Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Because it is seemingly the only evidence that may prove the existence of a God.

How can the inability of humans to answer a question about some phenomenon be a proof for the existence of God?

It is like the example I gave above. Because humans could not explain how a solar eclipse happened they used that as evidence for the existence of God.

That sort of reasoning is obviously fallacious.

Human beings will never be able to know everything about the universe. You can either accept this reality, or choose to fill the gabs in our knowledge with "God" in order to feel better.

This particular phenomenon, that is that out of nothing came something, that we cannot explain is an exception to all others because it has already been scientifically proven that out of nothing we can only get... nothing!

The phenomenon of something out of nothing does not belong to this world as we know it that is why the very beginning is very special.

[denizaksulu]

Something made the big bang go Bang. I hypothesyse that there was something before the Big Bang and something before that and.............................................................. I need some Zivania!

[Piratis]

The phenomenon of something out of nothing does not belong to this world as we know it that is why the very beginning is very special.

Our knowledge of this world is simply very limited. We don't know everything about it. There have even been theories about multiple universes and that our "big bang" was just one of many.

If you added "God" as just one of the unlimited amount of baseless theories that humans could think about to explain things that science can not explain then I would agree. However choosing to believe in that one theory is obviously nothing more than wishful thinking.

Can you also tell me what you mean by "God"? For example if we assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, then God could be defined as a non intelligent part of the natural process that exists for a fraction of a moment for the sole purpose of creating something out of nothing and then dies. Would that satisfy you?

[Get Real!]

The phenomenon of something out of nothing does not belong to this world as we know it that is why the very beginning is very special.

Our knowledge of this world is simply very limited. We don't know everything about it. There have even been theories about multiple universes and that our "big bang" was just one of many.

If you added "God" as just one of the unlimited amount of baseless theories that humans could think about to explain things that science can not explain then I would agree. However choosing to believe in that one theory is obviously nothing more than wishful thinking.

Can you also tell me what you mean by "God"? For example if we assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, then God could be defined as a non intelligent part of the natural process that exists for a fraction of a moment for the sole purpose of creating something out of nothing and then dies. Would that satisfy you?

Let’s try and concentrate on point zero please. That is, the very moment the very first tiny grain of matter appears out of nowhere… before it evolves into any universe or big bang or anything else for that matter.

Out of nowhere there appears a particle of matter that ultimately evolves into the cosmos as we know it. That is the theory of “something out of nothing” and is very special because it does not abide by any of the laws of nature which must have taken over just a fraction of a second later and have stayed with the cosmos since; the laws of nature themselves were acrhived inside this particle!

The very first particle could NOT have been bound by nature because nature did not exist just yet and you could say that it was like a magic little crystal containing all that is required to form a cosmos. The owner of that magic little crystal is our culprit.

It’s like a DNA which contains all the information to create a portion of a person so by the same token it appears to be a super-DNA that contains all the information to create an entire cosmos… and if that’s not a celestial accomplishment I don’t know what is.

Regards, GR.

[denizaksulu]

GR I think that argument is plausible enough to be used as proof of the existence of God.
I'm getting a headache thinking about this.

[Piratis]

and if that’s not a celestial accomplishment I don’t know what is

The same is what those prehistoric people said about the solar eclipse

If you can not understand something it seems "magical".

[alexISS]

The inability to answer the question of what was there before the big bang is not enough to declare that there is a God. Such a hypothesis would only raise the same question on God himself; what was there before God and who or what created God? The popular answer, that God is eternal, is of course not acceptable because the same could be said for the matter of the universe. Maybe the universe keeps exploding, expanding and then shrinking and imploding, and then exploding again and so on... we'll probably never know. Besides, "time" as we know it is just another dimension that exists only within the universe's boundaries, so to ask what was there before the big bang (if that was in fact the beginning) is incongruous, simply because there is no "before"

[Simon]

Scientists accept that matter had a beginning alexISS. It could not have existed forever. Fact. Secondly, while the theory of a constantly exploding Universe was touted around for a short time, it is generally now disregarded by most Scientists, as there does not appear to be enough dark matter in the Universe to compel it to collapse back onto itself. Scientists say that the Universe will just keep expanding, until it becomes an empty black hole, with the fuel that drives it (hydrogen etc) running out.

The question of God having a beginning is a non-question. Simply because if God created that Universe and nature, he is not subject to time, therefore, there is no such thing as a beginning to God.

Further, this is not the only evidence of existence of God in any event. Evidence is out there, if you are willing to look with an open-mind. Many people approach the subject, with prejudiced minds, already practically ruling out the possibility. In that case, there is no point even bothering to look. Seek with an open-mind, and evidence is there.

[alexISS]

Scientists accept that matter had a beginning alexISS. It could not have existed forever. Fact.

No they do not. Do you have any sources on that?

Secondly, while the theory of a constantly exploding Universe was touted around for a short time, it is generally now disregarded by most Scientists, as there does not appear to be enough dark matter in the Universe to compel it to collapse back onto itself. Scientists say that the Universe will just keep expanding, until it becomes an empty black hole, with the fuel that drives it (hydrogen etc) running out.

Wrong, that theory is as valid as the one that considers the big bang the beginning. Actually the rate at which the Universe is expanding is declining

The question of God having a beginning is a non-question. Simply because if God created that Universe and nature, he is not subject to time, therefore, there is no such thing as a beginning to God.

The creation of the Universe was also not subject to time since time exists only within it and not in whatever "contains" the Universe. So the Universe is eternal as well

Further, this is not the only evidence of existence of God in any event. Evidence is out there, if you are willing to look with an open-mind. Many people approach the subject, with prejudiced minds, already practically ruling out the possibility. In that case, there is no point even bothering to look. Seek with an open-mind, and evidence is there.

Everything else from after the big bang to the appearance of man can be explained without the presence of a God.

[Get Real!]

The creation of the Universe was also not subject to time since time exists only within it and not in whatever "contains" the Universe. So the Universe is eternal as well

If time exists within the universe as you say, and I agree with that, how can you then call it eternal? You are contradicting yourself here. Everything within the universe gets born and then dies such as planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies even, so ultimately the universe itself must also abide by this rule because all its contents certainly do.

When you say “whatever contains the universe” then you in fact support my theory that the universe is a package containing all that it needs so who is the inventor/owner of this package?