but who created the atoms, energy?

[nomanshake]

According to science evolution is all about space, atoms, particles etc.etc.. but then who made this all? i mean energy , atoms, molecules etc etc.. they all cant just exist by themselves? that's where my belive in God becomes stronger.. but i'd still like to know from a viewpoint of an atheist, according to him how can it all start? if there was an explosion, but then why was it there? if stars collided, but then who made the stars, if it was the reaction of atoms and molecules, how did the they exist altogether?

[PersonaNonGrata]

whoatever created God

[nomanshake]

well that leaves to another question, who made God? Science says that there is a reason behind evrything's existence. so how did it all start ? Well at that point you have no other option but to belive in God.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by nomanshake

According to science evolution is all about space, atoms, particles etc.etc.. but then who made this all? i mean energy , atoms, molecules etc etc.. they all cant just exist by themselves? that's where my belive in God becomes stronger.. but i'd still like to know from a viewpoint of an atheist, according to him how can it all start? if there was an explosion, but then why was it there? if stars collided, but then who made the stars, if it was the reaction of atoms and molecules, how did the they exist altogether?

I think you're missing an important point, and that is science deals with the process, not cause.

In strictly scientific terms, absolutely nothing about the period of time before the Big Bang can be determined due to limitations on the speed of light and the transfer of information via it. So science itself offers no answer to the question of *why* it all started, merely speculates on the mechanist process of how.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by nomanshake

According to science evolution is all about space, atoms, particles etc.etc..

Which theory of evolution have you been reading?

Originally Posted by nomanshake

but i'd still like to know from a viewpoint of an atheist, according to him how can it all start?

This atheist says 'no idea'. I'm sure I'll enjoy finding out though.

I suggest reading some Hawkins et al. that's where I'm often directed, just never got around to it.

[Vajradhara]

moreover, the ToE only deals with biological life, from the a priori view that "life exists". evolution has never and will never be concerned with the origin of "life" on this planet, that is not what it is addressing.

the theory that addresses the origin of life on this planet is called Abiogenesis, and it is markedly different than evolution.

[Postmaster]

God created it all of course I believe there are two sorts of processes in human undertsanding, one is dual forces environment, this is what governs material life. And then beyond that is God the positively clear force, so positive we can't comprehend very easily due to our nature. We may choose to go in his direction. Or we may prefer to remain in materialism. But to go towards him, we need to fight off materialism.

[hammer]

Does it really matter?

[Postmaster]

love the pun.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

When I was young, I used to ask, who created the universe and my Dad would say, God created the universe.

Then I would say, who created God? and my Dad would say no-one created God, he's just always been there.

If you can accept that it is possible for something to have always been there, then why does it have to be God, why cant you just say that the Universe has always been there? Certainly not in it's current form, but maybe the Big Bang was not a beginning, just a change caused by whatever it was before? Our science cannot at present determine what that might have been, but if we all accept that it was just Gods will, we'll stop trying.

We should remember that the Catholic church has changed it's mind about the nature of the universe several times in accordance with science. First it accepted the ptolemic model of the universe, then the Big Bang theory, when that theory is disproved I have no doubt that the church will find a new place for God to live until that too is disproven.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I have no doubt that the church will find a new place for God to live until that too is disproven.

There will always be gaps for gods to hide in.

[Bandit]

& there will always be gaps in science for unbelievers to hide in.

if we knew it all, then we would be God & not a scientist.
my 2 pennies

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Bandit

& there will always be gaps in science for unbelievers to hide in.

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of this statement, Bandit.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of this statement, Bandit.

do i believe in science? yes i do.
do i believe in all the theory people come up with to fill the gaps? no i do not.

do i believe in God & the bible? yes i do
do i believe in all the theory people come up with about it? no i do not.

However, i do apply myself to at least try to understand, what everyone is saying & that is one way we gain understanding.

i dont think God hides in the gaps or in anything like you suggest Jaiket, but we as people (whether belief or unbelief) sometimes do hide in the gaps.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


actually, Bandit, Jaiket is speaking of a Theological doctrine called "God of the Gaps" Theology.

essentially, this view posits that whereever science lacks an answer to a question, the answer is "Goddidit". however, when this gap of knowledge is filled in, say how electricity conducts, the "God of the Gaps" is pushed out.

this is, by the by, a disasterous theological position to have for, essentially, the being is putting God into a position to be falsified. generally speaking, i understand that most theists frown upon this sort of activity.

here is a little snippet from an essay that goes into much more detail and depth:

Precisely what is God-of-the-gaps theology? There is not anything that it is precisely; it is not that sort of thing. Somewhat vaguely, however, it can be characterized as follows:
The God-of-the-gaps theologian is an Enlightenment semideist who thinks of the universe as a vast machine working according to a set of necessary and inviolable natural laws. ( Perhaps a God has created the universe: but if he did, it is now for the most part self-sufficient and self-contained. ) These natural laws, furthermore, have a kind of august majesty; they are necessary in some strong sense; perhaps not even God, if there is such a person, could violate them; but even if he could, he almost certainly would not. ( Hence the otherwise inexplicable worry about miracles characteristic of this sort of thought. ) Natural science investigates and lays out the structure of this cosmic machine, in particularby trying to discover and lay bare those laws, and to explain the phenomena in terms of them. There seem to be some phenomena, however, that resist a naturalistic explanation — so far, at any rate. We should therefore postulate a deity in terms of whose actions we can explain these things that current science cannot. Newton's suggestion that God periodically adjusts the orbits of the planets is often cited as just such an example of God-of-the-gaps theology.

The following, therefore, are the essential points of God-of-the-gaps theology.

First, the world is a vast machine that is almost entirely self-sufficient; divine activity in nature is limited to those phenomena for which there is no scientific, i.e., mechanical and naturalistic explanation.
Second, the existence of God is a kind of large-scale hypothesis postulated to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e., naturalistically. [16]
Third, there is the apologetic emphasis: the best or one of the best reasons for believing that there is such a person as God is the fact that there are phenomena that natural science cannot (so far) explain naturalistically.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/gaps-ap.htm


metta,

~v