if you would like to view all http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God's_existence#Evidence_in_creation
A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
There is a basic principle that everything that began had a cause; something or someone that caused that thing to begin to exist. From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics taken together we can conclude that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe needed a cause; something or someone that caused the universe to come into existence. The cause of the universe must be something or someone existing outside the universe.
If the cause of the universe itself had a beginning, that cause must itself also have had a cause. However, at some stage one must conclude that there was an "uncaused cause", a cause that itself had no beginning. This uncaused cause is consistent with Christian and some other religious views of a Creator, but inconsistent with atheistic views, which instead propose that the universe came into being from nothing. The idea that the universe came from nothing is more parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.
Originally posted by tim88Uh huh. Usual question: what "caused" the Creator? And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?
if you would like to view all http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God's_existence#Evidence_in_creation
A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
There is a basic principle that everything that began had a cause; something or someone that caused that thing to begin to exist. From the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics ...[text shortened]... e parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Well to quote the rebuttal to this argument from the site itself...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God%27s_existence#Evidence_in_creation
Not saying it is so, but if God doesn't require a cause, then why does the Universe? The argument does also not develop why "A Creator is the best explanation for the existence of the universe" or why "The cause of the universe must be something or someone existing outside the universe", claims that these are "the best" are also heavily subjective to say the least. It merely claims that a cause is required, and implies any time we don't know the cause it must be God.
It is entirely up in the air whether the universe had a beginning or not. It is entirely unknowable what happened prior to one Planck-time after the Big Bang, and cyclic models of the universe, in which the universe traverses a circuit of time rather than moving from a beginning to an end, have been proposed, obviating the need for a cause.
There is also the argument that if, as current models of physics posit, time is part of the fabric of the universe, then there was no time when the universe did not exist; similar to how there is nothing north of the North Pole. With this model of time, even if time did have a beginning, the universe is "eternal," as much as anything can be.
Not to mention that applying the laws of thermodynamics to that particular problem assume uniformitarianism; if the laws of thermodynamics operated differently in the past, such as YECs posit that they did around 4004 B.C., that argument falls flat on its face. The acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics also precludes miracles in the Bible and eternal life before the Fall, significant problems if one accepts the Bible as inerrant.
Even if the "first cause" argument is accepted, it tells us absolutely nothing about the nature of the "creator". (For example, why it should care about what sexual practices we choose to indulge in, or what we eat on Fridays.) If one is willing to accept the existence of a causeless first cause, what arguments can be made to defend the belief that there is only a single such entity? If gods don't require a cause one might expect an almost infinite number of them out there.
It should be noted that the so called atheistic view does not propose the Universe "came from nothing" only that it is unknown how the universe came into being. Even if it was accepted that the universe came from nothing it does not differ from a creator creating the universe from nothing. The idea that the universe came from nothing is more parsimonious than the idea that the universe was created by a creator-which-came-from-nothing.
You do know that that is a list of 'evidences' for god that have been debunked right?
That's why they are listed on Rational Wiki.
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88"atheistic view" what is that?
...atheistic views, which instead propose that the universe came into being from nothing.
Only that the universe was not created by a being they don't believe in.
Atheists do not have to propose any alternative view on the beginning
of the universe and I dare say most/many do not care.
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by SoothfastMy money would be on god. Why you ask?
And if the Creator needs no cause, why can't the laws of physics have no cause?
1.Evidence in creation
2.The fine tuned universe
3.Complexity of life
4.Jesus
5.The bible
6.Testimonial evidence
7.The fine tuned universe
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59You could argue that any description of science is "atheistic" because it does not
"atheistic view" what is that?
Only that the universe was not created by a being they don't believe in.
Atheists do not have to propose any alternative view on the beginning
of the universe and I dare say most/many do not care.
include a god anywhere in it.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that it's a view espoused by an atheist (there are
theist scientists) and it doesn't need imply that it's a view held by all/many atheists.
It would depend on whether you said AN atheistic view, or THE atheistic view.
By saying "with atheistic views" it could be interpreted either way, However it does
look from context like the author had forgotten [intentionally] that atheism doesn't
include a worldview beyond a lack of gods. And is attributing scientific views to all
atheists*. [I wish]
*Or at least his idea of what scientific views are"
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgewhats that got to do with anything? i bet you wouldn't be such a smart ass to me in person. if you were you would need to pull your pants down to brush your teeth every morning.
ALL rebutted/refuted nicely on the site you linked from.
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88THAT is being smart assed? You have very thin skin my friend! Kelly J learned that hear also, I said a few things against his religion and he went apoplectic a few years ago, he is not so reactive now, having gotten more used to religious opposition or anti religious opposition whatever you want to call it.
whats that got to do with anything? i bet you wouldn't be such a smart ass to me in person. if you were you would need to pull your pants down to brush your teeth every morning.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88How charming.
whats that got to do with anything? i bet you wouldn't be such a smart ass to me in person. if you were you would need to pull your pants down to brush your teeth every morning.
Actually in person I wouldn't be taking this much care to avoid hurting your
feelings.
In person I'd rip your stupid arguments apart with the ease that comes from
not being restricted by typing.
So, given your apparently paper thin skin... I would, if I were you, pray we
never meet in person.
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonhousewas he not being a smartass to me first. but i know you guys have a team and your just trying to be a team player
THAT is being smart assed? You have very thin skin my friend! Kelly J learned that hear also, I said a few things against his religion and he went apoplectic a few years ago, he is not so reactive now, having gotten more used to religious opposition or anti religious opposition whatever you want to call it.