The roots of creationism

There are plenty of creationists pointing the finger at the big bang theory because it doesn’t explain what existed before the big bang as well as the theory of evolution what trigged life on earth. I say fair enough (though, science in progress) every theory has holes in it – nothing’s perfect. But as soon as you ask a creationist the origins of god they simply say god has always existed.

Logical fact – everything has to come from something and so a simple question to creationists, what created god?

reply to post by andre18

As an atheist, I for one don't believe in anything. The reason why is because of common sense that slapped me like an angry girlfriend.
The 'BigBang theory' is just a metaphor for the explanation of the beginning of everything, there couldn't of been a big bang for the matter of sound does not travel in nothingness.

Fred Hoyle FRS ( June 24, 1915 – August 20, 2001) was an English astronomer primarily remembered today for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters, in particular his rejection of the Big Bang hypothesis.

There are new age scientists out there that concure that there actually was no audible sound, but they all do agree that the theory is quite accurate for the explanation of the beginning of known time.
Here's a good read for the inquiry, it gets very indepth and leads you to different sites that allow you to perform your own conclusions by way of the evidence's. Enjoy!!

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by andre18


The standard line I've seen here is that "God" is eternal, that is without beginning or end. He's always existed.

It's easy being religious - you can chalk anything that you can't understand up to "God" and not feel like an idiot.

reply to post by andre18


There is no 'the Big Bang Theory.' There are big bang theories, but not one unified theory.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by andre18

 

The standard line I've seen here is that "God" is eternal, that is without beginning or end. He's always existed.

It's easy being religious - you can chalk anything that you can't understand up to "God" and not feel like an idiot.

Maybe that's because it's more logical than getting a big bang out of nothing??

You see, common sense will tell you there is a supreme being that gave a beginning.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Lookdeeper]

The main question is "what created god?" There had to be something before god to create god. And who ever or whatever that something that created god was, who created him? And it goes on and on untill you realize that it can not end. The funny thing is you keep coming up with the same answer, who ever or what ever was there "first" was and is the supreme being.

Have you read Ezekiel??? The very first chapter starts giving you clues...oh and make it the KJ version.

I believe the concept of a supreme being and religion is an explanation and a guideline to help the human race last longer. If you think about it the Taurat, the Holy Bible, and the Glorious Quran tell you countless times to educate yourselves and search for the truth. Infact it even challenges you to reach the heavens (or in scientific terms, deep space). In order for you to do that you have to solve the small problems that exist on earth first. You remember "real life"?? Where there are constant wars and widespread of HIV's / AID's, several new viruses and deseases, and a whole continent full of homeless (Africa). The books solve all those problems very simply. But people just read and believe then contradict. They don't follow their books or try to understand the message. Which is why this world is coming to an end just as it was written in all of the holy books (and that can not be changed no matter how hard you try).

Religion divides. Period. In all likelyhood the Christian United States will one day be confronted by Muslim martyrs with weapons of mass destruction. Now tell me... and excuse the rhetoric... is that what you call a guideline to help the human race last longer?

Let me repeat, perhaps this time you'll read carefully. First of all, the muslim and jewish "martyrs" have been confronted and afflicted by the Christian United States for decades (learn your history). So to directly point your fingers at the Muslims or the Jews or, any other religion and say they will "confront" the United States with WMD's is irrational. No matter how much religion divides they all teach one simple and basic idea or way of life. Which is to live righteous (do right from wrong, common sense here). Now what im trying to say is that majority of the "Christians", the "Jewish", and even the "Muslims" are of that religion only by name and birth. To them living righteous is the path to Heaven and sinning is the path to Hell. This is where the concept of a hereafter comes to play. So they become arrogant because of todays advanced civilization and scientific knowledge, they really don't believe in a hereafter. Therefore they really don't follow the "guidelines" that religion has revealed to them. And the "guidelines" are not just a passage for the hereafter but for the better of mankind. If they actually followed the righteous teachings there would be no problems...

Forgive me, my english isn't perfect. Im still learning .

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Lookdeeper]

Fair enough, and I agree, if every religion was taught subtly the world would surely be a better place. But this sort of religion is in the minority.

I did not intend to single out Muslims, I was simply pointing out that big, fundamentalist disagreements + weapons of mass destruction tends to equal something that is not desired. And creationism + science always equals similarly undesirable effects.

I also personally tend to think that empathy is a more rational and effective motive to "be good" than is threat of eternal damnation. God may or may not exist, and may or may not be offended by blasphemy, and one may or may not got to "hell" for "sinning", but real people, right now, will certainly be hurt if they are insulted or hit. And yet people lend much more sympathy and respect to the being who currently has no proof of existence on his side. This is the fault of theism.

Note: when I type "religion" I refer mostly to Abrahamic religion.

P.S.
I suppose I should cite my source for the WMD claim. It is according to Sam Harris, on page 150 in the book What is Your Dangerous Idea?, that

"The possibility that we could elect a U.S. president who takes a biblical prophecy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying and growing more probable by the day."

...

As an answer to the OP, according to creationists God has always existed. But, according to the known laws of physics something cannot arise from nothing; so, God bent the laws of physics to exist. Which brings us to the question, how could He bend the laws of physics, to allow Himself to exist, without existing? That would seem to be a fairly formidable handicap...

...which brings us to the inevitable conclusions that neither science nor creationism can explain the origin of the universe at the present, and that Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalist, and indeed would need to be in order to keep their beliefs in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

reply to post by Lookdeeper


That doesn't make any sense at all. Where did God come from, then? See - your idea doesn't have a beginning, either. God was just "there". Common sense demands you look further, and not use a bronze-age farmer's manual as a scientific textbook. Heck, we wouldn't even use a 20-year-old textbook, let alone a bronze-age one.

As for what happened before the big bang, some theories suggest that there was a previous universe before it, and our space/time is continually blowing up and contracting. That makes more sense than your explanation, and doesn't include massive leaps of faith and supernatural intervention.

reply to post by dave420


So what you mean to say is that, before there was space/time there was more space/time?? Talk about a "bronze-age farmer's manual as a scientific textbook." Maybe you don't understand what "nothing" means. You see, when there was NO such thing as space or time... where did you get it to start with. Similar to the question of god or a supreme being, im quoting Sly "How could He bend the laws of physics, to allow Himself to exist, without existing?". As far as I can see, the laws of physics aren't perfect or always accurate. Our very existance defy the laws of physics. Because our very existance proves you can and did get something from nothing. Or perhaps there was something always there (a supreme being, space/time, ssspppaaarrrtttaaa, you choose)??

This is why I personally have no issue with Deism.

However, if science can eventually explain the true origin, even Deism will lose it's place. The reasons for the Big Bang idea to have credibility is the fact that galaxies are flying apart from each other, from a central point. But currently, no human idea can explain the origin of the universe to my satisfaction.

Just my opinion, as always.

Originally posted by andre18

Logical fact – everything has to come from something and so a simple question to creationists, what created god?

there is nothing logical about this at all, if EVERYTHING came from something then nothing would exist. your saying to have something, you need something else, but this something else would have to arise from something.

i think if anything is logical, it would be that SOMETHING has always been around/come from nothing. because by what your saying nothing should exist.

and whats with "logical facts" anyway, logic can be different for different people, its not some absolute.

[edit on 20/5/08 by cheeser]

reply to post by Lookdeeper


We don't know. All we can do is look at evidence gathered by the millions of instruments looking at the universe. We certainly can not go off on a tangent and bring things like god into the question, when there is no evidence god even exists.

Science, and human understanding, can only progress when assumptions are not stacked on assumptions. Science has figured it out, the religious sorts trying to shoe-horn the universe into said bronze-age book do not. They have to stack many assumptions on top of each other to introduce enough wiggle-room to make even the most basic of correlations between the bible and the universe. Science, and anyone who respects the scientific method, can see that's off to a loser from the get-go.