Speechless, I have to say that I've never understood the argument that is used many times by christians that "Everything is created by something else, so what created the big bang?". I don't see why this argument doesn't apply to God. And if it doesn't apply to God, why it can't apply to something else.

Please feel free to explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by otto186

I can't find any information on "plasma soup", and that was the only sentence about it in that whole article.

This is new to me, for I have not heard of it before. I couldn't tell you what plasma soup is, but I stand by the Big Bang Theory 100%.

---

Try this then:

Quote:

---

At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

---

It's that "pure speculation" that drives the debate. Where did it come from? Only one side of the debate offers an answer that I believe would be consistent with science, there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms. How anyone can believe otherwise is beyond comprehension... and if science acknowledges this beginning is speculation than science needs to acknowledge the possibility of a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms.

---

Where did the creator come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by otto186

First, what the heck is speechdude?

I'm not judging anybody, just merely making observations on what i've seen in my experiences.

---

I'm speechdude, and I don't judge ex the way you say Christians judge others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Speechless, I have to say that I've never understood the argument that is used many times by christians that "Everything is created by something else, so what created the big bang?". I don't see why this argument doesn't apply to God. And if it doesn't apply to God, why it can't apply to something else.

Please feel free to explain.

---

Capuchin, I don't believe I've used that argument so I don't get it either. Here's what I just told otto:

Quote:

---

At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.

---

It's that "pure speculation" that drives the debate. Where did it come from? Only one side of the debate offers an answer that I believe would be consistent with science, there had to be a creator to get from nothing to complex life forms. How anyone can believe otherwise is beyond comprehension...and if science acknowledges this beginning is speculation than science needs to acknowledge the possibility of a creator.

We can't explain where God came from any more than science can conclusively explain how this nothingness became you and me. To me it is more logical to believe something created this universe and all it contains, how such order came to be out of such chaos, than to believe it all developed by chance.

You must surely believe that something created the creator, then, as the creator must be at least as ordered as the universe which it created, by your own logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

You must surely believe that something created the creator, then, as the creator must be at least as ordered as the universe which it created, by your own logic.

---

Why should I surely believe that? I believe that man does not know everything, and never will - that some things are beyond our comprehension. When I think about where God came from it blows my mind as much as the thought that all matter was condensed to one point and exploded into things that eventually became living, breathing, thinking beings. Both are perplexing if you ask me.

Like science, I can only explain what's observed, and my observation is that order out of chaos just doesn't happen by accident. I used to be in building trades, and when we put a roof on a house we didn't throw shingles up there and hope for a roof. We didn't take stacks of bricks and wait for them to become a wall, watch a fence spring forth from bundles of pickets, plywood become cabinets, or rolls of wire evolve into a functioning electrical center. What makes anyone think this universe and all the life it contains developed without something to put it all together? It just does not make sense.

So God couldn't have happened by accident, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

so God couldn't have happened by accident, right?

---

You're trying to take this further than either of us can go - and put me a trap I can't escape from. I said "observation" tells us things don't just happen. None of us observed the beginning of things so it's speculation, but to me what we do observe points to an inescapable conclusion, the things we are aware of don't just happen, there is some force at work.

Whatever was previous to that beginning is something we can't prove, and since time began at that point whatever it was must be eternal. So what makes more sense, an eternal God or an eternal... what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Where did the creator come from?

---

Read further...

Since at the time of the Big Bang, everything was in the form of Energy, we can very easily skip out the middle man and say that Energy is eternal. This conforms with what we observe: energy (and mass, which is just a different form of energy) can neither be created or destroyed.

I don't see any logical point in saying that God created the energy and that God is eternal. That's just moving the question back one step.

I'm perplexed as to where the energy came from at the big bang. I see no value in saying "oh that's easy, god made it" and then getting perplexed over where God came from. That's completely superfluous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Since at the time of the Big Bang, everything was in the form of Energy, we can very easily skip out the middle man and say that Energy is eternal. This conforms with what we observe: energy (and mass, which is just a different form of energy) can neither be created or destroyed.

---

Capuchin, I am neither a scientist or skilled apologist, so to get any deeper is beyond my limited knowledge. Imagine that, a Christian that knows his limits. :D

Quote:

---

I don't see any logical point in saying that God created the energy and that God is eternal. That's just moving the question back one step.

---

Why is it a step back? It does not explain how life came from non-life.

Quote:

---

I'm perplexed as to where the energy came from at the big bang. I see no value in saying "oh that's easy, god made it" and then getting perplexed over where God came from. That's completely superfluous.

---

I never said it was easy, I just don't find any logic in getting such complex life forms by chance.

But you accept that the Big Bang is not evidence for God, which is what we were actually talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

But you accept that the Big Bang is not evidence for God, which is what we were actually talking about?

---

I thought it was about who/what created the Creator if "Everything is created by something else." Regardless, my answer is in agreement with science, in that "what existed prior to (the beginning) is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation." Logic and observation tells me there had to be a creator... and experience tells me that it's God and He's real.

I don't see the need for a creator. I think your analogy to throwing bits of wood in a pile and getting a cupboard and shelves is not very accurate.

You have to realise that no scientist who has studied the area believes that life formed by chance. They believe that it formed by complex interactions between complex molecules under the right conditions. There is evidence that amino acids (basic building blocks of life) can form even in space, and that the first self replicating organism (that is needed for evolution to take hold) need not be complex.

Even if it did happen by chance, with a LARGE number of trials going on at any one time, and the LARGE amount of time available to do those trials in, even large odds become very possible to happen once.

You argument amounts to an argument from incredulity.

More about the odds thing... Say you're playing a game of golf. There are maybe several million (conservative guess) blades of grass that your shot can land on. Your shot lands on one of those blades. The chance of it landing on that one blade in one trial is 1 in several million. By your logic, it cannot have concievably happened. Do you have an explanation as to why it happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I don't see the need for a creator. I think your analogy to throwing bits of wood in a pile and getting a cupboard and shelves is not very accurate.

---

And I don't see the possibility of these complex interactions leading to advanced life forms that can think, reason, feel, love - occurring without external manipulation.

Quote:

---

You have to realise that no scientist who has studied the area believes that life formed by chance. They believe that it formed by complex interactions between complex molecules under the right conditions. There is evidence that amino acids (basic building blocks of life) can form even in space, and that the first self replicating organism (that is needed for evolution to take hold) need not be complex.

Even if it did happen by chance, with a LARGE number of trials going on at any one time, and the LARGE amount of time available to do those trials in, even large odds become very possible to happen once.

You argument amounts to an argument from incredulity.

---

"They believe"
"under the right conditions"
"can form"
"Even if"
"very possible"

That sounds an awful lot like faith to me.

The belief is based on empirical fact. Not on a single book.

Belief and faith are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

More about the odds thing... Say you're playing a game of golf. there are maybe several million (conservative guess) blades of grass that your shot can land on. Your shot lands on one of those blades. The chance of it landing on that one blade in one trial is 1 in several million. by your logic, it cannot have concievably happened. Do you have an explanation as to why it happened?

---

Now THAT's easy. When I'm playing golf I have a ball, a club and a course - hopefully with millions and millions of blades of beautiful green grass. I take my club, address the ball, swing and - hopefully - strike the ball in the direction of those blades of grass. When I play golf it is inevitable that my ball is going to touch many blades of grass (and probably a water hazard). Everything that's necessary for my ball to land on that blade of grass is in existence and I have intentionally aimed for that particular area, so why not that one blade?

Haha, seriously? You could get a hole in one every time but you don't because you aim for specific pieces of grass? You're that accurate?

How about a hand of bridge? You get a combination of 13 cards out of one deck. The chance of getting the 13 cards that you get is 1 in 635013559600. Now how about with a game of four people? The possible number of games of bridge from the initial deal is 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000. Now, every time you deal a game, you get a game that only had a 1 in 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000 chance of happening. Completely by chance, no intelligence has gone into making that particular deal happen. By your logic, this is clearly an impossibility. Do you have an explanation?