If God doesn't exist then how was everything/the earth created?

[Lark]

It's a matter of perspective, I guess. I see both questions in a loop - you have to answer them both otherwise it won't work and there is not an easy way or available formula to do that.

Ethics and morals are for themselves just as 'self-evident' as any other idea that people follow. A representative example would be everything written in the 'trolling' thread - it's a cocktail of moral opinions but not with the same validity... (you can screw moral relativism)

But it's interesting to hear HOW you answer to the WHY?

I dont have an answer but I think its the right question to ask. A better one than the one that was being asked.

If I use a comic books example to make my point, I dont need to have read origin story of a character to enjoy their exploits and their exploits are liable to have more to do with ethics and morals than their origins, unless they are mixed up together and repeatedly harkened back to, like The Punisher, but I wasnt think of The Punisher so much as I was other characters whose origins might never be revealed at all.

 

[Lib]

I dont have an answer but I think its the right question to ask. A better one than the one that was being asked.

If I use a comic books example to make my point, I dont need to have read origin story of a character to enjoy their exploits and their exploits are liable to have more to do with ethics and morals than their origins, unless they are mixed up together and repeatedly harkened back to, like The Punisher, but I wasnt think of The Punisher so much as I was other characters whose origins might never be revealed at all.

But that's pretty one-sided. What if you are facing a moral dilemma? How do you evaluate what's right and what's wrong?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It is possible to fear death, while fearing something else more.

That wasn't his argument.

You wrote: "When a religion does not "grow and change," and "clings to the past" it leads to consistency throughout the ages."

Yes, we were talking about change within religion, then you started talking about changes regarding monarchies and medical science. My point was that when you take a complex system and alter it radically, the resulting probability of equal functionality or improving it is zero. That goes for religion and science accounting that more failures are made than successes. It's almost like the common sense found in the Bible is more probable than the alternative hypothesis which keeps failing or backfiring on us.

Take for example smart phones: What a wonderful device. Ten years later: Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain - CNN

Fine, but neither here nor there with respect to the present discussion. Neither Christianity nor any other religion has the task of providing answers to questions pertaining to the physical world. This is why we will always wonder at God, and never gain objective knowledge of God.

Nuance, bro. You got any? We can't understand God (Mind) so His Word came to us in the language we do understand (flesh and blood), as such followers of the Christ can claim objective knowledge of God through His Breath.

 

[great_bay]

God made Mars.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

the earth was made by Jim Davis, creator of Garfield.

 

[Ojian]

By another possible means. I'd probably go with some nuclear reactions, gravity, some chemical reactions and chance.

Where conditions succeed for life something gets to see the result and be amazed. All the times it fails, there's no one around to know. I read in the newspaper a month ago that some guy won the lottery twice, pretty ridiculous odds, but I'm guessing he bought lots of tickets. Now acknowledge that there is estimated to be 70 billion trillion stars in the universe, then imagine there are planets around each, and countless molecules on each planet (about 10^50 atoms on Earth for example). Then think how many chances a very low probability event has to happen. Which isn't to say life is low probability, because we really don't know yet. There are suggestions water is quite common in the universe and so are the basic building blocks for life.

In all those places and all that infinite space some molecules somewhere were going to form a structure that self replicates in it's surroundings. With a lab that size and 13 billion years, it really is a matter of what can happen will happen. And obviously life can happen.

Well, that really depends on the actual odds, doesn't it? Even if you are assuming you are working with all the atoms on earth and multiply that for every star, you still only end up with 10^71 atoms you are working with. That is a pretty big "lab", but considering that the odds of even a moderate sized functional protein being formed is 10^77, you are still heavily in the negative in your chances. If you consider some of the odds for much of the 'fine tuning' that the universe is said to operate under, you will come across probabilities much much higher than even picking one atom out of all atoms estimated in the known universe (10^82).

So we're not talking about "infinite space" for molecules to form...whatever you are thinking they do form. The lab is not big enough, and/or the time (13 billion years) is not long enough.

 

[BlueScreen]

Well, that really depends on the actual odds, doesn't it? Even if you are assuming you are working with all the atoms on earth and multiply that for every star, you still only end up with 10^71 atoms you are working with. That is a pretty big "lab", but considering that the odds of even a moderate sized functional protein being formed is 10^77, you are still heavily in the negative in your chances. If you consider some of the odds for much of the 'fine tuning' that the universe is said to operate under, you will come across probabilities much much higher than even picking one atom out of all atoms estimated in the known universe (10^82). So we're not talking about "infinite space" for molecules to form...whatever you are thinking they do form. The lab is not big enough, and/or the time (13 billion years) is not long enough.

Source and context?

Proteins form where the right precursors are available and the right conditions exist not as a probability over the known universe.

Are you saying there is nowhere in all that space and atoms where the precursors exist and the conditions are right?

 

[Mole]

Well, that really depends on the actual odds, doesn't it? Even if you are assuming you are working with all the atoms on earth and multiply that for every star, you still only end up with 10^71 atoms you are working with. That is a pretty big "lab", but considering that the odds of even a moderate sized functional protein being formed is 10^77, you are still heavily in the negative in your chances. If you consider some of the odds for much of the 'fine tuning' that the universe is said to operate under, you will come across probabilities much much higher than even picking one atom out of all atoms estimated in the known universe (10^82).

So we're not talking about "infinite space" for molecules to form...whatever you are thinking they do form. The lab is not big enough, and/or the time (13 billion years) is not long enough.

We do know how individual species formed by way of natural selection, but so far we don't know how life first forms. So to say God didn't create individual species, but that He did create life, is special pleading. It is a strategy of desperation.

 

[Mole]

Take for example smart phones: What a wonderful device. Ten years later: Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain - CNN

Media change the balance of our sensorium. Print privileges the eye, while the electronic media brings the other senses into balance.

 

[Virtual ghost]

For me the God was always the easy way out. The simplified answer for those that don't want to explore and perhaps the natural barrier towards the conclusion that human mind probably can't fully explain the reality. Since human minds are designed for survival on this tiny planet and they didn't evolve with the goal to fundamentally understand the reality. In other word it is scientifically known that what writes in in various holy books can't be the full truth: the world isn't flat, there are endless proofs of evolution, earth simply isn't the center of this reality, the men that can move the seas are probably fairy tale ... etc.


While on the other hand the question can be turned around and we can ask "Who created God?". Therefore if God doesn't need it's creator then universe and especially hypothetical multiverse doesn't need one as well. Plus the idea of the beginning is probably the human construct that helps with survival but when it is applied to cosmos it can perhaps make wrong conclusions. Especially since we already know that time and space are relative and that big bang is just simplification for the masses. Also the universe doesn't look as it was created by someone who cares about life too much. Since most of this reality is empty radioactive space with temperature that is greatly bellow the freezing point, our main source of energy is giant nuclear reactor that can give you cancer if you are not careful, resources on the planet are all but unlimited and ecosystems are quite fragile, black holes are wondering through the area, neutron stars can irradiate huge parts of galaxies (killing potential life in mass), the distances to another star systems that have new resources are so big that it is questionable if we will able to get there (especially since there are plenty of rock and ice pieces in the darkness of space, what could make any fast traveling impossible) ... etc.


So the odds are that even if creator exists it is surely unlike what religious people want it to be. Especially since I had the chance of observing the genocide that targeted the Christians and the tanks that shelled the Churches. While not only that there was no divine intervention but earthly legal systems as well completely failed in properly punishing this.


Therefore for me the God of the bible doesn't exist.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Therefore for me the God of the bible doesn't exist.

It's all good, brova. For the sake of internal consistency you ought to reorganize your schedule lest you inadvertently promote the 7 day creation week.

 

[Ojian]

Proteins form where the right precursors are available and the right conditions exist not as a probability over the known universe.

Are you saying there is nowhere in all that space and atoms where the precursors exist and the conditions are right?

What do you mean by "precursors"? And "conditions are right" for what exactly? Proteins forming at all?

In your post I was replying to, you seemed to indicate that because there were a lot of atoms on the earth (10^50), and then considering if there were "70 billion trillion stars in the universe" with (earth-like) planets around them, then the probability of proteins forming at all was pretty good even if a protein forming at any one time was generally a low probability. What I was trying to point out was your probabilities are not as good as you think they might be. It is absurd to think that every atom on earth were already formed amino acids (protein building blocks), but even if we granted that premise and included that such a scenario also applied to all the earth-like planets that existed around every star, you still would not have good odds of even a moderate sized, functional protein developing even once! And protein synthesis is just one part of many required for life. When you consider other aspects (like fine tuning features) and estimate their probabilities, you are not left with much of chance of life developing on its own.

 

[Ojian]

We do know how individual species formed by way of natural selection, but so far we don't know how life first forms. So to say God didn't create individual species, but that He did create life, is special pleading. It is a strategy of desperation.

Hardly! For one, I would dispute that "we do know how individual species formed by way of natural selection". It has been asserted, but never demonstrated. And as scientific knowledge increases with regards to how the cell works, DNA, epigenetics, and other of life's functions, that assertion is getting weaker and weaker. But even if we granted you that statement as true, the formation of individual species is separate from and completely different than the creation of life. It would not be special pleading at all to suggest God did one but not the other. Those two concepts are really in separate domains.

 

[Mole]

As a Christian, I can honestly say, no explanation is without holes. I personally struggle to believe the idea this complex universe was merely a random chance of combinations of gases and stuff over billions of years. I feel the complexity and beauty of the world had an artist behind it, that being God. Nonetheless, God is a personal subject and it is truly how you may define "God." Deist suggest He made everything then left. Pagans suggest many gods were involved. Agnostics suggest they just don't know. So I'll leave what is revealed to you by the spirits of the world up to you.

3,000 years ago the Ancieny Greeks discovered that supernatural beings were natural forces. Since then we have discovered the origin of many natural forces.

 

[sLiPpY]

For me the God was always the easy way out. The simplified answer for those that don't want to explore and perhaps the natural barrier towards the conclusion that human mind probably can't fully explain the reality. Since human minds are designed for survival on this tiny planet and they didn't evolve with the goal to fundamentally understand the reality. In other word it is scientifically known that what writes in in various holy books can't be the full truth: the world isn't flat, there are endless proofs of evolution, earth simply isn't the center of this reality, the men that can move the seas are probably fairy tale ... etc.


While on the other hand the question can be turned around and we can ask "Who created God?". Therefore if God doesn't need it's creator then universe and especially hypothetical multiverse doesn't need one as well. Plus the idea of the beginning is probably the human construct that helps with survival but when it is applied to cosmos it can perhaps make wrong conclusions. Especially since we already know that time and space are relative and that big bang is just simplification for the masses. Also the universe doesn't look as it was created by someone who cares about life too much. Since most of this reality is empty radioactive space with temperature that is greatly bellow the freezing point, our main source of energy is giant nuclear reactor that can give you cancer if you are not careful, resources on the planet are all but unlimited and ecosystems are quite fragile, black holes are wondering through the area, neutron stars can irradiate huge parts of galaxies (killing potential life in mass), the distances to another star systems that have new resources are so big that it is questionable if we will able to get there (especially since there are plenty of rock and ice pieces in the darkness of space, what could make any fast traveling impossible) ... etc.


So the odds are that even if creator exists it is surely unlike what religious people want it to be. Especially since I had the chance of observing the genocide that targeted the Christians and the tanks that shelled the Churches. While not only that there was no divine intervention but earthly legal systems as well completely failed in properly punishing this.


Therefore for me the God of the bible doesn't exist.

God? an easy way out?

How is "god" more difficult vs. anything else a human being that happened to be dropped out of a certain vagina encounters?

 

[Virtual ghost]

God? an easy way out?

How is "god" more difficult vs. anything else a human being that happened to be dropped out of a certain vagina encounters?

Yes, the world is made in a few days through basically magic, there are no equations, no real details on God itself, most of complex modern day discoveries aren't in ancient holy books ... etc. For me the God is for those that don't want to think about reality in depth or they are too scared of it. This is politically incorrect but that doesn't change that I find God to be simplistic concept.

 

[featherless-biped]

Ok, so let me just get clear. Your logic goes as follows:

Premise 1: Things exist
??????????
Conclusion: God made them

You are going to have to help me out here, friend. For starters, you didn't even define your terms. What does "God" mean in the context of this discussion? What is the basis for your assumption that the Earth/everything was "created?" You don't seem to have any issue with the implied claim that this "God," however you define it, was not itself created. So you either believe it somehow came into being without a creator or that its being transcends space and time (i.e. "everything") and therefore requires no precedent/creator. Can you explain to me why it makes sense to attribute these traits to your hand-wavy buzzword "God," but not to the universe itself?

Part of the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang gave birth to time itself, as well as space. This means that the singularity (the condensed state of the universe that gave rise to the Big Bang) is extratemporal. Time only exists within it. Cause and effect are only relevant within the context of time. Therefore, they do not apply to extratemporal entities. There's your answer. If "God" can do it, there is no reason the singularity can't. Unless your "God" is, in fact, the singularity. In which case you may want to consider employing the more precise terminology.

P.S. The argument you made here is called the cosmological argument. It is older than dirt. And it's entirely based on the assumption that there being something rather than nothing is somehow remarkable, which it is not. As Bertrand Russell said, "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."

 

[featherless-biped]

Ugh just realized the OP got banned like a year ago. What a waste of a sick roast.

 

[featherless-biped]

3,000 years ago the Ancieny Greeks discovered that supernatural beings were natural forces. Since then we have discovered the origin of many natural forces.

I am going to pop up on the other side now. OP's butchered rendition of the cosmological argument was horrible in every way, but I have a big issue with the "God is dead" approach to science. Now, I'm definitely not about to argue in favor of any kind of anthropomorphic or even conscious (in a way we would identify as such, at least) being pulling strings behind the universe. I just have to point out that science, while solving the great mysteries of ancient times, also continues to stumble upon even greater mysteries that go beyond what ancient peoples could have ever conceived. For example, we now know the science behind why the earth spits lava sometimes and why the ground shakes, but now we face even crazier questions like dark energy and quantum entanglement. There is a massive Holy Shit Factor there. When we solve those mysteries (if we ever do), there will probably come a point soon after where we will hit a solid wall simply due to our limited cognitive capacity as a species.

So I would argue, no, science has not killed God in the sense of unraveling the cosmic mystery or whatever. It's just made God a hell of a lot bigger. Too big to fit inside the human brain. You know how the myths go that seeing the Greek gods in their true forms would literally make your head explode? It's kind of like that. We're only beginning to poke and prod at the fundamental nature of existence, and already our heads are on the brink of exploding. Dark energy and quantum entanglement are not supernaturally caused; they are naturally caused. It's all there in the math. And that's what is so remarkable about them - they completely upend our entire established understanding of how the natural world works. These are profound mysteries! And what about black holes? They bend time and swallow light. They make the "miracles" of the biblical god look like party tricks.

So I reject all of these lame Gods. Any God that humans can comfortably grasp the concept of is certainly not the driving force of the universe. Sure, if we want to forego rigor, we can continue to use the term "God" as a flimsy designator for the great unknown at the root of all things, but at that point, it becomes a fairly meaningless term, since the concept is beyond our capacity to assign it any meaningful attributes. Sorry, folks, but the real God, whatever it is, is simply too big for your or me to ever understand, so forgive me if I'm not willing to stand here and let you tell me about how the same thing that gave rise to black holes and supernovae made a volcano erupt because it was mad at the gays, or whatever. This entire debate is a waste of time, since at the end of the day, nobody knows what "God" is, but whatever it is, it definitely doesn't mesh with any scriptures, and it DEFINITELY doesn't give a damn about you. What science killed was arrogant dogmas, and good riddance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am going to pop up on the other side now. OP's butchered rendition of the cosmological argument was horrible in every way, but I have a big issue with the "God is dead" approach to science. Now, I'm definitely not about to argue in favor of any kind of anthropomorphic or even conscious (in a way we would identify as such, at least) being pulling strings behind the universe. I just have to point out that science, while solving the great mysteries of ancient times, also continues to stumble upon even greater mysteries that go beyond what ancient peoples could have ever conceived. For example, we now know the science behind why the earth spits lava sometimes and why the ground shakes, but now we face even crazier questions like dark energy and quantum entanglement. There is a massive Holy Shit Factor there. When we solve those mysteries (if we ever do), there will probably come a point soon after where we will hit a solid wall simply due to our limited cognitive capacity as a species.

So I would argue, no, science has not killed God in the sense of unraveling the cosmic mystery or whatever. It's just made God a hell of a lot bigger. Too big to fit inside the human brain. You know how the myths go that seeing the Greek gods in their true forms would literally make your head explode? It's kind of like that. We're only beginning to poke and prod at the fundamental nature of existence, and already our heads are on the brink of exploding. Dark energy and quantum entanglement are not supernaturally caused; they are naturally caused. It's all there in the math. And that's what is so remarkable about them - they completely upend our entire established understanding of how the natural world works. These are profound mysteries! And what about black holes? They bend time and swallow light. They make the "miracles" of the biblical god look like party tricks.

So I reject all of these lame Gods. Any God that humans can comfortably grasp the concept of is certainly not the driving force of the universe. Sure, if we want to forego rigor, we can continue to use the term "God" as a flimsy designator for the great unknown at the root of all things, but at that point, it becomes a fairly meaningless term, since the concept is beyond our capacity to assign it any meaningful attributes. Sorry, folks, but the real God, whatever it is, is simply too big for your or me to ever understand, so forgive me if I'm not willing to stand here and let you tell me about how the same thing that gave rise to black holes and supernovae made a volcano erupt because it was mad at the gays, or whatever. This entire debate is a waste of time, since at the end of the day, nobody knows what "God" is, but whatever it is, it definitely doesn't mesh with any scriptures, and it DEFINITELY doesn't give a damn about you. What science killed was arrogant dogmas, and good riddance.

I just learned about relativistic jets last week, and it turns out reality is crazier than anything I could think of. I dig the sentiment of this post, though I'm not sure if I'm 100% on board with it or not.