The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
How Did the World Come to be?
- From Rabbi Jeret
By Rabbi Jeret - Spiritual Leader, Congregation Ner Tamid
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design
More and more respected academics are seeing the immense flaws in the evolution argument. Problems involving irreducible complexity, the impossibility of forming proteans from amino acids without the guidance of DNA, the huge gaps in the fossil record among others are starting to be reasoned upon. Although many in the scientific community have posed counter-arguments, these often have minimal empirical evidence and are usually the result of a macrocosmic repression of the implications of these anti-evolution arguments.
Although neither I nor anyone else can easily prove the existence of a God in a tangible way, Intelligent Design is quite evident and provides a much more scientifically sound argument than the statistically improbable and flawed reasoning of the evolution argument.
Unfortunately, it is so easy to only see the evidence which is most convenient for us, thereby leading us to a divided scientific community, and thus divided society on the matter of the existence of God.
- Ralfe Poisson
July 23, 2008 11:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design
I disagree with you completely. Evolution is fact. The fossils prove that. Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Intelligent design is just another theory, a theory of evolution by means of intelligent design (the proponents accept change has occurred and that natural selection occurs at species level), They have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for ID. What would be proof? Well, it would have to be a big jump in evolution, perhaps something like a fossil rabbit in Jurassic rocks along with dinosaur fossils, something showing that large and unexpected changes have occurred. One theory doesn't become true just because your incredulity makes it difficult to accept other theories. The theories you want to favour have to have some (any???) facts supporting them.
- bachfiend
September 1, 2008 6:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design
"One theory doesn't become true just because your incredulity makes it difficult to accept other theories. "
There is actually insufficient emperical evidence for both intelligent design as well as for evolutionary theory. I am not suggesting that intelligent design is magically correct simply because one cannot completely prove evolution. What I am saying, however, is that if you take an objective look at the research conducted by those in the scientific community who support intelligent design as well as those who support evolutionary theory, intelligent design theory makes more sense, and has fewer logical flaws than evolution.
I have studied evolutionary theory in depth at university level, and I notice that most people who respond to discussions such as this one either do not even know the basics of evolution, or have extremely limited knowledge of peer-reviewed, published research done on intelligent design, and thus make ignorant assumptions and statements regarding intelligent design.
- Ralfe Poisson
September 1, 2008 7:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design; no evidence, no research
Yes, I do understand evolution perfectly well. I'd be interested to see what you regard as credible research on intelligent design. Wishful thinking is not a substitute for decent research. At least Darwin did make predictions which came true. Lord Kelvin (who was probably one of the pre-eminent physicists of Darwin's time) said that evolution by natural selection was impossible, because the Earth could only be 30 million years old, and there was therefore not enough time. Darwin just said that Lord Kelvin was wrong; how spectacularly wrong is shown by the current accepted age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years. Lord Kelvin was wrong because he didn't know about radioactivity (no one at the time did) which was was keeping the Earth warmer and throwing off his estimate. I have no doubt that those who don't accept evolution will be shown to be wrong for the same reason, except it will be because of deliberate ignorance rather than inadvertant. Intelligent design is just a theory. It makes no predictions. I'd be interested what your university training was, and how much actual teaching you have had of evolution or even biology. Evolution is completely compatible with religion. Francis Collins quite happily accepts (theistic) evolution, and the Catholic Chuch doesn't insist that Genesis is literally correct, equating creation with the implantatation of the soul in humans.
- bachfiend
September 1, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design
Your response shows exactly the type of limited exposure to research that I previously spoke of. I do not have enough time nor space to enumerate a list of published work here, but if you are interested in broadening your knowledge, then have a look at some of the peer reviewed works mentioned at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC %20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science . On another point, making arbitrary assumptions about individuals in a mocking fashion on open forums such as this one is completely unnecessary and does not aid your credibility in any way. This site is about informed opinions, not people trying to be witty. I suggest reading through those articles in the link I provided and then forming an objective opinion of intelligent design instead of mistakenly referring to it as "Wishful thinking" and implying that it is not credible research.
- Ralfe Poisson
September 1, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Discovery Institute is not a creditable source
I apologise. I thought you were sensible and were going to give me some good references. The Discovery Institute is NOT creditable. I am well aware of the site. Many of the "peer reviewed" material are just books, which are not peer reviewed. I notice that the article that Richard Sternberg sneaked into a niche journal on classification and which was later repudiated as being sub-standard makes the list. Obviously, whatever science education you have had at university hasn't taught you critical thinking, and I would like to know what courses you have actually had?
- bachfiend
September 2, 2008 3:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design and Natural Selection
This argument is very interesting to me. For starters, I think people are taking things a little personally, but I'll get into it anyway. For starters, natural selection does in fact occur. That is not debatable. Genetic mutation causes variation, and that variation causes differentiated survival and reproductive abilities. It would be impossible for natural selection NOT to occur. The real debate here is the belief that natural selection is the CAUSE of human existence. What both sides fail to see is that this is not a matter of science in either case. It would be extremely difficult to definitively prove that human life actually derived from another species, and simply seeing some evidence is not definitive proof. As far as intelligent design is concerned, I am rather insulted. To pawn off religious belief as some sort of actual science is fairly outrageous, and furthermore, it serves no purpose. The issue is a matter of belief already, not a matter of science. Some find one more reasonable, others take the other. I will reiterate a previous point I made: If you actually knew which side was right about where humans came from, would it change your life at all?
- roy1167
September 4, 2008 10:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
For starters
I apologize for not properly proofreading.
- roy1167
September 4, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Human In-Laws
roy 1167 writes "It would be extremely difficult to definitively prove that human life actually derived from another species, and simply seeing some evidence is not definitive proof." In fact, the case for our close kinship with the other apes is absurdly strong. In principle, one can doubt any factual claim, which is why the law distinguishes between any doubt whatsoever and reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt about the matter. Even in the 19th Century, it was pretty clear on the basis of the visible anatomy of the higher primates that human beings were very similar to chimpanzees and gorillas; but fossil evidence was scanty. That's no longer true--the missing link hasn't been missing from some time now--but even more importantly, modern molecular biology has demonstrated how our genome matches up with that of other primates in a way that would be inexplicable were we not related.
I'm reminded of an old joke. The worried husband hires a private eye to check up on his wife. The detective reports back with bad news: "I watched your place last night. A very handsome guy showed up and they went off in a taxi to a night club where they danced cheek to cheek and had several drinks. Then they took another taxi. I could see them making out in the back seat. After they got to his place, they had another drink and started petting on the sofa. Your wife took off her dress and the guy pulled down his pants. After she was stark naked, he picked her up and carried her into the bedroom."
"And then what happened." sez the husband. "The lights went out and I couldn't see."
"Always the lingering doubt!"
- Jim Harrison
September 4, 2008 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design & Natural Selection
Consider how much of our DNA is shared by chimpanzees (about 97%). Consider cross-species transfer of viruses, bacteria, etc. whereby humans get malaria, hantavirus, dengue fever and other diseases.
That by itself is sufficient to show that "Intelligent Design" is oxymoronic. As one of my Philosophy instructors often stated: "If God created the universe, he was an incompetent engineer."
- CosmicChuck
April 8, 2009 2:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
prof
Intelligent Design Your comment: More and more respected academics are seeing the immense flaws in the evolution argument. is completely untrue as far as I have seen in 37 years and I live & work with academics (they are mostly scientists) (and I am one). During this time I have met one 'scientist' (not an academic) who supported ID (tho I think he is now reconsidering). Blanket false statements like this establish lack of credibility.
- Bob Brown
September 2, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ignorance is not evidence
You argue, as do many theists, that human ignorance about the development of life, the nature of life, or any other aspect of reality, constitutes proof that a god must to explain that which is otherwise unexplained. This is the worst and most desperate kind of argument.
Just because something is unexplained does NOT mean that it is inexplicable. It only means that it is NOT YET explained. Human intellectual history is nothing if not a consistent set of evidence that, given time, ANYTHING is explicable by the power of the rational human mind. Remember, the sun, moon, and the Nile river used to be considered gods because no other explanation was evident. Those gods DIED when science explained them. So it will be with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, as well as all others, when the light of human intellect exposes the shadows that your religions require in order to thrive.
For 5000 years the human mind has been narrowing the realm in which your gods can exist. And every day that realm gets smaller. Stop fighting it. Reject fear as the basis for fundamental beliefs, and join us to promote the light of reason and the grandeur of humanity.
- SidAirfoil
September 4, 2008 5:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ignorance is not evident??
Ignorance is not evident? Well apparently it is because it's showing up all over your comment. :) Ok. Just a 'breaking the ice' kind of intro. Jesus Christ dealt with men/women like you very often during His time here on earth. I could in many manners reprimend you but suggesting an alternative belief for you in the 'Crishtianity' realm is obviously not what you are trying to here; therefore, we'll just let Jesus do it later. (another funn) :)
God Bless even you--
- Juanita October 1, 2008 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm sorry for you
You say we are ignorant, but I think it is you. There is no evidence of god for us to be ignorant of. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that leads us to question his/her/it's existence.
You should go to school, read a few books, and start questioning life and your belief system. There's no reason to feel sorry for those of us who's minds are free from the shackles of blind faith and ignorance.
- yebegoon
May 27, 2009 3:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not proof.
The pro ID post at the start of this thread makes many claims about an alleged failure of science to explain things. I disagree - but let's accept it for arguments sake.
But even if all scientific knowledge (every last bit of it) were faulty, that would say nothing about the possible existence of God.
The poster then goes on to say that they can't prove the existence of God - in other words there is no evidence for the existence of god.
There follows an unsubstantiated assertion that ID is better.
As a post apparently designed to support the existence of God it seems a little unconvincing.
- Bob M September 12, 2008 2:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Design
Very well said; my hats off to you. :)
- Juanita October 1, 2008 1:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design is simply Creation Science [sic], relabeled in an attempt to disguise as essentially the Book of Genesis in a feeble-minded attempt to promote Genesis as science . Philip Kitcher, in his book "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism," totally demolished any claim that Cretionism had to being scientific, ipso facto, the same applies to Intelligent Design. Neither of the two put forth any hypotheses that are testable for falsity (Karl Popper's Principle of Falsification). Any statement that cannot be tested for falsifiability is not scientific. At best, Intelligent Design is a pseudo-science aimed at brainwashing our children into believing absolute hogwash for truth.
- CosmicChuck
April 8, 2009 2:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I disagree on every point here.
"Theories of, or beliefs in, a Divine source for the Universe are as ancient as humanity itself – at least." A moot point, but humanity evolved the necessary cognitive function to imagine greater powers far later than the actual first creature that could be called homo sapien.
"They constitute the longest standing range of explanations for the source of our world." And subsequently the least informed.
"they cannot explain without significant problems on the one hand" There are many things wrong with your assertion. One is that, since science doesn't understand, it must be a some wizard in the sky who just did it all randomly. Second, is that there are several theories that postulate on the occurrence of max entropy and it's succession into the condensation of the universe into a single point. At which, entropy can finally reverse, and in one explosion, create matter and energy. The universe would then be a sinusoidal wave of contractions and expansion.
- betterth
July 25, 2008 9:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How did God come to be
Why do you find it easier to believe in a supernatural creator, than creation as a natural process ?
If God made the universe, what did he make it out of ?
You cannot prove a negative. I can tell you that there is a tea cup in orbit around Alpha Centauri 4.3 light years away, and the ask you to prove me wrong. You cannot. However I would say that it is extremely unlikely.
If there is an intelligent designer he was not very bright. Blind spots in eyes, flesh eating bacteria, parasitic wasps, nice fella.
Whilst I cannot say "there is no God" I can say that the evidence, at this time, shows it to be extremely unlikely.
- Andrew Holt
August 30, 2008 6:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why God Doesn't Make the Cut as an Explanation
The Rabbi is laboring under the mistaken impression that there is a coherent concept of God that would make sense of his/her/its role in creation; and also seems to think that the universe began at some point in time, even though that is actually a misunderstanding of the Big Bang hypothesis, which most physicists do not believe was an absolute beginning, though it may have occurred as far back as we can look. For all we know, the universe is infinite in time and space.
One can define an infinite number of explanations for the world and how it came to be (assuming again that it did come to be). For example, maybe the world was created by a single bunny rabbit. On the other hand, maybe it was created by two bunny rabbits. Or three bunny rabbits... Since there are an infinite number of possible explanations, one needs to be able to cut the field down to some manageable number of options. God is not one such options at present because the philosophical contexts in which "God" is a valid concept are no longer acceptable. God made sense in terms of Plato or Aristotle's metaphysics. I doubt if the Rabbi is up to specifying a context which would make sense of the God notion.
- Jim Harrison
August 31, 2008 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Prof Brown
A scientist comments on Rabbi Jerrit’s 3 conditions:
1. Theories of, or beliefs in, a Divine source for the Universe constitute the longest standing range of explanations for the source of our world.
I guess that it is a basic tenet of science that this fact has no value whatsoever. Countless ideas have longest standing (e.g. the sun goes around the earth) yet are wrong.
2. Theories of, or beliefs in, a Divine source for the Universe constitute the most agreed-upon range of explanations believed by human beings – throughout history and still today.
This is a testimony to the limited education that has been available to human beings. The comment about 1. applies here, as this is simply another statement of 1.
3. Each and every other explanation for the source of our world is lacking in one fundamental area; they cannot explain without significant problems on the one hand, or an articulation that resembles one of Divinity without the label on the other hand, what existed prior to the world. The existence of a God, without beginning and without end, spatially or temporally, solves this problem.
The first sentence is true. The second is trivial, and I’m much more comfortable with the curved space-time general theory of relativity description of the universe, without beginning and without end, spatially or temporally.
Evidence
Text
The Expanded Quotable Einstein
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.”
Einstein is speaking of God as Nature. There are innumerable quotes (e.g. see the Isaacson biography) that show Einstein was an agnostic.
I’m getting the feeling that I’m discussing “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, and that is a waste of my time.
- Bob Brown
September 2, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How did the world come to be?? GOD!! :(
I am a bit disappointed in the human race. The human race as a whole has tried for centuries to X out God and any religious ideas and characteristics. I am rather embarrased of the ignorance of men. Anyways, this has to be the most silly question in history-if you're educated and have any sense of moral sense you would agree. If the world wasn't created by the Supreme Being (GOD), than how else would it have gotten here. If any one person (or organization) expect me to ever believe that Earth one day just decided to appear in space and isolate the water from land and create it's own self a moon and set the sun impeccably in it's place and everything revolve and correlate in it's proper manner every morning-day-season-year etc.,, Than they are the most foolish, silly alive. There is but one explaination of the being of Earth and that's through Jesus Chridst himself. I am not typing this to reprimand, discourage or convert but simply to make a "common sensed" point to any and all readers that come across this comment. As the literary C.S. Lewis once said, "You either believe in God or don't... " He himself gave numerous reasons as to the reason that God does exist and how He is the creator of all things living and non living; dead and alive. Just a simple point to leave you with: If God didn't create the world and everything in it, then who did? Are we seriously, as "educated" men and women suggesting that we all derive from monkeys??!! I would hope that we 'educated' people no better than this. God is, was, and is to come. God Bless every reader. :) I'm still disappointed at our ignorance though :(
- Juanita October 1, 2008 1:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Hmm fools?
How can u critizes people who take scientific proof and reason to why the world was created. Religion is ignorant. If a super natural being created the universe than how was he (God) created. Even the big bang theory gives more rational evidence than the bible. Earth being created and sustaining water and land, creating a moon, and such all have factual evidence in HOW it was done. And yes the human race has been striving to X out god, and they have been succesful. They've X'ed out many things that the church once believed. It is only a matter of time till there is nothing more to X out. Then we will see who is ignorant. I wish this so called creator, instead of hiding, would step out and show him self.
- Dying Utopia
January 13, 2009 11:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus Did Not Believe in Your God ...
Juanita,
How can you find it more likely that a super-being, who was always there, created everything out of nothing, with only one tiny planet in trillions as his only purpose and the rest as space junk. This super being, loves you if you worship him and tortures you forever if you die still asking questions. Though you may feed the poor and help the helpless - you burn if you don't believe.
If you knoew someone like this on earth, they would be either in prison or in a mental hospital.
By the way, the only time Jesus ever defined God when cornered by the apostles, he simply said "God is Love". Love creates, love lasts, love heals. Jesus never believed in a grumpy old man in the sky who fries you if you don't get on your knees and worship him.
I think Jesus would have thrown you out of the temple for your ignorance. Put God to the same test you would your husband or loved ones and see if he doesn't fail miserably.
- Edge-of-Reason
May 19, 2009 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ignorant?
"I am a bit disappointed in the human race. The human race as a whole has tried for centuries to X out God and any religious ideas and characteristics. I am rather embarrased of the ignorance of men. Anyways, this has to be the most silly question in history-if you're educated and have any sense of moral sense you would agree. If the world wasn't created by the Supreme Being (GOD), than how else would it have gotten here. If any one person (or organization) expect me to ever believe that Earth one day just decided to appear in space and isolate the water from land and create it's own self a moon and set the sun impeccably in it's place and everything revolve and correlate in it's proper manner every morning-day-season-year etc"
I really do not know where to start. This line "if you're educated" is later followed by an admittance of a complete lack of knowledge about the formation of Earth and the moon. I mean seriously, you could TiVo National Geographic for a week and have a basic understanding of all the "scientific mysteries" you mentioned. You call people who disagree ignorant when it is you who choose to subjectively ignore information and evidence. Information and evidence observed by man, not created by him.
Riddle me this. It's is a known fact that the distance between the Earth and moon is increasing by 3.8 meters a century. Eventually it will leave Earths orbit but the effects will be felt long before that. If our solar system was created by God why would he put an expiration date on it? Our Sun isn't going to last forever either mind you.
Another thing that has always bothered me is why is there so much else out there? Why would a God create so much noise in the universe when we are his main concern? In the old ideas the Earth was the center. If everything did revolve around us and we were the center of the universe (as was the idea when religions formed) then a Creator would seem like the obvious answer.
- Fenderman89
July 23, 2009 12:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We've got a few billion years
Till the sun starts expanding, I think. That always kept me up at night as a child--The whole world will burn away.
I'll tell you my answer to that question, which combines my religious beliefs and my career aspirations age four. We're supposed to go there. We're supposed to go into space, to explore, to learn and to discover. Humans are supposed to spread out and see new sights, reach new horizons. When we get on a boat and sail halfway around the world, when we build submarines and underwater research labs--when we walk to a part of town we haven't been before, we're doing what we're supposed to do. That's a part of the human condition. G-d just made all that stuff so that we'd have someplace to go next. When that's all explored, I have no doubt that there'll be some other world to discover.
- quantummechanik
July 23, 2009 10:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read the Bible
How could anyone possibly explain with definition how our world came to be when that individual wasn't there at that particular time? We do like many others before us....we read the Bible. Simple!!
- kim42
October 2, 2008 2:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There is always something there
Yes it is true that we were not there. But there is always something there, such as geographical evidence. No one has tried to say that they saw how the world was created. No, instead they try to prove through factual evidence that it was created. To go off a book that was created billions of years after the world created with no factual evidence besides people seeing/hearing some divine figure is rediculous
- Dying Utopia
January 13, 2009 11:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I 'believe' in more gods than you do
I was invited to take a look at this site, and immediately spotted this particular debate, even though I'm clearly not included in it. I am a Pagan and polytheist. I'm not sure I can answer the question as stated, since "god" is posed in the discussion with such relentless singularity. But to try:
Yes: the great forces of the university manifest consciousnesses that are vast, and old and can be good friends or enemies. (Just as the small fluxes of chance, matter and energy that form humans manifest as consciousnesses.
BUT ALSO
No, the universe neither has, nor requires, a king, a boss, a chief, a judge, a dictator or an emperor.
Blessed Be
- embreis
October 24, 2008 5:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Circular argument detected
"The existence of (a) God(s), without beginning and without end, spatially or temporally, solves this problem."
You are just substituting the existence of Universe with existence of (a) god(s). The current scientific view of the beginning of the current Universe is a 'big bang'. This is a "singularity", ie we do not yet know anything on the "other side" of the big bang.
Substituting with (a) god(s) only points us to question what is the beginning of god. If god is without beginning and without end, why can't we also think of the current without beginning and end - BTW, to all practical purposes, the beginning of the Universe has no implication to our current living.
- albertip
December 16, 2008 3:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not so circular
"You are just substituting the existence of Universe with existence of (a) god(s). The current scientific view of the beginning of the current Universe is a 'big bang'. This is a "singularity", ie we do not yet know anything on the "other side" of the big bang."
"Substituting with (a) god(s) only points us to question what is the beginning of god. If god is without beginning and without end, why can't we also think of the current without beginning and end - BTW, to all practical purposes, the beginning of the Universe has no implication to our current living."
Could not the converse of that statement be true in regards to you (that you are substituting God with the universe). Invoking God isn't the slightest bit circular, and it doesn't mean that God must require a cause. The law of casualty states that every effect (contingent being) has a cause. God is not an effect, nor is God a contingent being. The universe, on the other hand, is composed of matter, and the chief characteristic of matter is mutability (it can be changed). So therefore, the universe is contingent and requires a cause.
God on the other hand, is an immaterial being who is comprised of no parts. As such, He is irreducibly simple, and thus does not require a cause. You can't just simply plug in the "Who made X" objection to everything there is.
Your capitalization of the word "universe" strikes me as odd. It's ironic in the sense that you're essentially deifying the universe, which is nothing but an impersonal, arational, and amoral reality.
So in summary, God does not require a cause because God is not comprised of physical parts (divine simplicity), while the universe does because it manifests contingency (being made out of matter, which is mutable).
- Timothy Hsiao
December 27, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
whatever
"God on the other hand, is an immaterial being who is comprised of no parts. As such, He is irreducibly simple, and thus does not require a cause."
You might as well be saying "There is no god ."
- yebegoon
May 27, 2009 3:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science
There are many other scientific reasons why the universe was created
- Dying Utopia
January 13, 2009 10:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no provable God
Simply because "other theories" do not prove the origins, is no convincing argument for God. There is simply no provable evidence that a Male, Creator Being (n.) exists!
- classyoga
February 15, 2009 8:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How did the "god" come to be.
The rabbi writes: "they cannot explain without significant problems on the one hand, or an articulation that resembles one of Divinity without the label on the other hand, what existed prior to the world. The existence of a God, without beginning and without end, spatially or temporally, solves this problem."
It DOES NOT solve the problem at all. How did a god , without beginning and without end, come to be? No one knows for sure how the universe started, but one thing that is for sure is that there is not one scrap of evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Not one!! There is ample evidence for the non-existence of any god, because where has he, she, or it shown him-, her- or itself? Nowhere. We only have probably fictional accounts in the so-called holy books, which are full of inaccuracies and falsehoods. For example, the Bible says that the world is flat and the sun revolves around it. This is patently false. Therefore, we cannot believe anything in the Bible or the Koran for sure. So there have been no uncontested proofs of any miracles. So no evidence for anything supernatural existing.
Leon Marzillier
- Elfman
April 1, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is there a God?
Then there is the principle of first cause. What created the creator. If one insists that the creator satisfies the Principle of Sufficient Reason to satisfy the argument, then I would apply the Principle of Parsimony and state that a creator is not an ontologically necessary entity. That the universe could have created itself at the moment that space-time started. Time is meaningless before the beginning of space-time.
- CosmicChuck
April 8, 2009 2:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then who created God?
If the world is so complex and ordered that it must have been created by a devine God, then surely God must have been created by an even greater being. How else could such a devine creature exist if not created by an even greater one?
How can you accept the fact that God has always existed, yet you can't accept the fact that the universe always existed. Where did he exist before creating the universe. If God created the universe, then where does he keep it?
If God is good, all powerfull, and all knowing, yet evil exists. That proves that he either doesn not exist, or that he is not good, all knowing and all powerful, and therefore NOT devine. We are made in his image, yet we are imperfect. Therefore, God is imperfect and therefore NOT devine.
All of the religious texts were created by man, so using thems as proof is a fallacy. It's not as if the good book magically appeared. The STORY of the ten commandments is the only aspect that supposedly was drafted by God himself. He exists because I read it in a book that some man wrote a long time ago. Well there were a lot of books written a long time ago about the supposed ONE creator, and none of them are in agreement. The fact that the three major religions all worship the same God comes from the fact that all three religions came from the same screwed up part of the world that still cannot abide by the teaching of peace found in all three religions.
How can you dismiss the many Gods of the Romans, Greeks, Pagans, American Indians, etc. Why didn't God give these cultures the same teachings as the Middle East? Their religions ceased not because they were wrong or disproven. They fell by the swords of those who sought to spread their own OPINION on creation and kill those who would not convert to their will.
- eman
April 22, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I don't think this is a good argument
I think we can see this by looking at previous questions which were answered by appealing to the supernatural. In response to the three components:
1) Theories of, or beliefs in, a Divine source constitute the longest standing range of explanations for phenomena like weather, disasters, and other events that have natural explanations. Looking historically it is almost certain that far, far, more people have used divinities to explain things like lightning than have used the modern scientific explanation. Even today, it is possible to find people around the world who hold similar beliefs. The mere fact that a certain kind of explanation has been popular doesn't mean that that class of explanations are good or true.
2)A similar point goes for #2. I do not see how he could possibly believe point #2 to be relevant. Theories and beliefs of a divine source for the human species likely constitute the most agreed-upon range of explanations believed by human beings, both historically and today. Regardless of what the good Rabbi's view on evolution is, he surely doesn't think that the question of whether evolution is true or not can be solved by polling people. It doesn't make any sense to try to determine if evolution is true by counting the number of people who believe it or don't believe it. Why then, would theories about the origin of the universe be any different?
3)Even if current (naturalistic) theories about the source of the universe suffer problems, this is no reason to assume that a divinity must be the answer. As I stated in #1, previously unexplainable phenomena were also explained using supernatural beings. The fact that at various points in history humans didn't have a natural explanation didn't make a supernatural explanation the correct answer. I also am curious as to how exactly God is supposed to solve the problem of existence. It only seems to raise the question of why God exists. If we assume that God simply always existed, why can't we assume that the material universe always existed (albeit likely in a rather different form prior to the big bang)? In other words, if existence requires explanation, then God's existence also requires an explanation and simply saying that God always existed answers nothing; if existence doesn't require explanation, then there is no need to appeal to God as an explanatory force at all.
- ghanastudent
May 17, 2009 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is your argument?
Unless I've missed something, you've started out by saying that because humans have believed in gods for a very long time, it must be true.
Does it not matter that we've also believed in a very long list of things (ghosts, world being flat, monsters, etc) that have been proven wrong? And don't you think it a bit odd that, if popular belief in a god lends some credibility to the idea of a god, there'd have been an agreed upon god as opposed to everyone disagreeing on how many gods, who, and what there are?
How about, instead of using popular opinion as an argument, you actually argue the case for the existence of a god?
- Blue Linchpin
June 3, 2009 6:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intelligent design? Nope.
Rabbi - I don't see how you have actually justified the existence of a higher being. Your claim that it is the only argument that can provide a full explanation of how the universe came to be is inherently flawed. It doesn't explain who created the creator which results in infinite regression. That's one of the most basic problems with religion .
Ralfe - Making unsubstantiated generalisations such as "More and more respected academics are seeing the immense flaws in the evolution argument." doesn't really help much. Intelligent design uses pseudo- science to come up with a seemingly scientific explanation but all it is really saying is "that physical characteristic is too complex for me to understand so God must have designed it".
- RedDragon
June 4, 2009 4:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God is a woman and her name is Eris!
No, really.
But also, Einstein was really not keen on being cast as a believer in a personal god . He publicly ridiculed the notion and those that took his quotes out of context. So in a way, Rabbi, you should consider yourself chastised by the SMARTEST MAN EVER!
Anyway, regarding the question. Have you checked out physics in the last century or so? I hate to be overly sarcastic, but I think the most qualified answer to you question is in that field of study; look under "big bang", maybe.
So, this is a terrible arguement for the existence of god. First, the idea that the univers HAD TO HAVE a creator can, must be applied to God, if the question is relevant at all.
Perhaps the world come from us, in the future, when we send the catalyst for the cosmos back into the past to start the big bang. I see no reason why this is less likely than any theistic explanation.
- Submariner June 10, 2009 11:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just because
I hear so many who repeat that just because they are not well educated enough to explain evolution it doesn't exist. Many also feel that because teaching abstinance alone doesn't work women must be FORCED to bear unwanted children .
- oneoldman
June 16, 2009 7:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
who created god?
If an anthropomorphic god created the world who created god? God was created by psychopaths to help them rule over other men. Take Moses, he killed at least one man, had two wives, told his people there was a promised land they had to get by killing other people and stealing it from them, he took all the people's gold from them so only he could use gold as an idol. George Bush used god to justify attacking a dictator the CIA helped install and murder somewhere between 60 some thousand and 1.5 million Iraqi civilians, yet he had the audacity to murder prisoners who were accused of murder and later found innocent. God never changes, it is always a schizophrenic tool used by psychopathic ego driven greedy shameless humans.
- atliberty
July 9, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.