Wisdom behind creation.

[Ten oz]

 

 

 

 

1 - It's irrational to believe the big bang didn't have a cause.

 

At least you've tried 'the first step'.

 

The big bang is speculation, we use the power of speculation to make theories, and then we go about proving those theories as correct. One of the points I brought up, it's not 'religious' to theorize things happening before the big bang, and that's the only argument on this subject since I agreed that my short-term position was deistic.

 

The debate we were having was that "creation" (and all science attributed to God), should not be nullified with God as irrational, but instead separated because creation, and such, isn't God-exclusive. For example, we take the idea of creation from real life, by analysing reproduction or other types of creation occurring in the universe. We can then apply this to the beginning of the universe, as we did with a 'bang' we recorded from observation of nature, and applied it to the beginning to theorize the big bang. Even if creation, in this sense, is incorrect, that's all it is, the argument is that it shouldn't be "God-exclusive", or declared as religious.

 

I then argued to say "Religion doesn't help society", which one person proved wrong, to which I countered, "It hinders society more so than it helps".

 

And that's where we are at. You obviously haven't read the thread properly.

 

2 - Focus on the bold text in your reply to be on the same wavelength.

1 - No one is saying the Big Bang happened with a cause.

2 - If I am to focus on the bold why did you make the other statements?

 

As for the what you put in bold; the Big Bang is theory supported by physics and observation. Creation is a theory supported by what? Simply saying if appears as though the universe is too complicated to be natural without intelligence is not suppoprt. It is merely an opinion.

[s1eep]

1 - No one is saying the Big Bang happened with a cause.

2 - If I am to focus on the bold why did you make the other statements?

 

As for the what you put in bold; the Big Bang is theory supported by physics and observation. Creation is a theory supported by what? Simply saying if appears as though the universe is too complicated to be natural without intelligence is not suppoprt. It is merely an opinion.

Read: For example, we take the idea of creation from real life, by analysing reproduction or other types of creation occurring in the universe

 

Rationality says that every effect has a cause; and this is consistent in the universe. Go back to a millisecond into the big bang, is it still the big bang, isn't it now the small bang? It's rational to even believe that it was small at some point, and then it grew big, for this is consistent throughout the universe, and with 'bangs' and the like. I'm saying the big bang must have had a cause, because something that contains so much potential, the likes of which we see today (ranging from trees, to cars, to computers, to animals), cannot come about through nothing at all, unless there was some force involved. A nuclear bomb, comes about through nuclear science and engineering, it then has to be fired. It's not the complexity of the universe that led me to thinking there was a cause to the big bang, it was the things that were evident, the rationality behind the universe as we know it---the things we do know.

[Phi for All]

I'm saying the big bang must have had a cause, because something that contains so much potential, the likes of which we see today (ranging from trees, to cars, to computers, to animals), cannot come about through nothing at all, unless there was some force involved.

 

Force implies interaction with another object. Perhaps you mean energy? Plenty of that around at the time.

[s1eep]

 

Force implies interaction with another object. Perhaps you mean energy? Plenty of that around at the time.

Yeah, something like that.

 

My guess was for the immediate future, not long-term.

Edited August 15, 2014 by s1eep