Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[MindForgedManacle]

Is that silence I hear SoC? :3

/unnecessary assholism

[snowtracks]

It's all evidence against God, hence why people involved in philosophy (about 73% atheist, 13% other, 13% theist) and the sciences are mostly atheists, and thus essentially take the general view of what the evidence supports that I've outlined.


Lying for Jesus isn't taken very well here SoC.

perhaps the atheist have turned to philosophy for answers.

---

so we have this situation: going back towards the big bang, inside a second the physics laws breakdown which includes our cosmic timeline that has a component of cause and effect. a causal agent before this timeline wouldn't need a beginning. the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

[Esquilax]

so we have this situation: going back towards the big bang, inside a second the physics laws breakdown which includes our cosmic timeline that has a component of cause and effect. a causal agent before this timeline wouldn't need a beginning. the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

Whoa whoa, you're still making a hell of a lot of assumptions there, one of which being that the state before the big bang was just one big "no rules" setting where an eternal being is possible. You don't know that; for all you know, there was a separate set of cause and effect laws in place within a dying universe just before its big bounce into ours.

Also, even if we accept your premise, you're still leaping to god and eternal, when all you can really say is "being," and even that is assuming consciousness where none might be found.

[Faith No More]

so we have this situation: going back towards the big bang, inside a second the physics laws breakdown which includes our cosmic timeline that has a component of cause and effect. a causal agent before this timeline wouldn't need a beginning. the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

No, it is not a reasonable consideration. It is you working backwards from the conclusion that god exists and attempting to make that fit with cosmology. It is a bare assertion with no evidence that you are only making because you have preconceived answer that you are attempting to reach.

If one goes with the evidence and attempts to build a working model of the universe from the ground up, the leap to an all-powerful, conscious entity causing the universe to exist is far from reasonable.

[Doubting Thomas]

Is that all they really have, is a god of the gaps argument, aka argument from ignorance?

Why is it they can't understand that "we don't know, therefore God did it" is not valid?

[Esquilax]

Why is it they can't understand that "we don't know, therefore God did it" is not valid?

It's ego: the very idea that they might not know a thing, and that the answer might be beyond the grasp of their reasoning right now, is just beyond them. Especially those in a religion which conditions them to accept that the answer to everything is simple and easy and entirely within reach, so long as you pick up the bible and read the bits that appeal to you.

[Whateverist]

It's all evidence against God, hence why people involved in philosophy (about 73% atheist, 13% other, 13% theist) and the sciences are mostly atheists, and thus essentially take the general view of what the evidence supports that I've outlined.


Lying for Jesus isn't taken very well here SoC.

perhaps the atheist have turned to philosophy for answers.

To say atheists are turning to philosophy is like saying they are thinking it through for themselves. Philosophy is about involvement with the questions, not a menu of meanings and positions. Settled answers to questions are no longer the domain of philosophy even if they once were.

the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

I fail to see how. You might just as well say the universe was created by mysterious processes. Positing a god, a genie or a mystery are all ways of saying we just don't know.

[Zazzy]

No, it is not a reasonable consideration. It is you working backwards from the conclusion that god exists and attempting to make that fit with cosmology. It is a bare assertion with no evidence that you are only making because you have preconceived answer that you are attempting to reach.

And here's the perfect description of every theistic post of this nature. It always boils down to this.

[Cyberman]

No, it is not a reasonable consideration. It is you working backwards from the conclusion that god exists and attempting to make that fit with cosmology. It is a bare assertion with no evidence that you are only making because you have preconceived answer that you are attempting to reach.

If one goes with the evidence and attempts to build a working model of the universe from the ground up, the leap to an all-powerful, conscious entity causing the universe to exist is far from reasonable.

It becomes especially silly when you consider that all this effort and spin is purely so as to make the genesis fable match up to reality. When sci fi fans do that sort of thing, the general reaction is one of pity and calls to obtain a life. This is no less pitiable just because the mythology is held up as holy writ (when in actual fact it's atrociously writ).

[Sword of Christ]

By definition, that spacetime block cannot have been 'created' because it represents a temporally pervasive (eternal, you might say) construction.

What constructed it?

To ask 'what' 'made' it is a nonsensical question because you're extrapolating your extremely narrow experience of things on Earth being created and assuming it applies to everything... except God. Your question here is as nonsensical as me asking you "Who/what made God?". To a metaphysical naturalist, all that exists is the natural world.

Constructions require construction therefore a constructor.

And the universe isn't balanced for life, the universe allows for life to BARELY exist on at least one planet, and even then on a climatological knife edge and with many natural processes (even our own Sun's radiation) that can kill it easily.

So if the natural laws were tipped just a little either way life would no longer be possible? You would of course call this fine tuning.

Which is false. There is no moment where life springs forth from anything like dust in ANY abiogenesis model, which invalidates the Biblical account as unsupported by any evidence or theoretical model. The models I'm aware of (such as Harvard's Dr. Szozstak's account) deal with self-replicating molecules following chemical processes which eventually begins a sort of natural selection that results in complex enough chemical processes that we refer to as 'life'.

It will be some kind of process we don't as of yet know about but will rely 100% perfectly balanced natural laws. We only know how organic molecules are formed in early Earth conditions atm not how this formed into complex self replicator molecules but that's something for science to potentially discover if it is something that can be discovered. It's possible the creation of life wasn't something that happened on Earth panspermia is a possibility. Quite a fair amount you can speculate over but nothing that would particularly disprove God as far as I can see.

No it doesn't, because nothing in biological evolution is 'purpose-driven'.

If the universe as a whole was purposefully created with an intent then there will have been a intentional outcome as the Bible/Torah suggested. The precisely balanced nature of the natural laws and the eventual complex outcome we can observe do I would say strongly suggest something like. But you can believe differently if you like I can't stop you.

It's all essentially a result of natural processes and statistics.

Where did natural processes come from and aren't these statistics staggering for a coincidence?

Things which are better adapted to survive in a given environment will propagate and spread their genes more efficiently. That's nothing like the Biblical account you liar.

If the universe was intentionally created for life by God then it is very much like the Biblical account.

It's all evidence against God, hence why people involved in philosophy (about 73% atheist, 13% other, 13% theist) and the sciences are mostly atheists, and thus essentially take the general view of what the evidence supports that I've outlined.

You haven't explained why any of this is evidence against God not evidence for what God intentionally did.