3 ms·

Which religions? The major monotheistic religions state that God created and initiated our universe, which does not contradict that a Big Bang happened.

by azth 4y ago

teekert 4y ago
It's just that stating "God created the universe." immediately leads to the question "Who created God?". And if you answer "God always was.", then you can also say "The Universe always was." (And 'it bounces between expansion/contraction' or 'new Big Bangs occur inside this Universe al ultra low probability according to Quantum Mechanics', or whatever.) In any case, saying "The Universe always was." or "Time did not exist before the Universe so 'before' is only a term that makes sense inside the Universe, after its creation, and we cannot fathom what is beyond these limits.", is a more satisfying stance for looking at the Universe than first requiring a seemingly infinitely complex being that then created this universe to look like the being is not even required, according to Occam's razor. And it leaves some nice things to be discovered for us too. I mean, why would I imagine a god building the Himalayas when I have plate tectonics to explain it? Plate tectonics explain it well, and it explains other phenomena, and we can experimentally verify the process. The god hypothesis just leads to infinity more questions, and as such is scientifically unsatisfying. The god hypothesis generates a huge amount of un-testable hypotheses and suggests that we can simply give up our search for explanations whenever we can use god to explain things. Religion as such demotivates scientific inquiry, and I think it is not far fetched to assume that that was its original intention. Just read some Yuval Noah Harari, we began the scientific revolution when we no longer accepted what the priests told us. In short, we indeed have no need for the god hypothesis. At least we never have so far, it has never been the simplest explanation for phenomena. God is simply placed into gaps in our knowledge until we fill the gaps (and answer questions), like: "Why lightning?" or "An Eye can never evolve [is irreducibly complex]." or "Why is earth at the center of the universe?". I therefor prefer to extrapolate the solved to the unsolved and believe that questions like "What is consciousness exactly?" and "Can a machine be conscious as we can be?" will also be answerable without invoking any god.
- azth 4y ago
  > It's just that stating "God created the universe." immediately leads to the question "Who created God?" Simple answer: this is a logically contradictory question to ask. It's basically the same as saying: someone baked this piece of bread, then, who baked the baker? The universe did not always exist, and provably so. The Creator exists outside the realm of His creation, and as such, our laws do not apply to Him. The very fact that we're having this discussion is proof that God, The Creator, exists. Secondly, God has sent us many messengers, and provably so. This means that "we have no need for God" assumption is meaningless.
  - teekert 4y ago
    "Simple answer: this is a logically contradictory question to ask. It's basically the same as saying: someone baked this piece of bread, then, who baked the baker?" The baker evolved through mutation and natural selection. You envoke an answer outside the provable realm. By doing that you release all bounds. There is no limit to what you can place in that realm. "The universe did not always exist, and provably so." Then you are not agreeing with the best of our combined knowledge in knowing for a fact what happened at the very start of the Big Bang? I though we were uncertain up until 10^-38 seconds or so. Did the Big Bang occur in this universe or did it form the Universe? I don't know. Does anyone at this point? Is there any outcome that you would consider an argument against a god? I would not accept the prove of the universe not always existing as proof FOR a god anyway. "The very fact that we're having this discussion is proof that God, The Creator, exists." When I look at our DNA, and compare it to every other organism on earth, I see a tree of life, dependencies, common ancestors between species. No proof that a creator exists. I any case, simply stating that anything is proof a creator exist is a bit simplistic right? "God has sent us many messengers, and provably so." Could you point me to this proof? Is it a reproducible experiment? Can I do said experiment at home and come to appreciate your point of view? Could you suggest any experiment that could help me accept that there is a god?

Which religions? The major monotheistic religions state that God created and initiated our universe, which does not contradict that a Big Bang happened.

by azth 4y ago

Which religions? The major monotheistic religions state that God created and initiated our universe, which does not contradict that a Big Bang happened.

teekert 4y ago

It's just that stating "God created the universe." immediately leads to the question "Who created God?". And if you answer "God always was.", then you can also say "The Universe always was." (And 'it bounces between expansion/contraction' or 'new Big Bangs occur inside this Universe al ultra low probability according to Quantum Mechanics', or whatever.) In any case, saying "The Universe always was." or "Time did not exist before the Universe so 'before' is only a term that makes sense inside the Universe, after its creation, and we cannot fathom what is beyond these limits.", is a more satisfying stance for looking at the Universe than first requiring a seemingly infinitely complex being that then created this universe to look like the being is not even required, according to Occam's razor. And it leaves some nice things to be discovered for us too. I mean, why would I imagine a god building the Himalayas when I have plate tectonics to explain it? Plate tectonics explain it well, and it explains other phenomena, and we can experimentally verify the process. The god hypothesis just leads to infinity more questions, and as such is scientifically unsatisfying. The god hypothesis generates a huge amount of un-testable hypotheses and suggests that we can simply give up our search for explanations whenever we can use god to explain things. Religion as such demotivates scientific inquiry, and I think it is not far fetched to assume that that was its original intention. Just read some Yuval Noah Harari, we began the scientific revolution when we no longer accepted what the priests told us. In short, we indeed have no need for the god hypothesis. At least we never have so far, it has never been the simplest explanation for phenomena. God is simply placed into gaps in our knowledge until we fill the gaps (and answer questions), like: "Why lightning?" or "An Eye can never evolve [is irreducibly complex]." or "Why is earth at the center of the universe?". I therefor prefer to extrapolate the solved to the unsolved and believe that questions like "What is consciousness exactly?" and "Can a machine be conscious as we can be?" will also be answerable without invoking any god.

azth 4y ago
> It's just that stating "God created the universe." immediately leads to the question "Who created God?" Simple answer: this is a logically contradictory question to ask. It's basically the same as saying: someone baked this piece of bread, then, who baked the baker? The universe did not always exist, and provably so. The Creator exists outside the realm of His creation, and as such, our laws do not apply to Him. The very fact that we're having this discussion is proof that God, The Creator, exists. Secondly, God has sent us many messengers, and provably so. This means that "we have no need for God" assumption is meaningless.
- teekert 4y ago
  "Simple answer: this is a logically contradictory question to ask. It's basically the same as saying: someone baked this piece of bread, then, who baked the baker?" The baker evolved through mutation and natural selection. You envoke an answer outside the provable realm. By doing that you release all bounds. There is no limit to what you can place in that realm. "The universe did not always exist, and provably so." Then you are not agreeing with the best of our combined knowledge in knowing for a fact what happened at the very start of the Big Bang? I though we were uncertain up until 10^-38 seconds or so. Did the Big Bang occur in this universe or did it form the Universe? I don't know. Does anyone at this point? Is there any outcome that you would consider an argument against a god? I would not accept the prove of the universe not always existing as proof FOR a god anyway. "The very fact that we're having this discussion is proof that God, The Creator, exists." When I look at our DNA, and compare it to every other organism on earth, I see a tree of life, dependencies, common ancestors between species. No proof that a creator exists. I any case, simply stating that anything is proof a creator exist is a bit simplistic right? "God has sent us many messengers, and provably so." Could you point me to this proof? Is it a reproducible experiment? Can I do said experiment at home and come to appreciate your point of view? Could you suggest any experiment that could help me accept that there is a god?