Created by Creator or Nature

Oman

I was just wondering who thinks the world was created by God and who thinks it was created by 'the big bang' or some sort of force of nature. i personaly think it was the big bang

BULLER

Big Bang

Carrigart Exile

Oman wrote:

I was just wondering who thinks the world was created by God and who thinks it was created by 'the big bang' or some sort of force of nature. i personaly think it was the big bang

I understand quantum physics cannot get its head around the 'where did the ........come from' question and have nicknamed it the floating turtle theory with a conclusion that somewhere along the line someone created something that started it all off.

egon spengler

a designer would be more implausible as it would be more complex than the universe it created and would require an even more complex explanation which can be summarized thusly: bleh.

Scofflaw

Carrigart Exile wrote:

I understand quantum physics cannot get its head around the 'where did the ........come from' question and have nicknamed it the floating turtle theory with a conclusion that somewhere along the line someone created something that started it all off.

Not sure why quantum physics is involved here.....however, the standard view is that causality (everything must have a cause) is a property of the Universe, and was created along with the Big Bang. The Big Bang itself needs no cause.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dante's Devise

I would like to believe that some sort of creator was involved. Going well of a tangent to scientifical fact, but I like to believe that if so many people acknowledge that a creator exists, is that not enough to make it/him/her exist? Mind over matter? It's nice to believe that there is a reason behind my existence.

dsmythy

I think that nature is responsible for our developement but that nature was created by a higher force. Programmed if you will. So i guess im sitting on a thin fence.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but I like to believe that if so many people acknowledge that a creator exists, is that not enough to make it/him/her exist

so in the dark ages.. the world *was* flat?

Sad Professor

It depends what you mean by God/Creator. I assume you mean God in the western/Christian sense, i.e. a personal god who's "out there" somewhere. Well in that case you have the problem of who created God? But isn't it the same problem with the Big Bang, what was there before?

So why differentiate between God and nature? What if God is nature, and nature is God. Or more accurately "God" is the harmony we see in nature, the harmony that allows us to be born and live. Therefore god is in all of us. We are god.

The real question isn't who but how and why. *How* did something come out of nothing? And *why* did that something decide to work together?

Angeles

Sad Professor wrote:

The real question isn't who but how and why. *How* did something come out of nothing? And *why* did that something decide to work together?

And the real answer might be because it felt like it.
You too have to look at the possibility that there is no answer to this dilema, as another poster stated, our own beliefs in causality may never provide an answer, to which the why and how become nothing without a cause and effect.

Or you can look at it this way,

You can not teach a dog to do math no matter how hard you try, his mind does not have the capacity to comprehend the numbers, so he will never be able to undertstand math unless his mind evolves.
So we could essentially say the same for a human who can't comprehend the begining of exsistence

Dante's Devise

Mordeth wrote:

so in the dark ages.. the world *was* flat?

who is to say that the world wasn't flat before it was discovered that the world is in fact round? Nobody tried to prove otherwise or had any concept of the idea so the world was there & then flat.

Scientific evidence can state that the world was always round, but before the atom was broken down science was positive that it was unbreakable, but what they found was to be expected & made logical sense, so they "stated" that this must have always been true based on precise experimentation & logic. Yet they can never actually know that this is what was "always" inside the atom because they never looked inside it before this breakthrough. Could there not be some greater entity just placing more complications in the way of science so that, maybe, the search for a grand unified theory is all in vain.

Crucifix

Dante's Devise wrote:

Could there not be some greater entity just placing more complications in the way of science so that, maybe, the search for a grand unified theory is all in vain.

What a prick.

Dante's Devise

I'm just simply putting out an idea, ok maybe it's a crazy idea, but jesus man at least I'm doin it, how about you open up that narrow little head of yours & try come back with an intelligible answer instead of acting like some stupid immature moron. Try it you might like it!

Crucifix

Dante's Devise wrote:

I'm just simply putting out an idea, ok maybe it's a crazy idea, but jesus man at least I'm doin it, how about you open up that narrow little head of yours & try come back with an intelligible answer instead of acting like some stupid immature moron. Try it you might like it!

I don't mean any offense to you (I was calling God a prick by the way...just in case that wasn't clear), but the painting of God as a merry trickster is always an odd one to me.
To be fair, it's impossible to say you're wrong, because we have no evidence that something exists, prior to the first piece of evidence we discover, simply because that's the first piece of evidence, even if we don't realise it at the time. But it's mental chewing gum. Things taking place the way you suggest, and them not taking place that way, are indistinguishable, so I think it's better to take the simpler solution.

Playboy

The creator is nature and nature is the creator. The two would be indistinguishable.

Shane™

Sad Professor wrote:

So why differentiate between God and nature? What if God is nature, and nature is God. Or more accurately "God" is the harmony we see in nature, the harmony that allows us to be born and live. Therefore god is in all of us. We are god.

I like this idea, I'm a devout atheist, but I like it...

OctavarIan

Since god has no concrete definition, I would believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is everywhere. I definitely don't believe in Creationism.

Spectator#1

I don't think anybody believes in Creationism. A priest I know told me they're all crackpots! Literally is only one way of reading the Bible, ESPECIALLY Genesis.

Scofflaw

Spectator#1 wrote:

I don't think anybody believes in Creationism. A priest I know told me they're all crackpots! Literally is only one way of reading the Bible, ESPECIALLY Genesis.

You presumably haven't spent any time in the Christianity forum....

cordially,
Scofflaw

DadaKopf

I gotta quextion: how come all anyone asks in this forum is 'does god exist'? Isn't there more to philosophy than this?

koHd

I think I should link this up with this thread:

Evolution in Robots

johnnyskeleton

If the question is limited to which I think is most probable (a) god or (b) the big bang, then I must say I think god is more probable.

I don't believe in god in any shape or form, but nor do I believe in the big bang. If the universe came from the explosion of a large amount of matter, then where did this matter come from? Is our big bang just a smaller bang from another, much larger universe and so on. I don't think there is anything other than educated speculation for god and for the big bang.

If you were to ask me where the universe came from, that would be a much more interesting question, but confined to the question as it is, god is more probable because:

1. For both theories there is no compelling evidence either way.
2. In both you must assume a certain premise.
3. On the one hand you assume there is an almighty being who has the power to create a universe, on the other you assume that there is this matter that has appeared from nowhere and explodes into a functioning universe.
4. Based on these assumptions, it is more likely that the universe we have now was created by a being who has the power and motivation to do so rather than that it happened by mere accident and apropos of nothing.

That said, both theories are nonsense in my opinion, and any discussion on this topic has been based on the fight between these two specific and assumed theories rather than people sitting down and thinking about where the universe came from. We need to understand what exists outside of our universe to answer this question, and we cannot fill the gap with assumptions, either of a religious, or a quasi-scientific nature.

purple'n'gold

BULLER wrote:

Big Bang

Indeed, but who created the big bang?

Son Goku

johnnyskeleton wrote:

1. For both theories there is no compelling evidence either way.
That said, both theories are nonsense in my opinion.

Okay, whatever about what created us or not, but on what basis are you saying the Big Bang is nonsense when it has loads of evidence?
(I'm sorry Philosophy Mods, I just not able to keep quite)

johnnyskeleton

I accept that it is possible that our galaxy could have been created by the explosion of a large piece (for want of a better word) of matter. However, as far as I know there is no evidence that suggests that the entire universe was created by a big bang. This lack of evidence is partly due to the apparently random dispersion and size of different galaxies but mostly due to the fact that we have not investigated all of the universe. So while we can know how some of the universe was created we can't at present know how the entire universe was made. Therefore, to suggest that the universe was created in the same manner as our galaxy was created would be like looking at a hen laying an egg and inferring that all living creates come from eggs, if you follow.

As for why I think it is non-sense, I would say that since we have no evidence of what was there before the big bang, we cannot say that the big bang started it all. I find it stretches my credulity to ask that I assume that there was nothing, and then suddenly there was space and time. It is just as plausible to say that the universe was sneezed out of the ear of a giant pink accounts executive as it is to say that there was nothing…and then a big, planety shaped mass appeared, exploded of its own volition and managed to randomly form itself into a functional universe.

However, I should state that unlike creationism (which has to stick to the original theory), the big bang theory can remodel itself every couple of years, so if my understanding of the theory is a little dated then please forgive me.

I re-iterate that I am not saying the big bang is wrong, but that the evidence put forward in the big bang theory is as tenuous as that put forward for creation. They are both, in any case, inductive rather than deductive reasoning.