God is a logical conclusion.

We know the first thing, or the thing that has always been must be a creative force. Becuase we know something cannot come from nothing, so the something in the begining must be a creative something. All the universe looks like it was intelligent design so why should we disagree with science?. An ordered universe that is created intelligently must mean a God. Some scientists and some atheists claim, if their was billions of multi-verses, or even an infinite number of universes then ours is not so improbable. The only thing is they believe this simply because ours is so improbable so they say there must be more universes. This is highly irrational, our universe shows order and design, we must assume therefore there is an intelligent designer. We have no eason to believe otherwise. Before a Catholic Belgian priest came up with the theory of the 'Big Bang', atheists used to say in an infinite amount of time in an infinite universe, our being here and the uniquness of our solar system was not so improbable in fact it would have been inevitable. But we know now the universe is finite, and many scientists believe time as we know it also had a begining.

 

Some comments.

One, things come from nothings. Hawking's radiation assumes that things do indeed come from nothing and has been (albeit inconclusively) observed. However, they tend to annihilate really quickly, but even if they annihilate really quickly in general, there is the statistically significant possibility that enough matter can be created that the lost energy can be made up by gravitational energy. It is not statistically significant because it has a high probability, but because it has a long time to try it over and over.

Two, the universe show no design that cannot be explained by the anthropomorphic principle, essentially, if there were an infinite number of universes, only the ones that support life could be observed by living creatures, since their universes would be the only ones with life in it. You didn't address this issue at all, you just called it irrational with no explanation.

Three, no reason to believe otherwise is not a good reason to believe something. I have no good reason to believe that the number of leaves in a tree is odd, but the fact that that doesn't exist doesn't mean that there is a good reason to believe that there is an even number (unless there are other better reasons, which I will assume there is not, since you didn't see fit to include them in a post like this).

 

We do?

Like we knew lighting came from Zeus?

Or that the earth was flat?

Or that illnesses where the work of evil spririts?

Or that the sun revolved around the earth?

Only the religious claim to know everything.

Science is about the continued search for answers and just because it hasn't discoverd a certain answer to a question doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist.

Something from nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

And of course God always was. He/she/they never materialized from anything or were created out of something/nothing.
There could be and probably is another planet close enough to another sun, within our universe, that can sustain life similar to ours.

 

i stopped there.


See that bolded statement? When you find, hold, show or anything thereof that there is a place anywhere in all of the universe of a complete void (perfect vacuum) of nothing, then you can start that 'creation from nothing' belief.

meaning; there is no such thing of a 'nothing'. Not you, the pope, Einstein or any life ever, has experienced a 'nothing'. So the logic is easy; a creation from nothing is non-existent (not evidenced), in any period ever to be recorded.

The logical conclusion is telling the morons that like creations from nothing to jump off a bridge so the future generations don't have to explain to the people daydreaming about something that has no answer, as a waste of life/time and resources.

The logical conclusion is that idiots have created beliefs from manmade ignorance.

 

There are issues with your premise:
1. You are using an Arguement of Incredibility, which is a fallacy.
2. You are using God of the Gaps, which is a fallacy.
3. Something comes from nothing all of the time. See "Quantum Foam".
4. The universe does not need a single beginning, se cylic universe.
5. Physicists do not use the multiverse as a means of getting around the fact that we are here. The Antropic Principle solves that quite nicely. The multiverse is simple an extension of Quantum Mechanics.
6. Where did God come from?

 

Also see general relativity.

 

I question several of your assumptions on scientific grounds -- they simply are no longer seen as true by cosmologists .
But accepting that most people need to posit the concept of God to make them feel comfortable , showing that God might "be a Mathematician" does not tell us anything else . Nothing about attributes and character as we relate to "him".
With apparent local evidence suggesting he has still many unresolved challenges , he needs to show why we should not see him as a disturbing and bad force . Not one to be liked or ultimately admired , however powerful "his" control over us .
In God's position ( however far fetched) I would not be proud of my creation and I would feel very guilty about my meddling and first test market failure .

 

"God is a logical conclusion."

the question then would be which god?



and of course why would it be easier for a god to poof into existence then it would for a universe, is the universe less complex then a god


.

 

yep, nothing can become a positive and negitive something simutaniously as (-1) + (+1) = 0

 

never sean a logical argument for god that dosent either end up removing the need for a god or that dosent ignore the problem you want to solve with god in the case of the god itself

 

thoug once you make an exception to the problem and name it god thats just another example of makeing the god unnecessary

 

Can nothing come from something? If something cannot come from nothing, and the universe that came from God is something, and God is something...then what is the something that the something of God came from?

You don't have to learn very much from science to learn to respect it. Everything was nothing once upon a time (that's philosophical), and then science figured it out...now it's something:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228391.300-nothingness-why-nothing-matters.html

You're trying to disprove a lot of quantum physics without math. And from what I know (which is not much), quantum physics is mostly math. Do you have a cell phone? Do you know why (not how) it works? It's because some 'atheists' used math (and didn't necessarily understand WHY the math worked) and calculated it out an VIOLA!...you have a cell phone.

Until God gives you a cell phone, this line of logic is fruitless. A cell phone is finite, AND YET, God is powerless to give you one. Why is the infinite God powerless to give you a finite crappy nokia cell phone?

 

If something can come from nothing how come things do not pop into existence all the time. Also anything of a complex nature is of intelligent design. This theory of somethimg from nothing is absurd, and is not proven. Something also may appear as though it came from nothing, but it could have come from something transcendant, something spiritual that is untangible. If every atheists takes their arguments to there ultimate conclusion, I believe they must come to the assertion that God is the only logical answer. God is not a gap filler for things we do not understand, as matter of fact the more science reveals the more it looks like God does exist in my opinion.

 

Theists have given us some of the greatest minds. Where did schools, universities, and hospitals all originate?. Who do you think brought education to the masses?. Theists are not some backward people blinded by their faith, some maybe, as is some atheists about their disbelief in God. They also do not listen to reason, but I do not think they are all like that. Some theists have great minds as do some atheists, so do not make it sound as if theists are irrational, and superstitutious, for you are making unfounded generalisations.

 

Scientists go on what they call the 'model' as to how everything firs together. For instance the 'Big Bang' theory fits with the model. It comes together and makes sense of the origin of the universe as does many other things. The other thing that most fits the model and many, if not most scientists accept is the theory of inteligent design. Inteligent design points towards a plan, a creator, I would call this entity God. Forget about the label inteligent design means exactly that something designed intelligently, whether you want to call it God, or give it some other label is irrelevant. It means there is an entity or a force that has caused the universe.

As for the universe and it's uniquness it is so improbable that it is impossible to have come into the existense without intervention. Let me put it this way, if you had an infinite number of monkeys tied to an infinite number of typewriters, given even an infinite amount of time, and let them pound on the keys you will never be able to repoduce the works of Shakespeare, or the Bible, at least not without some sort of intervention. It is so improbable that it is impossible. It is the same as saying random atoms could come together and form a boeing 747 just by coincidence.

 

It does. However, in order to preserve energy, they tend to go away really quickly. However, if a lot of it turns up at the same time, you can lose the energy through gravitational energy (that's why if you add up all the energy from E=mc^2 and the gravitational energy, which is negative, you get zero) and therefore something will have appeared. However, this requires a lot of stuff to turn up at the same time, and that's so rare that we don't see it happening all the time.

Then why is it that the only things in nature that display any form of complexity is that which is affected by evolution? You don't see complexity in crystals, metals, water and so on, and those things do not experience natural selection. People, animals, plants, technology, however, is affected by natural selection (technology is affected by natural selection in that it comes from humans who could not have created it were it not for natural selection) and they can be said to be complex.

That's correct, they are only ideas and people are investigating the finer details, but you must realize that even if it was shown to be false, that is in no way an argument for your particular religion.

You may believe that all you want, it has no bearing on reality.

Then you can't know much about science. I'm sorry to sound condescending, but the more you learn about science, the more you learn not to draw these baseless conclusions.

 

For starters, I'd like to know where you got that information from, and then when you realize that no such information exists (since it's not true), could you please fill me in on whether you honestly thought that no one was going to call you on that?

I can agree that if you are very creative with your definition of a god, then there are definitely concepts that exist that would qualify as a god. However, by calling it God, you haven't really proven the existence of anything meaningful, you've just been playing semantics.

You do realize the monkey writing factory actually would produce the complete work of Shakespeare, given enough time, right? If you don't, then I think you have a flawed understanding of "infinite".

 

"This theory of somethimg from nothing is absurd, and is not proven."
God is not proven, but is also a belief.

"I believe they must come to the assertion that God is the only logical answer."
God can be a logical answer to some, but it is far from the only logical answer. Aliens is a logical answer. Evolution is a logical anwer. Sky gods is a logical answer.

 

This is a red herring. I asked you if God was something, not which side of the argument is a more stubborn position. Is God something?

 

So you believe every single snowflake and salt crystal is individually designed by God?

 

For the sake of brevity I'll just say that you've asserted many conclusions in this paragraph without any logical justification. All I want to ask you is;

How exactly do you determine if something is "designed intelligently"?

 

It has order, if it is complex then it is designed.

 

Virtual Particles.

 

So by that definition a Slinky is not designed.

The Slinky is the greatest mystery in the universe now!





So you say that if something has order and complexity then it's designed. But how do you know if something has order or complexity?