days were not 24 hour days. The evening and the morning were first day.

Disagreed. Like God violating the very rules God created, it doesn't make sense to give man a brain and then expect him to not to use it.

Mot logical arguments support the existence of God, so the brain and God go hand in hand.

As mentioned, one would never assume that a computer assembled itself as a result of completely random natural processes, so it's illogical to assume that the universe was as well.

As we don't know why the universe is like it is, it points to a POSSIBILITY that it was made by a "god". Thus, being agnostic is the only logical position to hold.

 

[sealybobo]

The evening and the morning were the first day. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old?

The Bible should be taken literally, unless it is clear that it should not be. Such as apocalyptic prophecy. Context should be used when interpreting Scripture. There is plenty of context to use in this case. There is nothing to suggest that days were not 24 hour days. The evening and the morning were first day.

Disagreed. Like God violating the very rules God created, it doesn't make sense to give man a brain and then expect him to not to use it.

Mot logical arguments support the existence of God, so the brain and God go hand in hand.

As mentioned, one would never assume that a computer assembled itself as a result of completely random natural processes, so it's illogical to assume that the universe was as well.

As we don't know why the universe is like it is, it points to a POSSIBILITY that it was made by a "god". Thus, being agnostic is the only logical position to hold.

Agreed. Although I lean towards disbelief so I'm an agnostic atheist.

As for any religion im an atheist because I really don't believe. Could Mary have been a virgin? Sure. And my pink dragon could be real too

 

[Divine Wind]

As we don't know why the universe is like it is, it points to a POSSIBILITY that it was made by a "god". Thus, being agnostic is the only logical position to hold.

Agreed. Let me emphasize "Thus, being agnostic is the only purely logical position to hold." Human beings are also emotional and, some believe, spiritual. We should let our reason rule our emotions and spirituality when it comes to working and living with others

 

[Divine Wind]

Agreed. Although I lean towards disbelief so I'm an agnostic atheist.....

Being an "agnostic atheist" or agnostic theist" makes as much sense as being "a little bit pregnant".

 

[hobelim]

Agreed. Although I lean towards disbelief so I'm an agnostic atheist.....

Being an "agnostic atheist" or agnostic theist" makes as much sense as being "a little bit pregnant".

Not really.

An agnostic is someone who needs definitive proof one way or the other before they can either believe or disbelieve in the existence of God.

I'd say until that proof comes to light, one way or the other, its the most sensible position.



Many people believe or disbelieve in the existence of God based on the written words of scripture. Those who fail to comprehend the deeper meaning of the words and subjects, that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used, are believing or disbelieving in God based on what scripture is not about.

 

[Lutroo]

The evening and the morning were the first day. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

So you believe the Bible should be taken literally and that the Earth is only about 6000 years old?

The Bible should be taken literally, unless it is clear that it should not be. Such as apocalyptic prophecy. Context should be used when interpreting Scripture. There is plenty of context to use in this case. There is nothing to suggest that days were not 24 hour days. The evening and the morning were first day.

Disagreed. Like God violating the very rules God created, it doesn't make sense to give man a brain and then expect him to not to use it.

Then you aren't using your brain. God created the universe in six 24 days. That's what the Bible says.

 

[Divine Wind]

Agreed. Although I lean towards disbelief so I'm an agnostic atheist.....

Being an "agnostic atheist" or agnostic theist" makes as much sense as being "a little bit pregnant".

Not really.

An agnostic is someone who needs definitive proof one way or the other before they can either believe or disbelieve in the existence of God.

I'd say until that proof comes to light, one way or the other, its the most sensible position.



Many people believe or disbelieve in the existence of God based on the written words of scripture. Those who fail to comprehend the deeper meaning of the words and subjects, that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used, are believing or disbelieving in God based on what scripture is not about.

You seem to agree, yet said "not really", so I'm not sure what you are saying.

Agreed agnostic is the only logical position. Both atheists and theists are taking a position based on belief, not fact. To declare oneself an "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" is a bullshit position. It means nothing except the person declaring it is confused and weak.

 

[Divine Wind]

Then you aren't using your brain. God created the universe in six 24 days. That's what the Bible says.

The Bible also says not to eat pork or shellfish. Do you avoid BBQ pork ribs and Shrimp Po'Boys? Ham for breakfast? Almost every political leader we have has violated the Ten Commandments. What are the penalties for doing so?

The fact remains the Bible was not only written by the flawed hand of desert nomads beginning over 2500 years ago, but was edited by a group of biased clergymen under Emperor Constantine in 325AD. While the Bible remains an excellent book of wisdom and a guide to becoming closer to God, it must be seen as imperfect just like man himself.

 

[hobelim]

Agreed. Although I lean towards disbelief so I'm an agnostic atheist.....

Being an "agnostic atheist" or agnostic theist" makes as much sense as being "a little bit pregnant".

Not really.

An agnostic is someone who needs definitive proof one way or the other before they can either believe or disbelieve in the existence of God.

I'd say until that proof comes to light, one way or the other, its the most sensible position.



Many people believe or disbelieve in the existence of God based on the written words of scripture. Those who fail to comprehend the deeper meaning of the words and subjects, that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used, are believing or disbelieving in God based on what scripture is not about.

You seem to agree, yet said "not really", so I'm not sure what you are saying.

Agreed agnostic is the only logical position. Both atheists and theists are taking a position based on belief, not fact. To declare oneself an "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist" is a bullshit position. It means nothing except the person declaring it is confused and weak.

While I do agree with all of that the point that I was making is that whether a person believes or disbelieves in God they are basing that belief or disbelief on the failure to understand widely used and well known literary techniques, parables, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc. not to mention sarcasm,- used by these bronze age authors of scripture that convey teaching that continues to remain above the grasp of believers and unbelievers alike however more intelligent they think they are..