i need some debate help..

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But what started the universe? We know this universe had a starting point and will have an ending point, so what started the universe?

At its earliest stage, the universe was an extremely tiny singularity according to most if not all modern models of the early universe. Prior to that, no one really knows right now.

Currently it is much logical to say God started the big bang, in fact, it is much more logical at the moment to believe in God or gods starting the universe and fine tuning so that life could exist (and that elements could be created). However, atheists are just saying, 'Well, you just wait theists we are going to find something that answers all this!'
Thats a big assumption.
Anyways, you are supposed to say I dont know how the universe started or how the energy/matter came into existence.

I don't know what your definition of 'logic' is, but no, filling in the gaps with a great magical trevor despite his magical tricks being ever so clever is not a logical progression of any kind in terms of understanding the beginnings of the universe based on provided evidence.

How so? I didnt see how you got to your conclusion?
How does adding a God or gods complicate things? Wouldnt it uncomplicate things?
Think about it, currently, anything that follows the laws of nature has a cause for its existence, only something outside the laws of nature does not need a reason for its existence.
So which one is more complicated God or something that goes against the laws of nature?

God, according to Christians, is an omnipotent, omnicient, infinate being.
That is not a simple addition even though adding supernaturalism to solve any issues with science is an intellectual dead end in the same sense that by using fantasy to fill in for fact, you're pretending you've already answered the question.
I don't know what started the universe. I have no evidence that proves anything. I think it's certainly worthwhile to find out since no one has any reality-based answers for that question.

Religion seems to like to think they've answered every question science has challenged for as long as there's been people who confuse hallucinations and delusions with fact.

[solja247]

I don't know what your definition of 'logic' is, but no, filling in the gaps with a great magical trevor despite his magical tricks being ever so clever is not a logical progression of any kind in terms of understanding the beginnings of the universe based on provided evidence.

This isnt God of the Gaps fallacy. Something had to start this universe and all the other verses for that matter!
I argue that something is God whatever that something be. That something which has created everything in our expanding Multiverse.
When you incite the God of the Gaps fallacy, you assume something will be proven, so that God is taken out of the picture and we will know a natural causation for the start of the multiverse. But what if we dont find it? I mean even Stephen Hawking says God may of started it all:
"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

Are you going to argue Hawking is falling into the God of the Gaps fallacy?

God, according to Christians, is an omnipotent, omnicient, infinate being.
That is not a simple addition even though adding supernaturalism to solve any issues with science is an intellectual dead end in the same sense that by using fantasy to fill in for fact, you're pretending you've already answered the question.
I don't know what started the universe. I have no evidence that proves anything. I think it's certainly worthwhile to find out since no one has any reality-based answers for that question.

Religion seems to like to think they've answered every question science has challenged for as long as there's been people who confuse hallucinations and delusions with fact.

How is the supernaturalism unscientific? Lets look at it logically.
1. Anything in this world/dimension HAS to obey the laws of nature
2. Anything in another world/dimension may or may not have to obey OUR laws of nature
3. Therefore it may be possible for something not of this world/dimension to manipulate the laws of nature.

I dont claim to be a physicist or a cosmologist so I dont really want to get into all the science behind it.

Yes you are right, Christians do claim those things about God, I guess we will never know until we meet Him...

[Darwinian]

Something had to start this universe and all the other verses for that matter!

Why?

[solja247]

Why?

Logic and our current understanding of the laws of nature. Maybe I will be proven wrong (and the many other theists and deists who adhere to the uncaused, caused) but at the moment, as I have said, atheists can only hope in the future that the logical and reasonable place to put God will be explained away by science.

I doubt it though.

A complicated multiverse would mean a complicated designer?

[LEDO]

So what existed before God? Wouldn't it be logical that the universe created him/her/it?

[fr0d0]

A complex God that had no creator at all?

In the Catholic literature that I've read God is described as simple & not complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity

[Darwinian]

Logic and our current understanding of the laws of nature.

Our current understanding of the laws of nature fall apart when we get back to the moment of the big bang and if you've ever studied quantum mechanics then you will also know that standard logic and intuition are not much use either.

Why do you think that because we don't know what the conditions where that caused our universe to come into existence it therefore follows that it must have been created by a magical entity called God and further, the God of the Bible?

Why could not the universe have always existed in some form or another and the universe we currently see and study is simply one phase of a continuous cycle? Surely this scenario is far more plausible and logical.

Maybe I will be proven wrong (and the many other theists and deists who adhere to the uncaused, caused) but at the moment, as I have said, atheists can only hope in the future that the logical and reasonable place to put God will be explained away by science.

I'm sure that most atheists couldn't care less if God can be explained away by science or not. All physicists, cosmologists etc. are interested in is how the Universe works and where it came from and where it's going.

Perhaps we'll never find out where it all came from. Perhaps it didn't come from anywhere because if time and space came into existence with the big bang there would have been no where or when for it to have come from. So in this case the question, what happened before time itself, doesn't apply and cannot make sense.

A complicated multiverse would mean a complicated designer?

That's a very anthropic statement and begs the question, who created the designer? And if the answer is that the designer has always existed or somehow he exists outside time and space then why not save yourself a step and keep things as simple and logical as possible by saying that the conditions for our 'current' Universe have always existed or exist in a state that is outside the normal laws of space and time.

You really don't need some complex, omnipotent and omniscient entity to explain anything and the addition of one must purely be for anthropic reasons. You seem to be starting with the premise that God exists and then you go out looking for him and then, not surprisingly you find him in all sorts of odd little places that science has yet to fully explain. The trouble with that method is that you could apply it to almost anything from a god, gods, FSM, IPU, The Great Green Arkleseezure, A multi-dimensional alien race or whatever.

[solja247]

Our current understanding of the laws of nature fall apart when we get back to the moment of the big bang and if you've ever studied quantum mechanics then you will also know that standard logic and intuition are not much use either.

Yes, you are correct.

Why do you think that because we don't know what the conditions where that caused our universe to come into existence it therefore follows that it must have been created by a magical entity called God and further, the God of the Bible?

This is still the problem, you have to believe that future evidence will disprove the need for a God.
I find it rather amusing that even Hawkings says perhaps, he doesn't totally dismiss neither accepts, but says perhaps?

Why this magical entity?
I wouldnt call it a magical entitiy, why not? Instead of making all this stuff up an infinite multiverse always being here and never having a beginning and being in a continuous cycle just put God in there. Your going 200km to get to your destination, build a bridge and you will be there in a few minuets.

Lets call it God not God of the Bible....

Why could not the universe have always existed in some form or another and the universe we currently see and study is simply one phase of a continuous cycle? Surely this scenario is far more plausible and logical.

Perhaps, I wouldnt say its very logical though.
Currently, anything that has a cause has had a beginning . Only something without a cause, the uncaused cause, could be the causer of the universe we live in.
Lets get out of the box. wouldnt something complicated have to start the multiverse?

---

I dont believe theism has any empirical evidence. However, I believe it has more evidence than atheism and that all atheist has to say, 'I dobt it'

---

I'm sure that most atheists couldn't care less if God can be explained away by science or not. All physicists, cosmologists etc. are interested in is how the Universe works and where it came from and where it's going.

Most atheists would love nothing more than to be able to prove God or gods wrong, it would be a dream come true, most/some atheists are not honest and dont go where the evidence leads them, as Anthony Flew....

Perhaps we'll never find out where it all came from. Perhaps it didn't come from anywhere because if time and space came into existence with the big bang there would have been no where or when for it to have come from. So in this case the question, what happened before time itself, doesn't apply and cannot make sense.

Your right about this, perhaps we will never know.

That's a very anthropic statement and begs the question, who created the designer? And if the answer is that the designer has always existed or somehow he exists outside time and space then why not save yourself a step and keep things as simple and logical as possible by saying that the conditions for our 'current' Universe have always existed or exist in a state that is outside the normal laws of space and time.

but is it more logical? Either the universe deceptively looks like it was designed by a designer or it was designed, I believe it was designed (a lot of people people are sitting on the fence).
The thing is, the idea of God, or a designer is gaining more weight...

You really don't need some complex, omnipotent and omniscient entity to explain anything and the addition of one must purely be for anthropic reasons. You seem to be starting with the premise that God exists and then you go out looking for him and then, not surprisingly you find him in all sorts of odd little places that science has yet to fully explain. The trouble with that method is that you could apply it to almost anything from a god, gods, FSM, IPU, The Great Green Arkleseezure, A multi-dimensional alien race or whatever.

I merely said that God is the creator of everything and yes, he would have to be rather complicated. If the big bang was just a little too big or small we wouldnt be alive, would we?

[Tiberius]

However much you protest the idea, you *are* using a "God of the Gaps" argument. You go from the position of "something must have started the universe" to the position of "that something was God" without any explanation of how you got there; only that it "makes sense" to you.

If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you'd say that we currently don't know what started the universe, but that you believe it was a God (for your religious reasons). It still isn't a very good argument; but it's better than "God of the Gaps".

Currently, anything that has a cause has had a beginning . Only something without a cause, the uncaused cause, could be the causer of the universe we live in.

This assumes the universe has a cause. There is no evidence it did. The Big Bang is the expansion of space and time; not the creation of the universe as a lot of people seem to think. As Darwinian said, our current understanding of reality falls apart once we reach the Big Bang. There are theories that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, hence the universe would have existed for all time; there are theories that quantum fluctuations were the cause.

The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption.

[fr0d0]

The point is, we don't know; we may never know. Putting God as an explanation might feel good for the religious, but it is a big assumption.

I agree. The concept of God has nothing to say in science.