Evolution vs. Creation being taught in schools

[danielsangeo]

The universe creating itself from nothing

 

[Flyingamerboy]

The universe creating itself from nothing

 

Maybe the universe was created when the last universe went into the big crunch and created the big bang for this universe.

[Srake]

How was the last universe created? It can't be an infinte loop.

[Flyingamerboy]

It could be an infinite loop. who is to say it isn't?

[Michael Archer]

An arbitrary assertion, Flyingamerboy.

 

As far as I know, no one knows how the universe came into existence. The best guess right now for the beginning of the universe is The Big Bang.

[alphabetagamma]

An arbitrary assertion, Flyingamerboy.

 

As far as I know, no one knows how the universe came into existence. The best guess right now for the beginning of the universe is The Big Bang.

But that raises the question of what was before the beginning of our universe.

[Lux Arbuckle]

But that raises the question of what was before the beginning of our universe.

 

and we don't know the answer.

We do, however, know it doesn't mean it was created by default.

[Flyingamerboy]

An arbitrary assertion, Flyingamerboy.

 

As far as I know, no one knows how the universe came into existence. The best guess right now for the beginning of the universe is The Big Bang.

But that raises the question of what was before the beginning of our universe.

An old universe going into the big crunch.

[Srake]

...*seethe*

All right then, How was the first Universe created? From nothing you say? That makes sense... I'm just gonna say God always was. That's JUST as illogical as the universe coming from nothing. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that he isn't real. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean he's real. It's called faith for a reason. I'm not a strait edge Christian. I believe God used his executive power of Science to create the universe. God created everything. Adam and Eve fail at the Garden of Eden. God says Fuck it, and hits the reset button. BOOM! Evolution and other sciencey stuff.

 

It's not conventional. But I like it.

[Lux Arbuckle]

I have no problem with deism, but that science you say god created only proves enough possibility that a god is real. No specific god is indicated by science, yet many different faiths all claim to be right.

 

That's why I don't have faith in organized religions and their gods, because obviously not all of them can be right. Most are pretty bad and some are tolerable. But no one single religion is right over another, it's impossible. We must have made it all up.

 

Do you know how absolutely huge the universe is?

It's massive, I bet the real reason behind everything is so fucking awesome and amazing we could never ever create it in our (or the scripture's witnesses') wildest drug induced fantasies. We're too stupid to come up with the truth. We only just recently in the history of out species have become aware of the universe in the sky as something more than a wall between the earth and heaven and we yet claim to know how it was made?

 

Doesn't make sense to me. History proves all religions and faith false. Go ahead and believe there is a god, but there is no justification to give weight to any specific take on the thing. Every religion is a reflection of some group of people's desires. a lot of it is based on money, sometimes actual moral outrage, sometimes guys just wanted to get their wiener touched by a lot of women, or they smoked too much opium or did too many mushrooms or drank a lot and were also loud mouths so they made their fantasies a faith. They get money, they get justification to take over the people and their lives, we then get rulers and peasants since someone has to be deliver the word of god and someone has to kneel. That's how things have worked for a very, very long time. God is the #1 cause of death and the most common reason humans have used for warring, so I see no reason to give praise to it.

[Srake]

Yeah, so thanks for that. Just tearing up my faith and throwing it in my face. I was feeling pretty down today. Don't know why I decided to check this thread again. So I guess I'll just go to bed then. I joke. You know why all that stuff happens? It's because people are remarkably stupid. They can't accept that other people would believe in something they wouldn't. So they go to war. Simple as that. "We can't accept the others So they might as well be dead." And at the end of the day, It doesn't even matter. If there is a god, the god you believe in is probably the same god the other guys believe in. I chose to be different from those sheeple. That's why i believe in all that stuff I said earlier. I don't follow blindly.

What have we learned:

-People are stupid

[danielsangeo]

An arbitrary assertion, Flyingamerboy.

 

As far as I know, no one knows how the universe came into existence. The best guess right now for the beginning of the universe is The Big Bang.

But that raises the question of what was before the beginning of our universe.

 

The question that you raised is, actually, a gibberish question. I know it sounds reasonable but it really isn't.

 

Think of it this way: What is north of the north pole?

 

How would you answer this question?

 

Also, why is there this assertion that the universe came from "nothing"?

[Blue]

...Every religion is a reflection of some group of people's desires. a lot of it is based on money, sometimes actual moral outrage, sometimes guys just wanted to get their wiener touched by a lot of women, or they smoked too much opium or did too many mushrooms or drank a lot and were also loud mouths so they made their fantasies a faith. They get money, they get justification to take over the people and their lives, we then get rulers and peasants since someone has to be deliver the word of god and someone has to kneel. That's how things have worked for a very, very long time. God is the #1 cause of death and the most common reason humans have used for warring, so I see no reason to give praise to it.

Firstly I'd like to say that out of the two points you made there, the second point is a fully credible criticism that if stated must be applied to every participant argument because "Travesties and grotesquely inhumane acts in the name of [insert thing here]" are not exclusive to any religion or irreligion.

You say Crusades, I say Holocaust. You say the Witch Hunts, I say the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia. It doesn't really do anything apart from mudslinging based upon the collective histories of extremists or those that famously misinterpreted their doctrines. (Blame and cause are contextual, so lets not get into those details.)

 

But the first point you made is either based on or strongly reflective of one of Neitszche's criticism that Religion exists simply as a method of accruing power and prestige over others. I can't remember the exact name for it, but one of the philosphies championed by Nietzsche was the idea that in a sense, "All truth claims could not be trusted." One would say "Everyone should believe in social justice" for example, and Nietzsche would squint his eyes and say "Hm. Do you honestly believe in the good of Social Justice and that everyone aught to practice it, or are you simply wanting to start a revolution with yourself as the Leader?". So obviously such an approach to Religion would result in his immediate distrust of all aspects of it, in a manner of speaking.

This criticism is also very credible, which pointed out on a major problem and possibly endemic fault that could then be detected and corrected, once Nietzsche had given it a name (which again, I forget).

Within Christianity, the use of spreading the Gospel for gain of anything but the Kingdom of God (anything that is not the Kingdom of God includes Church organizations, Denominations, Companies or Individuals) is termed spreading the Gospel "For your own Glory". It can be a very problematic foible since pride in success can blind oneself to their lack of humbleness, and who they are serving. Christianity is to be serving Jesus, not the individual.

 

But Nietzsche's truth claim in of itself is also self-canceling, since "All truth claims can not be trusted." is also a truth claim, which therefore can't be trusted. Unless one notices that, it's a perfect little pin for popping everyone else's balloon.

[BTGBullseye]

...Every religion is a reflection of some group of people's desires. a lot of it is based on money, sometimes actual moral outrage, sometimes guys just wanted to get their wiener touched by a lot of women, or they smoked too much opium or did too many mushrooms or drank a lot and were also loud mouths so they made their fantasies a faith. They get money, they get justification to take over the people and their lives, we then get rulers and peasants since someone has to be deliver the word of god and someone has to kneel. That's how things have worked for a very, very long time. God is the #1 cause of death and the most common reason humans have used for warring, so I see no reason to give praise to it.

Firstly I'd like to say that out of the two points you made there, the second point is a fully credible criticism that if stated must be applied to every participant argument because "Travesties and grotesquely inhumane acts in the name of [insert thing here]" are not exclusive to any religion or irreligion.

You say Crusades, I say Holocaust. You say the Witch Hunts, I say the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia. It doesn't really do anything apart from mudslinging based upon the collective histories of extremists or those that famously misinterpreted their doctrines. (Blame and cause are contextual, so lets not get into those details.)

 

But the first point you made is either based on or strongly reflective of one of Neitszche's criticism that Religion exists simply as a method of accruing power and prestige over others. I can't remember the exact name for it, but one of the philosphies championed by Nietzsche was the idea that in a sense, "All truth claims could not be trusted." One would say "Everyone should believe in social justice" for example, and Nietzsche would squint his eyes and say "Hm. Do you honestly believe in the good of Social Justice and that everyone aught to practice it, or are you simply wanting to start a revolution with yourself as the Leader?". So obviously such an approach to Religion would result in his immediate distrust of all aspects of it, in a manner of speaking.

This criticism is also very credible, which pointed out on a major problem and possibly endemic fault that could then be detected and corrected, once Nietzsche had given it a name (which again, I forget).

Within Christianity, the use of spreading the Gospel for gain of anything but the Kingdom of God (anything that is not the Kingdom of God includes Church organizations, Denominations, Companies or Individuals) is termed spreading the Gospel "For your own Glory". It can be a very problematic foible since pride in success can blind oneself to their lack of humbleness, and who they are serving. Christianity is to be serving Jesus, not the individual.

 

But Nietzsche's truth claim in of itself is also self-canceling, since "All truth claims can not be trusted." is also a truth claim, which therefore can't be trusted. Unless one notices that, it's a perfect little pin for popping everyone else's balloon.

*e-hug*

[Blue]

D'awww, thanks Bullseye.

Also, I remembered the name of the thing Nietzsche came up with. He established what would become the foundations of the modern Hermeneutics of Suspicion.

Also, why is there this assertion that the universe came from "nothing"?

God exists both inside and above [outside, by some interpretations of the word 'above'] the Universe in the same way a Painter exists both in and above his painting. If the Painter had decided not to directly paint a picture of himself in his painting, in a sense the Painter is not directly in the painting, but he would be, indirectly. The Painter's inflection of color and style would be different had it been painted by someone else.

The stuff of what would be the Universe above our Universe from which God exists is quite obviously something beyond our comprehension in the same way God is, and questioning what stuff that would be would simply be a sidetrack of asking what God is made of.

The metaphor of the Artist-Creation also explains why the Universe exists to give God glory. If a Playwright made a play which he intended to be his magnum opus, his greatest life's work so that the play would simply exist that would be great and magnificent enough for him to enjoy fully, what right would there be for a character in that play have to say that the Playwright was egotistical?

 

One would dispute God's tastes then, for thinking this sullen and angry world is his Magnum Opus. Then I would quote C.S. Lewis in saying that "[....Christianity..] thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again."

[danielsangeo]

But that's not what I asked. There is this assertion that science says that the universe came from nothing, not what an alleged "God" allegedly did. I was speaking on the science front, not the religion front.

[Lux Arbuckle]

But that's not what I asked. There is this assertion that science says that the universe came from nothing, not what an alleged "God" allegedly did. I was speaking on the science front, not the religion front.

 

 

There is no such assertion.

[Blue]

Yes, as far as I am aware, the Big Bang Theory asserts that at the origin of the Big Bang is the initial terminus of time in of itself and there is no possibility or practicality questioning before that point at time. Cosmology would be the field to look into if you still have questions on such a matter, if my memory serves me proper.

[Pinkie Pie]

I don't know what to think about TBBT. People say there's factual evidence but I've never seen or read any proof of such. I'm really interested in finding it though.

[danielsangeo]

But that's not what I asked. There is this assertion that science says that the universe came from nothing, not what an alleged "God" allegedly did. I was speaking on the science front, not the religion front.

 

 

There is no such assertion.

 

Actually, check this out (since this is what I was responding to:

 

maybe god created the big bang?

I can't even tell you how hard I LOL'd at that.

I'm not sure why you think that's impossible. The universe creating itself from nothing seems about as likely as god doing the same then creating our universe. I'm always disappointed at the superiority religious and non-religious people feel over each other, as if they've somehow already proved or disproved the existence of god and billions of other people are just ignorant.

 

See, alphabetagamma was musing about how one side (the non-religious "universe creating itself from nothing") has equal likelihood as the other side (the religious "god doing the same then creating our universe"). I was asking where the non-religious "universe creating itself from nothing" came from because I haven't heard that assertion made on the non-religious side.