CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe what the Bible says about how the earth was created. I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and how the earth got created by itself.
In order for the earth to be created there has to be a creator. We should accept the fact that in Genesis 1:1 That God made the heavens and the earth and trust what God told us in His Word.
But his word is full of contradiction, how can I be sure that what he's telling me is right?
I mean, I fully adhere to the bible myself, but I get confused, can you explain to me how plants can survive days without light, and why I don't have to set fire to livestock anymore when I give my neighbor the stink eye.
Far be it from me to judge the will of the almighty, cause he loved man so much that he decided to flood the earth for a year, and kill possibly millions including children, the elderly and the mentally retarded, but in his infinite wisdom decided to ask an old coffin dodger to alone hand build a wooden boat of the dimensions never before or again seen by man to house billions of animals for an entire year, it's cool that all the oxygen requiring plants lived under there too and that all the displaced sea creatures just found their way home.
But his word is full of contradiction, how can I be sure that what he's telling me is right?
Nope His word is not full of contradictions. Archaeologists confirmed that the Bible isn't contradictory because they found places that were mentioned in the Bible and found coins bearing King Herod's name and also other artifacts that relate to the Bible.
I mean, I fully adhere to the bible myself, but I get confused, can you explain to me how plants can survive days without light, and why I don't have to set fire to livestock anymore when I give my neighbor the stink eye.
God made the earth but the earth was formless and then he put in light and separated it from day and night and then created everything else with it.
Far be it from me to judge the will of the almighty, cause he loved man so much that he decided to flood the earth for a year, and kill possibly millions including children, the elderly and the mentally retarded, but in his infinite wisdom decided to ask an old coffin dodger to alone hand build a wooden boat of the dimensions never before or again seen by man to house billions of animals for an entire year, it's cool that all the oxygen requiring plants lived under there too and that all the displaced sea creatures just found their way home.
You mustn't read Genesis about why God decided to flood the earth. God flooded the earth because many wicked people were on this earth and Noah was the only righteous man and his family. Noah didn't take 2 of each and every single animal to the ark. He took most of the little animals ( 1 male and 1 female) to go to ark.
Archaeologists confirmed that the Bible isn't contradictory because they found places that were mentioned in the Bible and found coins bearing King Herod's name and also other artifacts that relate to the Bible.
Whoever said that places and names from the bible are fake?
I'd like to know which archaeological discoveries confirm the great flood, or any of the miraculous stories in the Bible, how about some evidence that Jesus was actually a real person.
God made the earth but the earth was formless and then he put in light and separated it from day and night and then created everything else with it.
And the light came from where?
You mustn't read Genesis about why God decided to flood the earth.
Why not?
God flooded the earth because many wicked people were on this earth and Noah was the only righteous man and his family.
Why were there wicked people? How did they become wicked? Can Children and the mentally retarded be considered wicked?
He took most of the little animals ( 1 male and 1 female) to go to ark.
Yea, this makes sense, because Elephants and Giraffes are known for their ability to swim in great never-ending oceans without food or fresh water for years at a time, right?
One male and one female of each, what about food for predators, what did the lions eat?
Using your logic, then: Who/what created God? MasterKage(227)
Ignoring what you were disputing, I want to explain who or what created God/gods. we all learn at elementary school that lines go on forever, they literally have no beginning or end. In other words, it has no point of origin( that it was never created) or end( it will never seize to exist). We know that the lines we draw in our books are just representations of something we cannot really see( just like how watches represent periods of time and the sun and stars and seasons do the same). we all accept that lines have no beginning or no end, but we are incapable of accepting an intelligent being who was never created. I think some of us have a control complex. Furthermore, since we grew up we see things come and go, they die essentially or deteriorate or whatever you want to call it. So it is even more difficult to believe in something that always existed and never stopped existing. But the reality of the situation is this: we willingly deny the existence of an all powerful being that always existed but we willingly accept the term infinity a number which never stops or lines which never stops moving. Finally I cannot believe in the big bang theory because an explosion cannot create order AT ALL!! I can put it this way. Say you were using a dictionary and someone came in and said that an explosion happened in a printing room and the ink fell into words which fell into alphabetical order which then fell on top of each other and then a spine fell on it- and Voila, thats what made that book we're reading today. You have to admit you would think that person is crazy.
we all accept that lines have no beginning or no end
Do we now? Infinity can have a starting point and an ending point or just a known starting point. Just as there is an infinite amount of divisions we can make from point A to point B, or a vector can have an infinite magnitude yet stays anchored to a point in space, so we can have positive and negative infinity reaching from any arbitrarily determined point.
Numbers are imaginary, infinity and zero for that matter are abstract concepts.
but we are incapable of accepting an intelligent being who was never created.
Incapable or skeptical? I'd never be as bold as to state that it was outside of all realms of possibility, but it is not necessary to invoke a creator, especially when there is nothing tangible to link it to.
we willingly deny the existence of an all powerful being that always existed but we willingly accept the term infinity a number which never stops or lines which never stops moving
You can, if you had the time, sit and count from one and not stop counting, this is a fact, logically you can't deny it's possible.
You can't however show a being with a force that is unstoppable, an intellect that knows all, until we can make such observations, it can only be a hypothesis.
Finally I cannot believe in the big bang theory because an explosion cannot create order AT ALL!
You are referring to an explosion as the expansion of materials from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure, this is not the type of explosion that is referred to by physicists when describing the big bang.
Materials require matter, at the point of the singularity there was no matter, a sudden expansion of space-time "explosion" followed by the formation of the quark-gluon plasma from which matter was formed, there was no gravity, no time, no fundamental physical laws so the concept of an explosion as you highlight in your dictionary example is fallacious.
You have to admit you would think that person is crazy.
About as crazy as someone that tells me that the Universe has a creator, neither have anything with which to back up their claim.
Ignoring what you were disputing, I want to explain who or what created God/gods. we all learn at elementary school that lines go on forever, they literally have no beginning or end. In other words, it has no point of origin( that it was never created) or end( it will never seize to exist). We know that the lines we draw in our books are just representations of something we cannot really see( just like how watches represent periods of time and the sun and stars and seasons do the same). we all accept that lines have no beginning or no end
Once again, I was originally disputing KingK's "somthing can not come of nothing" statement. That statement must be applied in all situations, no? Thus, according to him, God must have had a creator.
we willingly deny the existence of an all powerful being that always existed but we willingly accept the term infinity a number which never stops or lines which never stops moving.
Infinity refers to anything that does not have a limit.
Finally I cannot believe in the big bang theory because an explosion cannot create order AT ALL!!
The Big Bang isn't even an explosion. It was a rapid expansion in a extremely hot and dense state.
We don't believe God had a beginning. He is the Creator, we are his creation. So nobody made God, he already existed. He is the beginning and he is the end.
If you are going the "origin of the origin" argument, then other swill redirect you to "what enabled god to exist"?
I'm guessing your argument will be "he always existed", and the response will be "why doesn't that work for the conditions for the big bang" and then nobody gets anywhere :P
It can't be true for the universe because the universe needs to be created by someone. If it wasn't created by anyone then we wouldn't be even alive here today, let alone even the universe/
The universe can't be eternal because of 5 things that I'm going to quote off from a website that I'll link below.
"1. The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).
2. The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.
3.The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.
4.Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
5. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”"
It can't be true for the universe because the universe needs to be created by someone. If it wasn't created by anyone then we wouldn't be even alive here today, let alone even the universe/
Why? There seems to be no objective rules regarding this, so I don't understand where you get this from.
"1. The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).
That is based on our very limited understanding of physics, which is, obviously, not predicated upon any level of omniscience.
2. The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.
See my previous response.
3.The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.
See my previous...I'm sensing a trend.
Basically, your responses confuse me. You point to science (almost all of which in this case points towards the big bang) whilst at the same time believing that the evidence is illegitimate for what they are claiming. Ultimately, when it comes to things such as "the beginning of existence", neither of us have any authority to declare what the rules are. For all we know, God exists but did indeed have a start, or the universe didn't. Taking such definitive stances on this confuses me greatly.
It can't be true for the universe because the universe needs to be created by someone. If it wasn't created by anyone then we wouldn't be even alive here today, let alone even the universe/
The universe can't be eternal because of 5 things that I'm going to quote off from a website that I'll link below.
It very much so can, it was created by dark matter and other forms of energy.
"1. The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).
Correct, that is why at one point the universe could be demolished, in a number of a few ways. One of the more popular is the Big Crunch. Where because of our universe's rapid expansion it will tear apart everything, atom by atom.
2. The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.
Indeed, this is why there is another theory known as the big bounce where while it's growing, it will begin to slow down, and at one point began to fall back onto us.
I believe that the energy caused by the destruction will cause another Big Bang which I also believe caused our Big Bang. Thus creating an endless universe.
3.The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.
I'm confused, are you an Agnostic, Theist, or Athiest?
Yes the radiation was caused by the Big Bang.
4.Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
Once again your just proving that the Big Bang did occur.
5. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”"
Yes but Einstein lived during the early 20th century. Before we had the majority of what we have now as far as science.
Does something come from nothing? Even if you believe the big bang theory, in order for the theory to work, you will have to accept that space was already self-existent. Matter occupies space, and particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons would also have to exist in order for the big bang to work. So given this who created space? And those particles? God!
Nobody knows, and nobody that knows what they are talking about says it does.
in order for the theory to work, you will have to accept that space was already self-existent
The theory teaches that space began in the singularity, not the other way around, space and time are co-dependent, and do not exist without each other, so at t=0 space does not exist.
Matter occupies space
Not always, what then is a vacuum.
, and particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons would also have to exist in order for the big bang to work.
How so?
So given this who created space?
Why does it have to be who?
God!
Where did he come from? How did he do it? What is he made of? Can something that exists outside of space and time create space and time? If he created space then he created time at the same time and is thus subject to the laws of space time.
How can you offer a hypothesis with such strong conviction without means to at least draw some form of mathematical conclusion?
This argument on science versus religion has not yet been adequately evaluated. Although science and religion clash in its various forms and stories (theories), science and religion can coexist and have done so for thousands of years. Sme of sciences greatest minds including Galileo and Copernicus were deeply religious people. I agree with one of galileos statements where he basically states that science is wonderful because it shows off gods greatest creations. I do believe in the bible and am Mormon Myself.
The big bang theory is full of people who are stating WHAT THEY THINK HAPPENED.
Correct. It's what they think happened based on all the evidence they found.
You don't seem to have any guesses, you are absolutely sure in your position. So, why you are so sure? How do you know that "God put us all on this planet?"
OK. So..... I'll assume you dont believe there is a God. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Simple Question = Simple Answer. So i'll put it like this:
1. Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
2. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end.
3. Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation.
4. Humankind’s inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
5. Don't you think its funny how God is not to be put in the field of science.
1. Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
Not all cultures, but yes, plenty. They have all believed lots of things they didn't have answers to. As we have learned more over time, we have found a vast majority of these people's beliefs to be incorrect.
2. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end.
There are hundreds of responses I could give to this, but lets go with this one: Didn't God create the entire universe, not just our planet? The earth takes up less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 % of the universe. Effectively, 100% of the universe cannot sustain life. We cannot survive there. How does that show that the universe was obviously designed for humans?
3. Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation.
I know! Isn't it exciting that we get to learn more and find out?
4. Humankind’s inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
Sure it can. The sense of 'right and wrong' that you are referring to pertains to things that make sense for a species to survive. Helping eachother is good, as it helps the species flourish. Hurting another human is bad, as it hurts survival. There are huge biological benefits to our sense of right and wrong. This sense, by the way, is one that differs from culture to culture.
5. Don't you think its funny how God is not to be put in the field of science.
Which particular God do you want in science? There are millions and billions to choose from.
1. Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
That's a mix of appeal to history and ad populum logical fallacy. Throughout history, most cultures in the world have believed many, many things which we don't believe now. The number and period of time which those beliefs were held does not give the belief itself any sort of legitimacy (or illegitimacy).
2. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end.
It only points to a deliberate designer if one believes in the existence of a designer. If one does not believe in the existence of a designer, then it points to a very complex natural system which created it. That said, which examples do you believe show God's design?
3. Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation.
Why not? Mere chance is an adequate explanation for an endless number of things, so why not this as well?
4. Humankind’s inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
It certainly can. We are social creatures who exist within tight knit social groups. This "inherent sense of right and wrong" (which I don't necessarily agree exists within the sense you are using) is the means of which we can coexist within said groups.
5. Don't you think its funny how God is not to be put in the field of science.
What do you mean? There are plenty of scientists who are theists.
1. Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.
Not in all cultures, also many of the cultures that have been convinced have been proven way wrong.
2. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end.
Indeed there are many complex designs that could have been created by a God, but the chances are remarkably low due to our recent discoveries.
3. Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation.
Why not? Mere chance explains why God wanted to make the earth out of boredom. He could have just as easily created a giant heavenly strip club. XD
4. Humankind’s inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.
It very much so can! Why is it that it seems that all of your arguement you made up as you go?
5. Don't you think its funny how God is not to be put in the field of science.
God is often put on the field of science. More often however, science points more toward Evolution.
If you're looking for real descriptions of things, your at the wrong debate. as you can see many people on the other side aren't really taking this seriously.
The belief that there was a super wizard dude who came from nothing, who made nothing magically explode for no reason, creating everything, which he arranged into complex life forms, who say there complexity requires creation, while at the same point forgetting that their deity is infinitely more complex.
Most of us either admit to having no idea about the origins of the universe, or go with the most likely option that there was no "start" to the universe, as time only exists within our universe.
please, get out of the stone age. It has been proven that the universe has a start. Atheists used this age old excuse for centuries before the big bang was conceived. Accept it.
This should be a Creationism V Big Bang Theory debate, not Christianity V Big Bang Theory, because they aren't mutually exclusive. And yes, I believe in the Big Bang Theory over Christianity, as it has logical evidence supporting it. Christianity does not.
I don't actually believe in either. I know that there is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang Theory but I find it so difficult to believe that the entire world came from nothing. I am aware how this is probably the most likely cause, but there are some things that the Big Bang theory does not explain, such as why particles actually exist. Causing a big explosion is one thing, but there are several other unanswered questions that neither theory can really explain. Therefore I have accepted that I do not know how the universe was created.
There is no belief behind a theory. You simply need to do more research. I mean, obviously a person can't know what the "big bang" is just from hearing about the name and a few details about how it was an explosion before time that made everything.
There is a LOT of math and physics behind it. I mean, people predicted black holes AGES before we actually saw any.
The Big Bang is a well explained theory with a lot of evidence, and a lot of ideas on how it could have started without a god or magic or anything.
Of course, without going back in time, it's impossible to actually see it, but based on evidence that exists today, we can piece together clues. If you want to try to have a decent understanding of how and why the universe exists, I would shift my brain in "80% acceptance" of the Big Bang, with room to learn and understand new concepts as more evidence is discovered.
-
Just on August 5th, we're sending a new probe to Mars, which will likely check to see if Mars has life on it. That would change a lot about what we know, giving even more clues about the universe. Perhaps unrelated to the Big Bang, but every bit of evidence helps.
To start with, this is all my personal belief and opinion.
-
I don't know if you read my debate. I didn't say that the Big Bang theory was wrong, at all. I didn't even imply that (if I did, it wasn't intentional)! All I said was that there "are things the Big Bang doesn't explain".
I am not opposed to the Big Bang theory at all, in fact. I said: "I am aware this is the most likely cause", and "I know there is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang"
The only thing I really said against it was that I found it hard to believe and that there are some things it doesn't explain: "I find it difficult to believe".
The Big Bang has more scientific evidence, and facts that support it. I mean really, what are you going to believe? A 2,000 year-old book, or scientific evidence?
I'm in my last year of highschool, I remember my teacher explaining to us in year 7 that the adam and eve story was just a way of explaining how everthing was made and that not many people still believed the story. But if one part of the bible was just a story, how do we know the rest isn't as well? Science is based on fact and proof, its not an opinion or belief, whether you choose to believe it is your opinion.
Science is a method to understand our universe. As science (methods) advance, so does our understanding. What I'm saying is that, all the "science" that existed 300 years ago, has been mainly built upon or disproved. What was accepted as fact then, is no longer today. All of which at that time, was based on fact and proof. With this in mind, how is this (past and present science) any more reliable than what the bible is saying?
Because science is able to be proven now rather than being thought to exist. Years ago many "facts" were simply guessed. Now we can prove our facts to be true with simple science. The bible however was written by men who believed in a god.
"facts", were treated as facts because it was based off the information that they had available. If they were simply guessed, they wouldn't be able to label them as facts. "The bible however was written by men who believed in a god." The bible has been here for an extremely long time, which science has yet to disprove.
"facts", were treated as facts because it was based off the information that they had available. If they were simply guessed, they wouldn't be able to label them as facts.
They were declared facts based on some objectively problematic methods. We now employ the scientific method, which is meant to prevent exactly that sort of thing.
The bible however was written by men who believed in a god." The bible has been here for an extremely long time, which science has yet to disprove.
There are plenty of things within the Bible that science has disproven. If you mean that science hasn't disproven that the Bible has existed for "an extremely long time" (a bit under 2000 years isn't an extremely long time by most historical comparisons) then I'm confused why you think they would try?
Because science is willing to admit when it is wrong, which gives the new findings more legitimacy. When one starts with claims that they refuse to admit might possibly be wrong, said claim tends to lack legitimacy next to claims that are willing to admit fallibility.
Ok people, this is a false dichotomy. I only have the Big Bang Theory because that is the only selection choose against the evil tyrant faith. The truth is that there is more that just two choices. The beginning could have been done by millions and millions of different extraterrestrial tribes from other universes.
Christians can believe in the big bang theory as well as atheists, and atheists don't have to believe in the big bang theory.
Right, so, evidence for the big bang. Hopefully you paid attention in high school science classes!
So, there's this thing called the doppler effect. The doppler effect is the perceived change in frequency caused by a wave emitter moving towards or away from the observer. When the emitter is moving towards you, the frequency of the waves becomes higher due to compression, and when the emitter is moving away from you, the frequency becomes lower, as the waves are being stretched out.
We can observe the light coming from our sun, and map on the visible light spectrum which segments are blocked by hydrogen particles in the sun. When we look at the same light coming from distant stars, we see that the light is what we call red shifted which means the frequency of the light being emitted by the stars is lower than it was when it left the stars. We know from this that everything is moving away from us, meaning that the universe is expanding. We can also observe that, the further away a star is, the more the light is red shifted. This means that the further away something is, the faster it is moving away from us, showing further proof for an expanding universe.
We know, thanks to the BVG theorem, that if the universe had a rate of expansion at any point greater than one, the expansion must have had a beginning. This beginning stems from what we call a singularity, which is something we have almost no understanding of.
We have also observed what is called cosmic background microwave radiation, which is everywhere. The only current explanation for the random energy dissipating throughout the entire universe is that it is left over energy from the original expansion seen in the big bang.
So, what evidence do you have for a static creation?
Don't forget the fact that all the galaxies are moving away from ours.
In several billion years, in the spot that the Earth is in now (within the Milky Way), you could look in all directions and it would be impossible to see another galaxy. A citizen in an artificial planet of the future (Earth would be incinerated by the Sun by then) would only know that other galaxies existed because of ancient books describing their movement. It might sound biblical, but no, there would also be plenty of photographic proof of galaxies as well.
In addition to substantial evidence, it also is pretty logically sound.
My biggest concern about it cannot be answered yet, so I'll wait to see if we change the Big Bang Theory a wee bit or of we gain new information and comprehension of it's exception. Either which science will do in time.
That's what is awesome about science, it's self-correcting.
The notion that everything came from nothing is an extremely common fallacy used by creationists to disprove the Big Bang Theory... The material that cause the Big Bang was always there, light elements like Hydrogen and Helium, (which commonly are found in stars). Also stating the Earth was created by God 6,000 years ago is asinine... Stars in our universe that we see at night we see them as they were millions of years ago because they are billions upon billions of years old and the light must travel and takes many years because the universe is so vast. The Bible also states that the Earth had light before the Sun was formed since the Sun was formed on the 4th day and light was present if the 1st we know this to be impossible and knowing the Sun is our source of light have disproven God's creation of the Universe
Nothing is literally nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. So, how did these materials exist if God did not create these materials? An event that was by accident or spontaneous (like the big bang theory - w/o gods help), has no intelligent design. With no intelligent design, nothing has any purpose at all. With no intelligent design, how do most humans throughout the world have similar moral compasses?
Nothing is literally nothing. Something cannot come from nothing.
Which means that God cannot be nothing, and therefore God had to come from something. Where?
An event that was by accident or spontaneous (like the big bang theory - w/o gods help), has no intelligent design.
There's a large number of people out there who believe that the Big Bang was simply God's method of creating the world. It would still be spontaneous, and for all we know it might have been an accident (unless you adhere to a more Christian concept of God which requires omniscience).
With no intelligent design, nothing has any purpose at all.
Even with intelligent design it's possible that nothing has a purpose (at least in your context).
With no intelligent design, how do most humans throughout the world have similar moral compasses?
Evolutionary psychology. Species that exist within social groups almost always have unofficial "rules" (see: Morals) that help dictate social norms and allow coexistence.
Your explanation of morals through Evolutionary psychology seems to be contradictory.
Actions of self interest are the motives through the evolutionary theory not moral actions. So, it would be hard to see that Evolutionary psychology could justify the establishment of morals. This is because the only "traits" that would have been passed down would have been traits to help survive, brutality, greed, and violence not things like mercy and compassion. During the evolutionary process, you would have been born attached with a social contract which would have only reinforced these IMMORAL act(s).
Your explanation of morals through Evolutionary psychology seems to be contradictory.
Actions of self interest are the motives through the evolutionary theory not moral actions.
That would only apply to species that don't exist within social groups. For those that exist within social groups, morals that are conducive to social interactions would be favored through evolution.
So, it would be hard to see that Evolutionary psychology could justify the establishment of morals.
See above.
This is because the only "traits" that would have been passed down would have been traits to help survive, brutality, greed, and violence not things like mercy and compassion.
For species that exist within social groups, positive "moral" traits would help them survive within the group.
During the evolutionary process, you would have been born attached with a social contract which would have only reinforced these IMMORAL act(s).
You are mistaking the Darwinian concept of evolutionary traits for non-group based species with, well, what I have explained above.
Again, through evolution you wouldn't just become part of a social group. You would have to establish one after you figured out how to survive, (favoring the negative traits discussed earlier.)
"Again, based on what? Survival is not predicated upon those traits. Many, MANY species survive without those traits."
Many species? Name 3 species that have such traits that one would be defined as "moral".Last time i checked, , only humans have this cognitive abilities to understand their actions in regards to morals.
I have already given you examples of ways in which Evolution does not fit your narrative, so I am looking for specifics.
Many species? Name 3 species that have such traits that one would be defined as "moral".Last time i checked, , only humans have this cognitive abilities to understand their actions in regards to morals.
See, there's your issue. Within the concept of evolutionary psychology, morals would be developed from group behavior. So within a troupe of chimpanzees, if one was to suddenly attack another violently, the group would react to the instigator with hostility. This sort of behavior would develop into the cognitive understanding of "You shouldn't attack your neighbor because it is wrong".
Forms of aggression (inflicting serious harm) throughout the primeapes are accepted and demonstrated by male genders. One example is pack dominance and obtaining the primary leadership as "alpha". If these " troupes " have moral capabilities through evolution and demonstrate moral capacity (as you claim) why do the females still mate with the alpha? If they were morally inclined they know they were supporting "immoral" behaviour.
Forms of aggression (inflicting serious harm) throughout the primeapes are accepted and demonstrated by male genders.
Only within very specific instances, such as the one you cited. Wanton violence, on the other hand, is not accepted.
If they were morally inclined they know they were supporting "immoral" behaviour.
I have already addressed this straw man of "morality" within primates (other than us), so please do not continue with this without addressing what I said. Such social regulations are what developed into morality. I have not claimed that primates themselves have moral codes.
You haven't proved anything. I'm saying social regulations with moral capacity, have been established through morals not evolution. If they were, we would see these moral actions through out "nature " ( acts of compassion and self sacrifice for the better good etc).
No other species mirror moral standards only evolutionary traits. Animals don't just develop or follow rules that serve no purpose.
I asked for you give an example, which has not been given.
You haven't proved anything. I'm saying social regulations with moral capacity, have been established through morals not evolution.
That is, in essence, saying "morals established through morals".
If they were, we would see these moral actions through out "nature " ( acts of compassion and self sacrifice for the better good etc).
No we wouldn't, unless they had sufficiently developed. One can see the foundation of something without saying it can only be real if you see the finished product.
No other species mirror moral standards only evolutionary traits. Animals don't just develop or follow rules that serve no purpose.
Of course they don't. Morals serve an evolutionary purpose, as do the social regulations they've been been developed from.
I asked for you give an example, which has not been given.
I gave you one that you clearly didn't like, due to an example that didn't actually counter it. So specify what kind of example you want and I'll provide one.
"No we wouldn't, unless they had sufficiently developed. One can see the foundation of something without saying it can only be real if you see the finished product."
This doesnt make any sense. Through the idea of evolution, humans were not the first to roam the land. Other species have been evolving for hundred of millions of years. Yet this isnt enough time? Should we go the moral capacity and progress they have in their "social groups"? How about goblin sharks, they've been around for about 118 million years, they MUST have an morals. Or is this "not enough time"? How about the horse shoe crab, they've been around for 445 million years.
"I gave you one that you clearly didn't like, due to an example that didn't actually counter it. So specify what kind of example you want and I'll provide one."
You did not. You provided a claim that apes (or other prime apes) "play nice most of the time"; which then you try to give these actions credit to moral standards.
"So specify what kind of example you want and I'll provide one."
No other species mirror moral standards only evolutionary traits. Animals don't just develop or follow rules that serve no purpose.
"Of course they don't. Morals serve an evolutionary purpose, as do the social regulations they've been been developed from."
I dont think you are able to provide an example. if anything, provide some links to what you're trying to claim. I dont mind reading.
This doesnt make any sense. Through the idea of evolution, humans were not the first to roam the land. Other species have been evolving for hundred of millions of years. Yet this isnt enough time? Should we go the moral capacity and progress they have in their "social groups"? How about goblin sharks, they've been around for about 118 million years, they MUST have an morals. Or is this "not enough time"? How about the horse shoe crab, they've been around for 445 million years.
You assume that species evolve for the same environments, within the same conditions, and for the same purposes. None of that is true, so the results will not be the same.
You did not. You provided a claim that apes (or other prime apes) "play nice most of the time"; which then you try to give these actions credit to moral standards.
I pointed out that Chimpanzees generally "play nice" amongst their social groups, which is a social regulation that can be seen as a foundation for our concept of morality.
No other species mirror moral standards only evolutionary traits. Animals don't just develop or follow rules that serve no purpose.
You keep repeating that without any purpose. Nobody is claiming that they follow rules that serve no purpose. Morals serve a purpose.
I dont think you are able to provide an example. if anything, provide some links to what you're trying to claim. I dont mind reading.
That's an extremely shallow take on it, but gives a few examples.
I think that, ultimately, a question needs to be asked before we go on: Are you a moral realist (do you believe that objective morals exist)? If so, then this conversation can't get anywhere because we would first need to discus the nature of what morals are.
