Did God Create The Universe?

Thanks for showing god created everything.

urm... troll? I saw Kent Hovind's boy try to pull that at the reason rally with Thunderfoot. It doesn't work, you're just making yourself sound really ignorant, claiming victory where there clearly is none.

Notice lib how you ran from my comments seeing you can not show matter was created then it sows god created everything. Libby when yo can defend your claims come find me

I'm a Libertarian, if that's what you mean by "lib", and I didn't run from any comments, I directly addressed your comment. You'd know that if you'd read the whole thing.
Right now our observation is that matter exists. All through history, anything unexplained has been thrown in the pile of "God did it." and systematically every "God did it." claim has been refuted, save the creation of the first cell and the creation of matter in the universe. Given the track record of the "God did it." claim, what makes you so sure we won't find a scientific explanation for the creation of matter? Moreover, what makes you think God is the explanation at all? The bible is no more evidence than any other mythological book.

Libby thanks for sowing yet again you are too ignorant for this discussion. You can not show how matter was created so you prove god created everything. Seeing Libby that I never mentioned a book but did mention science you show yourself again as the ignorant lib you are



Ignorant libs that cannot defend their claims is blocked

Whoa! You still believe in matter? What are you?- five years old? 'Molecules' and 'matter' are just fairy tales the so-called scientists make up because they can't explain what things are really made of. If it doesn't talk about 'matter' in God's word then it can't be. Why do you hate Jesus?

Its a fascinating topic isn't it?

You have one side that demands scientific proof of a theory and has none

You have another side that has an explanation through faith and by definition does not have proof or demand it.

And both sides are convinced that they are correct! ;)

The entire point on the side that demands scientific proof is that there is none, it's not an exception. If there was this would be a different discussion.

What value can possibly be placed on an explanation through faith? With that as a justification, one could make, literally, ANY assertion and claim it to have validity because they believe it and don't require evidence. This is why rational people require evidence to believe things.

I just think it's interesting, one side demands proof and has none and the other side doesn't demand proof and relies on faith, and both are convinced that what they believe is correct and neither can prove it.

Theory, in this case, without proof is just a theory, and has little more value than any other explanation whether it is conceived through rational or irrational thought..

by the technical definition of "prove" I did prove my side's argument. My side states only that we don't know where everything came from and, at this point, cannot know. By my lack of evidence, this is a reasonable assertion, and a probable assertion by your added lack of evidence.

The value of "theory" is that it is tentative and can admit its own fault the moment evidence to the contrary is presented. Asserted beliefs, however, which don't rely on proof, remain equally true regardless what contrary evidence is submitted.

I did not mean to disagree that no one knows, that I absolutely agree with. My error I suppose, was to leave out that option as a third side.

Yes, and I would think that people of faith would be, at least at first, reluctant to accept any evidence that disproves what they believe. Some, I'm sure would never accept it. Where as some people of science are sometimes to quick to believe what at first appears to be irrefutable evidence and is later disproved by new discoveries.
It is very interesting, but one thing I know for sure...the more we learn the more we realize how much we don't know. It seems each new discovery, while answering some questions, may create a hundred new ones.

The consensus in the scientific community is that we dont' know, but as God is, by nature, not observable, it has been ruled out as a viable, research option. The answer will remain "unknown" until a proportionate amount of evidence is discovered to strongly suggest a specific origin.

It's incorrect to say that scientists jump on any new evidence, regardless its factuality. Scientists are extremely concerned with the validity of any evidence. Anything requiring proof in the scientific field is met with opposing sides, checking and balancing eachother. If anyone releases information in a scientific journal, it is met with extreme scrutiny and analysis. Experiments are regularly questioned and repeated to achieve the same result. Yes, each question creates more questions, but notice that the questions grow more and more finite the greater our understanding becomes. Since the very beginning of science, anything that has been properly proven by the scientific method has remained true to this day. Exceptions have been made for new discoveries and knowledge has been expanded, but the discovered truths remain true.

Consensus? Have you polled every scientist? LOL

"Exceptions have been made for new discoveries and knowledge has been expanded, but the discovered truths remain true."
That is not entirely accurate, from the "flat earthers" to Einsteins "constant universe", consensual beliefs in the scientific community have been found to be false.

I listen to many scientists regarding this topic, and none have claimed that their theory of how the universe began is factual. If you have scientists foolish enough to assert their theories of how the universe began as the inarguably most valid, show me.

Flat earth was never a scientifically tested notion and is frankly not a very scientific concept, it was merely a basic observation accepted as fact like most religious beliefs. Even in the days of the Alexandrian Library, more learned scientists had not only determined that the earth was round, but had also calculated its size using cast shadows.

Einsteins cosmological constant theory is one of the specific items that I intended to address in my description, but apparently you didn't realize how this was covered. This is one of many scientific constants that are only true until a point. As we venture into more and more extreme fields of study, we are able to observe instances before thought impossible, and must determine what their cause is. Given that cause, the equations must be changed to allow the new constant variable to effect it.

You seem a little angry?

So you claim there are no religious scientists that believe in creation?

"This is one of many scientific constants that are only true until a point" And what point is that, LOL when the are proven not to be true anymore?

The avatar may give that impression. I'm a high-stress college student and I spend my free time arguing on the internet. Really I'm a pretty chill guy, but I have my passions.

I do not claim there are no religious scientists or creation scientists. What I do claim is that they are few and far between. There will always be scientists that attempt to support or refute any claim, no matter how ridiculous. There are still a small fraction of a percent scientists that believe the earth is flat. In cases that they deny criticism by the scientific community, they are shown little respect and are often unwelcome in academic circles in certain fields.
( this is not in regard to religion so much as creationists. There are very many religious scientists. )

At particular points, subjects and the rules applied to them change. Example: we believe time to be constant, but experiments done at extreme speeds have shown that greater speed actually slows the passage of time. This is why gps satellites in orbit have clocks that run milliseconds faster than on earth, to compensate for the inconsistency. This observation could never have been made before such speeds were achieved, but when they were, the exception was made. This is only one example of the term "true until a point".

Yes, like I said, true until the point it is discovered it is no longer true. It's just a fancy way of pretending your first conclusion wasn't wrong.

... It's not wrong... I don't know where you're deriving that it is or that you've made a convincing case that it was.

You proved it with your own example.
"Example: we believe time to be constant, but experiments done at extreme speeds have shown that greater speed actually slows the passage of time."
The belief that time is constant is not accurate, new experiments have proven that it isn't. The first belief was not true. There is no relativism in the first belief, it was just found to not be true.

The first belief IS true, but the rules change under extreme speeds. By our perception, living here on earth, without the interference of extreme technology, time moves at a particular rate with little to no measurable variation. The same applies to our perception of Newton's laws of gravity after Einstein revised them to fit planetary motion. Newton was not wrong, and his observations were correct, for his perceivable sample size. The larger the sample size grows, the more extremes and exceptions must be made.

Where are you going with this anyway?

Sorry, but I disagree, what you are saying is like saying, the Earth is the center of the universe is true, because by our perception her on earth it makes it appear that way.

The original point was that scientist make mistakes and come to false conclusions sometimes and you seem to be arguing that that never happens because of relativism. This assertion by you seems to me to be the same as saying, when I was 3, I use to believe that 3 plus 4 equals 8 but when new information came available to me in the form learning math I found that 3 plus 4 now equals 7, but that doesn't mean I was wrong when I though 3 plus 4 equaled 8 because that answer was relative to my knowledge base at that time.

You've completely pulled this in a wrong direction. I honestly don't even remember what we were originally talking about. Science can always change and disprove itself. Yes, scientific theory changes, but it is EXTREMELY rare for something fundamental that has been established as fact by consensus within the scientific community to be refuted by new information. I don't know how this relates to the discussion at all, it's been dragged so heedlessly off course.
(and I'm insulted by the mere notion of being compared to a geocenterist. I don't even know where you're deriving that from)

My original point was simply that the fact that the scientific side LACKS evidence to support that a god created the universe is evidence enough to disbelieve a deity claim. There can be no validity in believing any claim unless there is evidence to support it, particularly one that is pre-established and dogmatic as opposed to one that is objective and based solely on direct observations.

Threads do that sometimes, like running water

I did not mean to insult you I was just making an analogy, it was nothing personal.

Yes and that is understandable from a scientific point of view, but there is a reason they call this belief "faith". ;)

Nice chatting with you, it was a good discussion.

He created the universe, the earth, and all of life.

He flooded the earth when He had to.

Where were any of you when He laid the foundations of the earth?

Where you here when you god did anything?

God never stops "doing."

Can you prove it?

I don't like to reveal my personal business. But I can't count the number of figurative bullets I've dodged--or that God has shoved me out of the way of.

Saying any single being could be responsible for everything and anything imaginable is just lazy.

What is lazy is offing nothing to counter the existence of the all powerful being that created everything

I think it all happened because of built up pressure holding basically everything together, releasing in a massive pop. That sounds cooler than "Then god created light, and saw that it was good."

Stop being lazy and offer how everything was created. Sad how libs can never defend their claims

How do you defend yours? With an old book?
Congratulations, you've succeeded the limitations of stupidity.

Did you watch the video?

Lazy?

IT'S LAZY BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS JUST TOO WONDERFUL TO PUT THE CREDIT INTO ANY SINGLE ENTITY, WHETHER THEY'RE REAL OR NOT!

OK, but I still don't see how that is being lazy, it seems like a lot of work to come up with an entire religious doctrine.

PS......step away from the caps lock! LOL

Well, with the creation of religious fables, that comes simply from the want to understand the world, but in a failed way.

Well that may be the case, but I wouldn't call it lazy.