This conversation is closed.

did the big bang also create God?

the soup that all of this came from was created from nothing and if that is true then there was nothing before their was something and since we have no proof of why it happened it would have to be put down to happenstance.I am sure that my theory is too simple so if there is someone who can give me a better theory have at it

Closing Statement from arthur mitsias

there is a God not in the Universe but in us and this is something that has been nurtured in every culture and every culture thought they were the chosen ones and that they knew what God wanted,man gave God an ego and all we really want God to do is answer the questions that have been asked for countless eons ,why?and how? And as far as athiests and those that believe in God they have one thing in common moments of doubt

  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Your argument is based on an assumption that nothing existed before the big bang. That assumption is based on opinion, not fact.

    It is equally possible that the big bang is just one in a sequence of infinite big bangs that oscillate between expansion and contraction. That is also an opinion, but one that makes more sense to me than something out of nothing. On the other hand, if there was something before the big bang, it is beyond our ability to figure it out.

    As Murphy one said; an easily understood workable falsehood has more value than an incomprehensible truth. That being said, is God an easily understood workable falsehood? That depends on how you define it. There are many conceptions of God which are man-made. Any man-made conception of God is false. But is there a God that transcends any man-made conception?

    The church defines God as supreme being. Being means existence. It does not necessarily imply personage. That is what we have ascribed to the definition because of how we interpret Genesis; God created man in his own image, so we reverse this to signify that God must be in the image of a man. But that is not what it says, that is all we can figure out from the scripture. The idea that our creative ability is what makes us made in the image of the creator never seems to come into the argument. But if that were true, then the creator is that which is doing the creating, and may have nothing to do with what we imagine it to be.

    Quantum fields are what is doing the creating. They are everywhere and they are invisible. If that is what God is, then it changes the whole argument. We know that religion has disputed science because of what it has come to believe. But such beliefs were built on definitions that were also man-made. We may come to conclude that the dispute is based on definitions that were never valid to begin with.
    • Jul 21 2012: Roy ,everything you wrote is theory,its just that some theories have a larger following and is excepted as"excuse the example"gospel.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2012: Arthur,
        You are correct. When the church divorced itself from science, it was a step in the wrong direction and it has only gotten worse with time. So how do we fix it?

        I have a sense for the word God that most people don't have, and the accepted definition doesn't fit what I have experienced. So I wrote a book.
        • Jul 23 2012: Religion is not science, and until religious beliefs become parallel to scientific knowledge without trying to jumble the facts around to fit their beliefs, religion should stay separate. But, that does not mean that religious people cannot be good scientists, just look at Ken Miller, the other 40% of the scientific community, and the other 7% of the advanced scientific community. But, since religion seems to conflict with science, a religious person doing science has to learn to set aside their religious beliefs and have faith that the truth will prevail.

          Religion has to realize that science isn't the enemy but instead their best friend, because it is their best chance at ever proving God. If God doesn't exist then there will be nothing that is explained with God that can't be explained with something else. But, if God does exist science will find him some day.

          My 2 cents.

          *edit BTW I would love to see them come back together, but it's going to take some creative thinking on science's part, and some evolution on religion's part (puns intended). In short science has to learn to think like non- scientists in order to communicate in a way that can be understood and resonates with people, and religion needs to learn the importance of evidence and accuracy.
  • Jul 17 2012: No.
    God was killed in the Big Bang

    Oddly enough, while everything was coming into Being or Being Created, the only thing that could die was God and that is what happened.
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2012: 1) We don't really know how the big bang occurred (if it occurred at all), we know something like it must have happened before we had the very dense state universe (near the beginning)...
    2) greatly depends on your definition of a god.
    I'd say yes, as I see any concept of god a figment of imagination, and as we humans are part of this universe, those figments are part of it as well. Ergo: gods are generated by our universe.
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2012: The big bang brought humanity into existence. Human beings battle with the fleeting nature of their existence so they create god in their image in order to feel immortal. God may or may not exist, but our vision of it, is certainly our own construction. All human visions of god are incredibly human centric : p
  • Jul 19 2012: I could never give a definite answer to this question without being intellectually dishonest. Nobody knows to a complete certainly that the big bang actually happened(although it makes sense on many levels to me). Nobody can absolutely say a God or Gods exist.

    If I were so inclined to give an answer to this question, I would have to say the big bang ultimately created humans which inevitably led to humans creating the idea of God. An innate desire for control seems to be attached to the human psyche. When humans couldn't understand why it rained or why people became afflicted with disease they used the idea of God to fill the gap of comprehension. By praying to this being one is attempting to exert his or her control over the seemingly random behavior of the universe. Religion is steeped in primitive superstition and reeks of human creation. Just read the bible or any holy text and it should stick out plainly to you that its myth and is meant to be a personal guide to peace of mind(with the bible it seems to be more of a guide to obedience and servitude towards the ruling class). Religion has evolved and is still evolving with all this quantum misuse and transparent justifications to continue ones belief. It seems very clear to me that man created God and not the other way around. On another note, if there is a God I would think it would be completely impossible to comprehend "it" and I see no point in wasting my time trying to understand the incomprehensible.
  • Jul 17 2012: Nope, humans created "God" after eons of anthropomorphizing nature and thus of making gods out of everything they could not understand.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2012: Hey Gabo, if humans created the concept of god, who, or what, created humans? I'm looking for the root cause of the concept of god. If humans are the result of natural selection over eons of time from a common ancestor then is the concept of god a detrimental trait that will eventually be eliminated by the stronger, more beneficial trait of atheism? If yes, is it ok if, in the mean time, some of us believe in God and the Holy Bible as absolute truth? You atheists are going to miss us when we are thrown on the evolutionary scrap heap.Surely you know you can't rush evolution. You know if there is no god then atheists serve no purpose, and if there is a God then atheists serve no purpose. Allow for faith Gabo. Be well-- Edward
      • Jul 18 2012: Hi Edward,

        I am all for your freedom to believe as you wish Edward. The only creationists that bother me are those with political and miseducational agendas.

        Humans are the result of eons of natural processes going on. Not a "creation," unless your definition (I know how specific you get with definitions) for "created" does not involve a "Creator."

        I don't think that the concept of gods is necessarily maladaptive. I do not think that it is adaptive either. I think it is just a secondary effect. Anthropomorphizing might have or not have an adaptive effect. But it might also be a secondary effect. If so, then gods are secondary effects of secondary effects of secondary effects. But the effects are not just biological but also cultural ... anyway, believing in your particular god and your particular Bible is not a trait. It is a cultural artifact, and thus it will be eliminated that way, with the progression of culture. People will keep believing in some gods for a good while, and biblical "absolute" truths, but you would not recognize such biblical truths as the ones you might stand for, just like Christians of yesterday would not recognize your biblical absolute truths allowing for our planet to move, or to be a sphere.

        Anyway, too much explaining without actually explaining a lot. Not a lot of what you were looking for, I guess.

        Good night my friend.
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2012: I think I get your point Edward re having no purpose.

          Perhaps if there were no theists people would not need to identify as atheists.

          There may not be any gods but that doesn't stop people believing.

          I wouldn't personally miss theism. One less thing to worry about that's all.

          Still concerned about poor educational standards but not about school chaplins or teaching theology and non science in public schools, arguing about gay rights based on the evidence not religious prejudice and beliefs, no more religious hang ups about contraception or equality of women, etc.

          But still plenty of human nature to put into other endeavours and idealogies.
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: Hi Edward, I guess from a scientific perspective, as far as we know life wasn't created.

        Abiogenesis is more speculative than evolution which is a essentially a proven scientific process.

        My understanding is current theories suggest the raw materials for life were created in one class of the first generation of stars. These converted some hydrogen and helium into all the elements we have on Earth via fusion.

        After these nova'd, the gas etc coalesced via gravity into a new generation of stars and planets.

        Amino acids, water, electricity etc are likely to have been present. We have found amino acids in meteorites.

        Not sure of the details, it was about 4 billion years ago, but it is suggested some sort of self replicating molecule formed, perhaps a precursor to RNA and DNA. Perhaps viruses formed next step, then bacteria, then multicelluar organisms etc.

        If we look at "life" there is a continuum from chemical compounds...
        to viruses (that are not quite life by most definitions)...
        then simple single cell organisms, Bacteria, Archaea....
        Then more complex single cells - Eukarya...
        then multicellular life fungus, plants, animals

        This is all around us today. There are many times more types of viruses and bacteria than animals. The tree of life for all to see.

        That's my layman understanding

        I suggest Atheists do not inherently have a purpose. It's just not having a belief in gods or goddesses.

        I support freedom of and from religion, within limits such as not harming others using religious freedom as an excuse. No issue with beliefs that do little harm other than they are probably false beliefs relying on faith rather than evidence and reason. Suggest some faith based beliefs are more harmful than others.

        While I guess the gradual demise or reduction of faith based beliefs will be a positive thing, I don't see religion going anywhere fast. In fact I expect a backlash of fundamentalism. Basing life on fact is probably better than fiction.
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2012: We do not agree that evolution is proven, but we do agree that basing life on fact is better than basing it on fiction, or on theories. Much of science is fact, but much of science is also unproven theory. Time will tell which view is fact and which is not. It seems right for us to respect the view of those who see it differently than we do. I stand corrected on my statement about atheists having no purpose. I should have said ATHEISM has no purpose if there is no god, nor does it have a purpose if there is a God. Thank you!
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: Edward what is it about evolution that makes you think it isn't proven yet?
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2012: 1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
          2.How did the DNA code originate?
          3.How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
          4.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
          5.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
          6.How did multi-cellular life originate?
          7.How did sex originate?
          8.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
          9.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
          10.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: Ok I'm not qualified to talk on most of them but a few I can do.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils here's a long list of human evolution fossils. Every single fossil is a transitional form, so right now we ourselves are transitional forms. And also to expect paleontologists to find every fossil is unfair, firstly it's highly plausible not one of every species fossilised and two we're lucky to even have fossils. We've also got the transitional forms for, among many, the whale, the dolphin, the sloth, all marsupials, the turtle and tortoises, elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, birds, we truly have a lot of so called "missing links".
        Living fossils, well it's easy, if you work well in an environment you won't change.
        Evolution created morality, as different aspects of mentality suited survival, so a group of primates who cared for one another and worked together would fare much better than those who are solitary. This establishes social skills etc and these become refined etc etc, these skills are well observed in almost every primate and monkey species we know of today, even sympathy has been observed.
        http://evolution-101.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/why-did-sex-evolve.html
        Well to me the argument of design just goes right out the window when you actually consider us human beings. You can look at a cell and go wow isn't it incredible, but when you zoom out and see yourself you're pretty badly put together. Hay fever and solar urticaria are two examples of being allergic to 1) pollen and 2) the sun, what designer would make a species capable of being allergic to things they would normally encounter every day of their lives.
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2012: I hear you Stewart, I'm not qualified to talk on these issues either. So, lets just share our opinions as to the Big Bang/Expansion/Whatever creating God. I say "No". How say you?
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: I agree Edward, the big bang did not create a god.
      • Jul 18 2012: Hi Edward,

        Those are not reasons to doubt evolution, but questions you think have not being precisely answered. Some of these questions and misinformed (thus taken from creationist quackery, sorry to insist).

        1. Origin of life is not the same as evolution. Even if we knew nothing about the origin of life, our common ancestry with, say, chimps, would still be undeniably true.
        2. I don't know. But that's not a problem for evolution, but for the origin of the first life-form containing DNA. Again, not knowing this does not affect the facts.
        3. A huge proportion of those 3 billion letters of DNA are not instructions. Understanding how the instructions come from random mutations involves understanding the role of selection and reproduction.
        4. By steps.
        5. Because we understand how the combination of random mutations, selection, recombination and reproduction can solve problems and produce the appearance of design. Since that works, there is no need to call an imaginary being into the process.
        6. Unicellular, conglomerate of cells, some feel specialize, more cells specialize, multicellular organisms. (has happened more than once.)
        7. first recombination, then semi-separation of recombination "types," then hermaphroditism, then separation of gamete kinds into specific genders.
        8. Expected but missing? Nope, there are lots of intermediary fossils. Only there were not as many when Darwin wrote his book, but fossils do not appear frequently enough to have all the stories. Even then, we have enough to convince the most skeptic. As long as the skeptic is reasonable.
        9. They have not remained unchanged. They consist of descendants who can still be classified within the same as some ancient organism groups. But they are clearly different species to the fossil ones.
        10. "Blind" chemistry has a way of working that allowed for evolution, and such resulted in the capacity for those things. Not those exact things necessarily. Tendencies, yup.
        • thumb
          Jul 18 2012: Oh perfect! A microbiologist in a conversation about evolution. Thank you for assuming I understand anything you are saying about gametes, non-instructive DNA letters, etc. The question was put to me: "Edward what is it about evolution that makes you think it isn't proven yet?" My list of 10 things was offered as my answer. Evolution is not proven fact and scientists (particularly Atheist scientists) are guilty of acting as though it is fact. Plug your ears Gabo, I'm about to shout: EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT! Sorry I raised my voice. Peace out bro!
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: Edward everything you said was ok until your last comment on, "only a theory" to science a theory is a fact, gravity is a theory which incorporates the laws of gravity, germs are a theory, the heliocentric model is a theory. Just goggle scientific theory definition and you'll see why these are considered facts.
        And evolution does happen, we see it every day in bacteria . And it's ok if you personally don't think evolution happened, but if you're going to comment on it get your choice of words right, only a theory is not a good argument and shows a lack of understanding as to what a scientific theory is.
        Now ken miller a Christian fought in court to male sure ID was not taught in school and that evolution was a fact. We've got the fossils, we've got re DNA, we've seen it happen, if you refute this on the back of a bronze age book fine but only a theory is a real kick in the teeth for everyone who knows what is meant by a scientific theory
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Sorry about the kick in the teeth Stewart. I will evaluate your free advice on how to comment on something. I think your most clearly taught lesson is where you announce that a theory is the same as a fact. Disagreeing with me is no biggie, but how about some of these statements:Ed Pearlstein at http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html"A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence.. . theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another. . . A SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE WRONG [my emphasis], as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited. . .in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced."Here is another: http://en.mimi.hu/biology/theory.html"A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed. A THEORY IS NEVER A FACT [MY EMPHASIS], but instead is an attempt to explain one or more facts.And one more: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-theory.htmIn the sciences, theories are created after observation and testing. They are designed to rationally and clearly explain a phenomenon.. . . SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE NOT QUITE THE SAME THING AS FACTS [my emphasis], but they are often very similar;"Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact. Evolution is not a fact. Go argue definitions with others, my small mind is made-up. Thank you!
        • Jul 19 2012: Stewart,

          “Just want to evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life, that would be abiogenesis.”

          This is an important distinction to be made, but they really talk about the same thing in the sense the same chemical processes that are responsible for evolution (from abiogenesis to now), are the same chemical processes that are responsible for abiogenesis it’s self. Just as all these are governed by the laws of physics. I personally don’t see them as any different but it is a long and complex interaction that I really don’t think Edward is willing to study or accept, so:

          I made one simple distinction between the facts we have on evolution and circumstantial evidence that is left open to interpretation. Namely, since we do not know everything for all species, we cannot say uniformly that evolution governed all of the processes from abiogenesis until now, with certainty – which is why it’s still a theory. I do agree that with the mountain of evidence, it is ridiculous to think that evolution only governs some species and not others.

          “And saying until we have ALL the evidence then that's incredibly unfair.”

          But, never the less, it is what is required to no longer be a theory and to ignore that would be disingenuous. This really touches on the real issue. People are using the term “theory” as an argument to say that everything about evolution is false and unproven -- which is simply not true. Most of what we know about Darwinian evolution is fact, but people feel it is rational to not accept it because Darwinian evolution is still a "theory" as a whole and they believe in God.

          *edit, this may be a mistake on my part, but I was really trying to appeal to Edward's reason in order to help him understand and accept evolutionary facts.
        • Jul 19 2012: I have to admit, as much as I am really trying to appeal to people's lack of understanding, it is difficult because I'm attempting to get people to believe facts that they simply do not want to believe. But I continue to try because they are attempting to rob our future generations of a clear fact based education by polluting it with non scientific "appearances" with no directly supported facts.

          This is the problem religion brings to our societies, because they are taught that you don't need direct evidence to believe something as profound as a supreme being, and to ignore direct evidence that would contradict their circumstantial beliefs.
      • Jul 19 2012: "The theory of evolution by natural selection" is a "theory", of course so is "the theory of relativity" which is the foundation for many of the technologies we use every day (like GPS). But genetics is a fact, and genetics has proven evolution (just not "the theory of evolution by natural selection", though the genetic proof is strong evidence in its favor). Evolution is a fact, it does happen, we have solid genetic proof (which is why we don't call it "the theory of genetics").

        *edit, if you don't believe in evolution then get one flu shot in your life and never get another one (make sure to drink after everyone with the flu you come in contact with to prove things don't evolve).
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: We agree that genetics is a fact. We agree that relativity is a theory. We disagree that Darwinian evolution is a fact. Rather than discussing contagious illness as proof of evolution how about the question at hand? Do you think the Big Bang/Expansion/Whatever created god? I say it did not. What do you say? I suspect we agree on that too.Thank you!
      • Jul 19 2012: I didn't say that Darwinian evolution is a fact, I said evolution is a fact (they are closely related though). But, you are quite right we are off topic, sorry for the divergence. My post is below, I believe that the big bang led to the creation of god(s) :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: I apologize. So we agree that Darwinian evolution is not a fact. I apologize also for predicting that you would deny the existence of God, or gods and would therefore answer "no" to the question at hand. So we do not agree that the Big Whatever was a contributing cause to the creation of God, or gods. Are you saying that you believe God, or gods actually exist? Or are you speaking of just the concept of God, or gods?
      • Jul 19 2012: I believe that the concept of God(s) is very real in many people's minds -- just as real to them as you or me.
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Do you believe in the existence of an actual God, or gods?
      • Jul 19 2012: No.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 19 2012: Robert :

          Maybe the concept of God is real in our minds but it doesn't mean that God has no exterior existence .
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: And just because our ancestors imagined something and these evolved into the cultural religious belief systems we have now doesn't mean that gods and goddesses exist.

          Is there any compelling evidence for any particular god idea?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 19 2012: I don't claim there are evidence for a particular god idea , my point is that the lack of evidence should not suggest that god do not exist .
          More than this , I don't need this kind of evidence to have faith in god ; I have faith in the end , haven't I ? To want to have faith because of proofs is a contradiction .
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: E G a lack of evidence or being unverifiable is not a good reason to believe in something.

          There might be an invisible immaterial spiritual dragon living in my garage. Can't disprove it. It could be there. It's just as verifiable as an immaterial spiritual realm proposed by many theists.

          Not being able to prove a fantastic claim is not much of an argument in it's favour.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: " E G a lack of evidence or being unverifiable is not a good reason to believe in something." I didn't say the lack of evidence is a good reason to believe in something , I said that the lack of evidence should not suggest you to not believe , to be an unbeliever in the case of God ; this is exactly the opposite of what you think I said . If on this kind of confusions rest your atheism then is very sad .
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: E G, I'm firstly agreeing a lack of evidence is not proof against any claim.

          I'm also suggesting that a lack of evidence is problematic if claiming something is true.

          2 points.

          We can build on comments.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 22 2012: G M :

          I agree with you on your first , that's in fact what I tried to say .
          I agree with you on your suggestion generally but not in the case of God . A minimum understanding of the way you can know things can reveal you why I don't agree with in the case of God .
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2012: Hi E G, personal experiences and intuitive connections is one way people claim to know their idea of a god exists. They get a warm trance like feeling at church. They must be filled with the holy spirit or touched by Madak depending on your assumptions

          Please explain to me why you think evidence, science and reason should not apply to religion and personal experience if you are truly seeking to understand it and the truthfulness of the associated beliefs.

          If an accountant claims to be able to triple your retirement savings in a year if you just have faith, we are sceptical. If the bible claims a donkey talked and a man was born from a virgin should we not also be sceptical if we seek the truth?

          If people just want to take it on faith, fine. But it is good if they actually realise how subjective their religious or spiritual belief system is. Nice if they stop claiming to know the truth and forcing them on the rest of society as well unless they have a secular argument as well.
      • Jul 19 2012: But evolution is a fact beyond reasonable doubt Edward. Only not knowing and not understanding the facts, and what a theory is in science, would you rely so much in that single word. Look at your list of "reasons." Those are not reasons, those are questions. They show that it is lack of knowledge on your part that keeps you doubting. But I want to make an emphasis that I wanted you to understand from how puzzling the words and answers would have looked to you: it's easy to come up with particular questions about particular evolutionary histories, also about particulars of biology which are not evolution, and are still open questions (such as origin of life). It is much more work to go figure it out and understand the answers. Still, that you do not know the answers, and that we might not have studied or solved yet some particular histories, does not mean that evolution is false. It only means that we do not know those histories yet. Your questions are equivalent to denying that in order for us to be here our ancestors would have to have survived at least until reproductive age for us to be here. That I do not know the particular way in which they survived does not make the fact that they did false. That I might not know the particular day and circumstances in which they mated and produced the offspring leading to me does not mean that they didn't.
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Do you use the word "evolution" to mean Darwinian evolution? Or do you mean the process whereby physical variations (average height, weight, posture, muscle mass, etc,) occur within a species with the passage of time? The latter is a fact. The former is not. You have questions about the Holy Bible Gabo. Those questions ARE valid reasons for YOU to doubt the Holy Bible. It is the same with me and Darwin's theory. Do you believe the Big Bang/Expansion/Whatever created God?
      • Jul 19 2012: Keep in mind that evolution isn't just the variation of current traits, it's the development of entirely new traits as well (like the evolution of humans to have blue eyes, or the new flu virus each season). (I noticed you guys were still talking about it so I wanted to make that note).
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Agreed Robert. I don't doubt variations in eye color or virus composition. What I doubt is allopatric speciation; sympatric speciation; and peripatric speciation. Evolution does not cause one species to change into, or split to form, a new and different species. Thank you!
      • Jul 19 2012: "Evolution does not cause one species to change into, or split to form, a new and different species. "

        Actually it does, and that has been proven with genetics too. For example: genetics has proven that we came from apes by identifying the exact markers on our chromosome #2 where 2 chimpanzee chromosomes have been fused, which showed humans going from the 24 pairs of chromosomes that apes currently have to the 23 pairs that we currently have (edit, this is not speculation btw. it is cold hard fact).
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Sorry Robert. I do not accept similarity as proof of speciation. One tiny genetic difference indicates two different species. A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.1 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki2 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’2Specific examples of these differences include:1.Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.2.At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.33.While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’4 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order.
      • Jul 19 2012: "Sorry Robert. I do not accept similarity as proof of speciation."

        I realize that, facts don't require you to accept them. They aren't just similarities, some are identical to the same degree that human genes are identical.

        "1.Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation."

        This is not just a belief, it is a genetic fact. The exact genes, markers, and chromosomes have been identified.

        "2.At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.3
        3.While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’4 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpa"

        Yep we are a different species now, which means we have many genetic differences that go along with our similarities (similarities: "18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’"-- I actually didn't know it was still that many, WOW, that's amazing I'll have to double check that, "chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’" -- with "remodeled" being a deceptive word, but I know it helps your belief so I won't contest it because I don't believe your belief can be modified to accept these facts --still all of the processes that cause these have been proven by genetics whether you accept it or not).

        *edited to be more clear. Also, I just realized that I may have come off as rude here, that was not my intention; I apologize if I came off that way.
      • Jul 19 2012: The only reason Darwinian evolution is still a "theory" is because the theory takes on more than just the things that genetics has proven, it also takes on the origins of life on earth and every detail that comes with it. Genetically we can only prove large pieces of it, but not everything (so far). For Darwinian evolution to no longer be a theory we have to prove it down to its last most minute detail, which will require WAY more work lol. If Darwinian evolution were the picture of a puzzle and facts were the pieces, like a puzzle, the picture becomes clear before it is complete. Still, you can't call it complete until it's done.
        • thumb
          Jul 19 2012: Just want to evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life, that would be abiogenesis. You need life for evolution.
          There's this thing among people who disagree with science that really bugs me. They go along every single things scientists do and go wow that's incredible and wow that's inspiring and Oh I see how you came to that conclusion, then they come to something which disagrees with a bronze age book and instantly shut up shop. This has to infuriate scientists.
          And saying until we have ALL the evidence then that's incredibly unfair. This would be a creationists wet dream to say this, "until you find every species and detail the evolution of absolutely every animal and show me every fossil it's still a theory" You know no one expects scientists to produce this, it's an impossible task.And even though we've pretty much complete evolution tracts for whales, dolphins, turtles and humans among other things people just deny this. And further shows disregard for the actual meaning of a scientific theory. Remembering that gravity and germs "are just theories"
      • Jul 20 2012: Hi Edward,

        I use the word evolution for the fluctuations and adaptations with and without speciation. "Darwinian"? Well, I think we are well beyond Darwin now, but I guess you mean to ask if we share common ancestry with the other apes, in which case, that too. The processes that you accept, and the processes that you don;t accept.

        Now the huge question. You accept the smaller changes. Maybe as long as speciation does not happen. But we have observed speciation. For example, a species of lizard that had one subpopulation gone into a different habitat where their original meals (some insects), were scarce, and their evolution resulted in a vegetarian new species. With modified intestines proper for the diet. Anyway, maybe you will say that they are still lizards, but we as well are still great apes, we are still primates. Maybe you will try to make it look as if this is not the same, but then, what is the barrier that would make it impossible for the smallish changes to accumulate enough that long enough separated populations would diverge so much that you would not easily know that they share common ancestry? We scientists have not find such a barrier, and have found plenty of evidence that speciation has happened and continues to happen. Plenty that we share ancestry with the other apes, with the other primates, and so on. Plenty for the evolution of other organisms, such as whales from a land-dweling ancestor, long et cetera. So? Where is that barrier to continuous change that only creationists know about and that would invalidate such incredibly rich evidence?
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: I do not doubt you Gabo, or your sincerity. Non-scientists, especially creationists, as a class are not convinced. My information comes from scientists who are creationists. I listen to them and to evolutionists, both Darwinian and Neo. The barrier you ask about, for me, is the Holy Bible which is not a scientific book, but it does offer a non-self contradicting explanation of the cosmos when read with faith. Without faith it is foolishness, as you know. I know your class does not think very highly of it, but the Holy Bible is fundamentally important to creationists. There are too many unanswered questions for me to embrace an explanation of the cosmos that leaves out the Creator and sustainer of it all. Allow for faith bro. --Edward
    • Comment deleted

      • Jul 19 2012: Best to you Don.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: Don there's a big difference between something making you feel good and it being true.
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jul 19 2012: Gabo :
      "Nope, humans created "God" after eons of anthropomorphizing nature and thus of making gods out of everything they could not understand." by it you didn't say anything actually : maybe we anthropomorphized nature but it doesn't excludes the main claim that this God has reality whatever we think about Him and in this way wasn't created by Big Bang.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: E G, You are right. One of the billions of individual beliefs about some gods or goddesses could be correct. But not all of them. Maybe one of the extinct religions had it mostly right. Or all human interpretations could be completely wrong. There could be a billion gods in every atom or something no one has thought of.

        Or there may not be anything remotely like the gods and goddesses we have imagined. I propose if we can not distinguish there existence from non existence, we should just admit we don't know and move on.

        It seems most beliefs are learnt from culture and are not verifiable when it comes to key claims.

        Most gods are invisible these days. No great miracles these days. Just tenuous personal experiences that most likely are human psychology, delusions, and speculative interpretations.

        Nothing concrete to point to any specific gods or goddesses.

        Just questions answered with a bigger question.

        There may be some supernatural intelligences that existed before the big bang. Seems we have no idea. Seems they don't do anything tangible and are intangible themselves. So if they exist they don't seem to want to be known or are unknowable.

        In fact it is hard to separate the billions of god/goddess beliefs from each other. They appear to be cultural constructs. Nothing that indicates any of them are actually anything more than human imaginings. So why invest in the idea of gods and goddesses or other beliefs with no compelling evidence - astrology etc.

        Faith and speculation versus scepticism and critical thinking.

        If there is no evidence for interventionist gods, if there is nothing to indicate non interventionist gods, then we can not distinguish them existing from not existing. They might as well not exist even if they do.

        There are infinite ideas that might exist, but have no evidence, so why bother?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 19 2012: GM :
          It is obviously you can't think it's logical to exist more different views on a religion , or more religions ; this is a naivety , I don't know what else to say because you didn't actually explain how the fact of more religions at the same time suggest that they all are delusions .
          You seem to try to point something in this sense like : " It seems most beliefs are learnt from culture and are not verifiable when it comes to key claims." but it doesn't support exactly your thinking :
          - yes , the religions are part of cultures but I'm sure that you can think logically at different cultures , why can't you at religions ? (not consistent)
          - different views , religions can be valuable and true up to some degree without being need to verify them . So why don't you think that more religions means they are delusions ?

          Also : it's right the gods are invisible , it's also right that many so called religious experiences are delusions but why couldn't exist and be true more religions ?

          "Faith and speculation versus scepticism and critical thinking." I guess this the dichotomy on which anything rest upon for you : a false dichotomy many times .


          So far you have no evidence on your part why would the fact of more religions mean that the religions are delusions . So where is your critical thinking and the 10 times more data known ? Again not consistent

          "There are infinite ideas that might exist, but have no evidence, so why bother?" If that ideas are known by us (this is our case ) we should bother because : they are valuable, they are part of our culture as you said , you don't bother of cultures ? I guess you don't agree with the art universities ......... and many other reasons .


          (I didn't answered to anything you wrote but I think I'm conclusive enough resuming at only what I wrote ).
      • Jul 19 2012: hello again EG :-)

        "Maybe the concept of God is real in our minds but it doesn't mean that God has no exterior existence ."

        Correct, currently God can be neither proven nor disproven, so it is left open to people's imaginations whether or not they want to believe it. My personal belief is that the ever receding evidence turning into metaphor strongly suggests that humans made him up (most likely to give people hope, and a cultural moral standard -- a noble cause).
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 19 2012: Hi Robert :
          "My personal belief is that the ever receding evidence turning into metaphor strongly suggests that humans made him up (most likely to give people hope, and a cultural moral standard -- a noble cause)." there must be a confusion somewhere I suppose ; I rationally don't think the humans made God up , it is possible .
      • Jul 19 2012: EG,

        -"I don't claim there are evidence for a particular god idea , my point is that the lack of evidence should not suggest that god do not exist . "
        -"To want to have faith because of proofs is a contradiction"

        You talk about "evidence" then you say "proof". Evidence isn't always a proof, because some evidence is direct and some is circumstantial. It is not a contradiction to want evidence to have faith; it is only a contradiction to require proof. Furthermore as an intelligent being it is irresponsible to not want evidence to believe something; blind faith is simply unnecessary.

        Note: I don’t believe anyone just believes blindly, everyone has accepted something as evidence for their belief -- even if it’s just the belief itself. Some people just require more evidence than others, and there is no direct evidence of God -- leaving the possibility that God is made up. If we had the same evidence for God as we have for evolution, I might believe it “hook, line, and sinker” (of course I would also have quite a lot of questions, and would ask him to show me some cool tricks :-P).

        I.D. tries to use this to confirm their belief (which was an interesting approach), but this idea has been shown to be a list of simple misinterpretations of biology by some people who believe in God – note that most people who believe in God also recognize that evolution is a fact. I.D.’s arguments and predictions have been disproven now, even if believers don't accept it (like: we now know that “blind” chemistry can produce complex self-replicating molecules, the human immune system has been completely explained through evolution, as has the chromosomal differences between apes and humans, neurology and chemistry have shown morality to be a result of chemical processes -- generally involving oxytocin, and so on).

        I know that was a tangent, but it is relevant to my point.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 19 2012: Robert :

          Perhaps you're right , in my mind the difference between evidence and proof is very vague , if there is one , so what is it more exactly ?
          Blind faith , you seem to think that blind faith means to believe without any reason even though you acknowledged this doesn't happen , this is not what blind faith means , it means to believe without evidences or proofs (as long as they aren't different) . Also you seem here to think evidence=reasons ; so what exactly is an evidence different of a proof ? because proofs are reasons too .

          " Some people just require more evidence than others , and there is no direct evidence of God " as long as you claim a difference between proofs and evidences I cannot understand what you meant by it ; if they are the same I can say that to require proof about God is not a wise thing to do .

          Also you talk about evidence for evolution , as much as I know the evolution is supposed to be a fact=something proved , so what is the difference between a proof and an evidence?

          ( I don't know if our change will continue , I hope it will , and if it will I want you to know we cannot do it more than maximum 2 times per day, and not the all days ; the time is not on my side) . Anyway thanks for you time so far .
      • Jul 19 2012: Eduard,

        Apparently other readers understood quite well what I said. But thanks for sharing your opinion about it.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: I wouldn't say they understood quite well what you said even so apparently , they rather have the same belief like you : that God doesn't exist . But I agree 'my opinion' it's not exactly a reason against yours ( as you just said before you don't know if God exist and you don't have any reasons to believe , that's why you accept that explanations about how we got to believe in God and that's why also my comment to your post is not a a reason against your perception -- you just don't care as long as you don't have reasons to care about such an existence as described by me there) .
          I guess I shouldn't have commented but if their thinking don't worries you then you have a problem .
      • Jul 19 2012: “Blind faith , you seem to think that blind faith means to believe without any reason even though you acknowledged this doesn't happen , this is not what blind faith means , it means to believe without evidences or proofs”

        I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe something without some reason (reason is what is done when people sort through evidence/information be it emotional “I feel like it’s true”, or visual “I perceived something visually that I think is true”, etc.). In order to have faith in something you have to have knowledge of it first, and simply knowing about it means your mind processed it in some manner. Maybe I would prefer it if blind faith were called: reason that need’s no more than one single piece of indirect evidence/information. Of course blind faith does sound better lol. I just wanted to point out the way I see it.

        “Also you seem here to think evidence=reasons ; so what exactly is an evidence different of a proof ? because proofs are reasons too .”

        As defined by Google: Proof - Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

        Reason is a type of argument, and evidence can establish (if it is direct evidence) or help to establish (with circumstantial evidence or conjecture) a fact or the truth of a statement. So direct evidence is a proof, where circumstantial evidence or conjecture is not (but can be used to try to create what someone might accept as a proof).

        This is why evidence is so valuable, because it appeals to reason.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: Everything appeals to reason , both proofs and evidences ; I'm afraid you're still vague : according to google definition evidence and proof are the same , however you seem to make distinction between two types of evidence : circumstantial and direct evidence and also you seem to think that only the direct evidence is proof . So more exactly what to understand ? and please take notice also of the following :
          Circumstantial according to you : which help to establish a fact by establishing something else first , in other words for that 'something else' , circumstantial evidence is a proof according to you ; however it's not . Very vague .

          But even if by wonder I understand what you said I don't think you're right to warn me : "You talk about "evidence" then you say "proof" " because according to yourself evidence and proofs do not differ at all in their content , in their meaning but only in the way we relate them to different objects .

          Maybe it sounds tough but I'd like you to not be bound by it . (by the way this expression 'to not be bound by ' has the meaning I give to it ? frankly , I have no idea ) .
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: Here you go again E G with your obnoxious commentary on peoples comments and ideas.

          This seems to be typical response to anyone who disagrees with you or makes a point building on previous comments.

          Re: evidence/proofs for having faith is a contradiction. I'm satisfied if theists recognise their core spiritual or religious beliefs come down to faith in something without evidence and then reflect on the validity of their these beliefs.

          I personally don't find faith in something without evidence a compelling argument for the beliefs. Before you say you didn't claim that, I'm not claiming you did. I'm just making an observation.

          Theist belief is wide and varied. Some would argue there is evidence for this or that god.
          My comments range beyond your narrow point of view in a particular comment. If you not handle that, too bad.

          Do you really need me to point out examples where different religious and spiritual beliefs conflict? Creation stories, moral laws, who is god, Zeus, Baal, Jesus, Shiva etc. Do all Muslims believe the same things, have the same dogma, as each other, or Christians or Jews, or Buddhists etc. No they don't.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 22 2012: G M , maybe my way of talking English is obnoxious but it doesn't mean I wasn't logical answering to what you said . That was simple : relaying on your examples I proved that the existence of more different conflicting opinions doesn't mean that opinions are delusions but rather it means that the opinions are more or less correct . Did you understand it ? You keep an weird silence about that comments . Maybe you build on previous comments but I answered to them too by what I said there .

          " I'm satisfied if theists recognize .... " at least we can agree on this . But if you pretend to be rational don't just say your opinion, argue it -- why don't you find faith without evidence an argument for the belief when you know that the existence of such evidence would be a contradiction ?

          "Do you really need me to point out examples where different religious and spiritual beliefs conflict?" yes , especially now when I know what kind of conflicting claims you seem to think at . More exactly what are they ?


          "My comments range beyond your narrow point of view in a particular comment." I can't imagine how you do it rationally when according to a single point of view you are irrational .
      • Jul 19 2012: *continued

        “I can say that to require proof about God is not a wise thing to do .”

        That’s a very interesting statement; I would like to hear more.

        “Also you talk about evidence for evolution, as much as I know the evolution is supposed to be a fact=something proved, so what is the difference between a proof and an evidence?”

        That is true, evolution is a fact that has been proven with direct evidence (I just used evolution because it has been the topic of a discussion in this thread). This was more of an exercise on the value of evidence for truth. And since God is considered a truth to some, then evidence must follow. This is part of my “blind” faith issue – basically this says that someone’s mind, who believes in God had to go through at least one process in order to arrive at faith.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: "That’s a very interesting statement; I would like to hear more." If we agree for the sake of simplicity at least that evidence and proof are the same , it's not hard to know why I said that , for a certain God (the one we seem to talk about) evidence/proofs are not possible to be transmitted , maybe they exist , but it's kind of impossible to share them with the others . There is an explanation for this .

          Well, I don't think you're thinking is right when you compare God with the evolution theory : 'evolution is considered a fact, a truth , it's proven then if God is considered a truth it has to be proven too ' -- you just can't prove some things in the way you prove the others , so what you said rest on an assumption , can you prove this assumption ? that from the idea of God=a truth should follow evidences , proofs ?

          Let's not use the idea of blind faith , it's quite confusing , let's use the idea of faith , simple faith , I think it cover anything you said .
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Hi EG, I couldn't respond under your last comment.

        Conflicting claims can not all be correct.

        To Muslims Jesus was a normal man, a prophet of Allah. To many Christians he is part of a triune godhead. Not sure what the non Christian Jews thought, but probably not god or their messiah To me just a man. They can not all be correct.

        Was Jesus born of a virgin or not? Can not be both.

        Are there no gods, only one goddess, many gods? Are human god interpretations a cultural delusion or imperfect glimpses of something divine. Can not all be correct in all details.

        That seems straight forward logic
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: GM :

          You first time said that more different religions cannot be all true thus they are delusions ; after I asked you why and I showed you that what you said in the support of your claim is nonsensical , you go a bit further and say that only the different religions which are conflicting are delusions -- to justify it you tell me a formula which seems to you straight froward logic : "Conflicting claims can not all be correct." most of the times it could be so .
          I would like to see that conflicting religions , until then all you said is just something said , nothing interesting .
          You seem to try to give some examples : Jesus for some was a prophet , for some others only a man , for some others a god , for some others a man-god . They can't be all true , I guess they can't but even so your straight forward logic should warn you that Jesus remains Jesus whatever everybody says about Him , in other words you didn't prove He is a delusion (thus the religion which rest on Him) but proved that what is said about Him is likely to be a delusion . So nothing interesting so far : your straight forward logic is not so straight forward in the end .
          "Was Jesus born of a virgin or not? Can not be both" But He was born , right ? the same thing like above .

          "Are there no gods, only one goddess, many gods? Are human god interpretations a cultural delusion or imperfect glimpses of something divine. Can not all be correct in all details." The same thing here , it doesn't mean that God is a delusion , so it is a pretty good start for many other views which will gonna be part of cultures......... and so on.... .

          Summarizing : your claim that the religions are delusions because they are different and conflicting has no support . In fact the contrary seems true : the religions rest on something which isn't a delusion thus being (the religions) more or less correct .
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: E G faith in something without compelling evidence is not a strong argument for the belief to be real.

        There is no reason why there needs to be more compelling evidence for gods. They may exist but be elusive.

        However, it is reasonable to ask if there are real interventionist gods that wanted us to worship them, and had rules that would put us in hell for eternity, as per many belief systems, wouldn't they be more consistent and have a little more evidence.

        Not making any claims to know absolute truth.

        Additionally, all the different conflicting theists beliefs throughout human history can not all be correct. I suggest this reflects that there is no evidence to indicate what is true so this enables everyone to make up their own subjective intuitive view.

        Just pointing out this jumble of conflicting beliefs not based on compelling evidence is not a great case for the existence of some specific deities, even if there is no proof for it.

        I suggest the burden of proof is on those claiming to know their idea of god(s) exist.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: "E G faith in something without compelling evidence is not a strong argument for the belief to be real." I repeat what I said above : I didn't say that the lack of evidence for God is an argument to believe in God but exactly the opposite . Also to ask evidence/proofs for having faith is a contradiction . You're thinking is very weak so far .

          Ask yourself what you want only be careful to ask some rational questions ; conflicting theistic beliefs , give examples , prove you know what you're talking about not like above .

          So your conclusion I point out to a jumble of conflicting beliefs without basing myself on proofs/evidence is just not about me . I suggest you to answer to my comments when you write to me and it will be better if you'll do it with a real straight forward logic .
      • Jul 20 2012: EG,

        “Circumstantial according to you : which help to establish a fact by establishing something else first , in other words for that 'something else' , circumstantial evidence is a proof according to you ; however it's not . Very vague .”

        Circumstantial evidence can “help” to establish, which means it can’t directly establish it on its own. However, I acknowledged that some people accept circumstantial evidence as enough (including but not limited to believers in God).

        “because according to yourself evidence and proofs do not differ at all in their content , in their meaning but only in the way we relate them to different objects .”

        But they do differ and that is exactly what I said in my original statement: “direct evidence is a proof, where circumstantial evidence or conjecture is not”. Since there is only circumstantial evidence for God, when you said, “I don't claim there are evidence for a particular god idea , my point is that the lack of evidence should not suggest that god do not exist .” The only kind of evidence for you to talk here is circumstantial about and therefor the evidence you would be speaking about is the same as proof. That’s why I made the distinction.

        “If we agree for the sake of simplicity at least that evidence and proof are the same”

        I do not agree that evidence is proof in this case, for the reasons stated above.

        “it's not hard to know why I said that , for a certain God (the one we seem to talk about) evidence/proofs are not possible to be transmitted , maybe they exist , but it's kind of impossible to share them with the others . There is an explanation for this .”

        I’m really just trying to understand the mind of someone who believes in God more, so I ask: why is it not possible to be transmitted, or impossible to share. What do you mean by transmitted here? Do you mean “shown in the physical world including ones thoughts and mind”, or do you mean “shared from person to person”, or do you mean something else entirely?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: Robert :

          Nope , it doesn't fit , the words itself :circumstantial and direct, are about the way you relate the evidence to objects .
          " Circumstantial evidence can “help” to establish, which means it can’t directly establish it on its own" what is that 'it' ? 'the fact' or 'the something else' ? none of them should be in order for you to make sense but that is impossible .
          Didn't you say that the circumstantial help to establish a fact ? then how could do it if not by establishing something else first in other words by being direct evidence . It's obvious that circumstantial and direct are relative concepts . And if so your distinction is useless .
          So , no you didn't answer so far to my objections and everything is still vague .

          I mean 'shared from person to person ' and 'shown in the physical world' and maybe many other things . There is an entire web of ideas about it .
      • Jul 20 2012: *continued

        “Well, I don't think you're thinking is right when you compare God with the evolution theory : 'evolution is considered a fact, a truth , it's proven then if God is considered a truth it has to be proven too '”

        I accept that for people who believe in God, to them it is a truth, I just don’t understand why because in our physical world it is not a truth (Tell me if I need to explain this distinction more because at face value I understand this might seem to contradict). I do have my own ideas on this matter which are supported by neurology and cognitive psychology, but I would like to hear what the believer believes the truth of God is so I can better understand the point of view.

        “you just can't prove some things in the way you prove the others , so what you said rest on an assumption , can you prove this assumption ? that from the idea of God=a truth should follow evidences , proofs ?”

        I'll try and put it a bit differently. Since in order to believe in God, or have faith in God, you have to have some knowledge if the idea. You can’t have an idea without your mind knowing about it. When your mind knows about something it means it chemically processed it. The act of processing it requires reason (aka sorting and filing the information). And all information is evidence of something. So, in respect to this what information leads to faith?
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: Yes you can put questions if you want to know different views , I don't have a problem with it .

          Well, it is not clear what you said , I'll try to make a bit of light : - I guess it's right you can't have the idea without your mind knowing it but it's not all the time right you need to 'sort and fill' the information in order to know the information -- only the complex information need sorted , the direct and simple one do not needs this . If that about God are direct and simple , does it mean we can reason any more with them ? of course not (this follows from what you said if reason= processing the information in the way you talk about).
          Also , this sorting and filling is not the same with reasoning in the sense we usually talk about it ; here we talk about reasoning after we already have what to reason with . Do not confuse the inner processes of mind with the processes of mind which lead to evidence (what we call usually reasoning) ; and about this I asked you to prove your assumption .
      • Jul 20 2012: EG,

        “Didn't you say that the circumstantial help to establish a fact ? then how could do it if not by establishing something else first in other words by being direct evidence .”

        The way the circumstantial evidence might help is: if someone wants to "try" and use it to "persuade" someone of something. Because it is not directly related it is not a proof. It may be directly related to something else and therefor direct evidence of something else. But, since that something else is not what is attempted to be proved then it is circumstantial evidence.

        Consider this:

        lets say A is direct evidence for B, and A is circumstantial evidence for C. Then A directly proves B but not C. Now, let’s say someone claims that B and C are related somehow; then they might attempt to apply the direct evidence for B (which is A) to make claims about C in some way -- but it does not prove C.

        Now let’s say C is God:

        If someone believes in God, they might have the motive to use A in an attempt to prove C. This causes problems because: since God does not exist, they can never explain something with God that can’t be explained with something else.
      • Jul 20 2012: “Yes you can put questions if you want to know different views , I don't have a problem with it .”

        Here is my first question: “what information leads to faith?” and I will try to make information processing more clear with some of the following responses to:

        “it's not all the time right you need to 'sort and fill' the information in order to know the information -- only the complex information need sorted , the direct and simple one do not needs this .”

        This is not true, all information, no matter how complex is sorted and processed with the brain. When we sort and file information in our brains we do it by means of Schema.

        “If that about God are direct and simple , does it mean we can reason any more with them ? of course not”

        It’s not about reasoning more or less (yet), right now it’s just about acknowledging that you must reason to some degree as long as there is information processed (because you form schema with and around it).

        “Also , this sorting and filling is not the same with reasoning in the sense we usually talk about it ; here we talk about reasoning after we already have what to reason with . Do not confuse the inner processes of mind with the processes of mind which lead to evidence (what we call usually reasoning)”

        It is the same though, maybe not to the same extent, but the same none the less.

        “and about this I asked you to prove your assumption .”

        I did, let me restate more simply: direct evidence is a proof. Circumstantial evidence is not. They are both evidence, but they are not both proof – that is why the distinction is important.
      • Jul 20 2012: *Continued

        I think the confusion for you might be in my recognition that some people have a habit of accepting circumstantial evidence alone as proof, which it isn’t. But, it can help people understand the world around direct evidence – if they have any.

        This can be described in much detail if you still don’t understand (but I did explain it rather thoroughly in the A, B, C explanation – I hope that covers it), just let me know exactly where you don’t understand (if you still don’t), and I will see what I can do for you. I also think the language barrier may be causing some of the problems we are having with this.

        If this is not what you meant by my “assumption”, then please restate it so I will better know what you are referring to.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 20 2012: better be more careful Robert ,I come back tommorrow
      • Jul 20 2012: K, goodnight and thanks for your time :-)
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 21 2012: All you said does not value too much ; I don't usually talk so gentle , I should say all you said is either what I said (you repeated me) or nonsense .
          I resume at showing your contradictions :

          1 . You said that proof are evidence and nothing more (using the google definition ) ; after this by breaking the concept of evidence in two parts you said that only the direct evidence are proofs not that the all evidence as the google definition says ; however you used that definition to make your point . (not consistent) .
          2. Circumstantial evidence according to 'you' are direct evidence to something else ( you repeated me here ) , in other words it's just a matter of naming or some relative concepts : 'the circumstantial' or ' the direct' -- from it follows obviously that every evidence is both circumstantial and direct . So your breaking in the way you did it does not make any sense .
          3. In order for your observation to my comment to make sense (if by absurd your difference make sense) the difference between evidence and proof should be in content , in meaning , not in the way we relate them to objects or which is the same thing, in the way we label the evidence ; there should be a substantial difference which doesn't exist anyway . So again you are talking nonsense .
          Put a bit of sense in your distinction if you want it to be really important.
          4. You said that the all information is sorted with the brain , thinking that in this way you answer to what I said that ' the direct and simple one do not needs this' , but you didn't because you didn't understand what I was talking about -- the direct information do not need to be sorted intrinsically because it's direct not complex , I talk about an inner process of the mind , you confused it with another (they differ by their objects and direction of application ) .
          5. That's why I said they are different and not the same ( right above at the end of the 4 ).
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 21 2012: It's right though you can say this :'It is the same though, maybe not to the same extent, but the same none the less' , this being the single thing which make a bit of sense form all you said .

          6. You assumption is not solved by showing to the inner processes of the mind , because not every process of the mind leads to that evidence you ask for . To get that evidence it's required hard work , conscious work while the inner processes of the mind are done mostly unconscious , and not that 'hard' .

          Note : There is a disease I found it at many guys here on TED : this guys think when we talk about a scientific theory that I don't accept the theory when I reject their claims ; this is a naivety . You seem to show a symptom of this disease : - you are very sure of yourself when you talk about Schema , for example . Be careful and before continuing the discussion you better solve your 6 contradictions logically .
      • Jul 21 2012: EG,

        1-3 “You said that proof are evidence and nothing more”

        I understand that is what you thing I said, but it is not. I really think that this is purely a problem of translation. I will say it again by quoting what I said, “As defined by Google: Proof - Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. Reason is a type of argument, and evidence can establish (if it is direct evidence) or help to establish (with circumstantial evidence or conjecture) a fact or the truth of a statement.”

        In your interpretation you missed the reason why “help” is in the definition. The reason why the Google definition does not say: “Proof - Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement” is because some evidence in not proof in and of its self (namely circumstantial evidence). Which is why they have this, “or helping to establish” in the statement. I’m not trying to be an ass, I’m just pointing out why the distinction needed to be noted – because there is an important difference in its application.

        “Circumstantial evidence according to 'you' are direct evidence to something else ( you repeated me here ) , in other words it's just a matter of naming or some relative concepts : 'the circumstantial' or ' the direct' -- from it follows obviously that every evidence is both circumstantial and direct . So your breaking in the way you did it does not make any sense .”

        I did repeat you here, and it’s because that is where it “clicked” with me why you were having a problem with this. In your original statement you talked about God and faith in God, and you exchanged the word "evidence" for the word "proof". When you are talking about one subject then a piece of that evidence cannot be both circumstantial and direct.
      • Jul 21 2012: *continued

        When you said: “In order for your observation to my comment to make sense… the difference between evidence and proof should be in content” you were exactly right, and your “content” was “God”. Since you were talking about God when you said “I don't claim there are evidence for a particular god idea, my point is that the lack of evidence should not suggest that god do not exist” the evidence is already labeled as "evidence with respect to God", and since we know that the evidence with respect to God is circumstantial, you couldn’t exchange “evidence” for “proof”, like you did in the statement that directly followed.

        This is why I talked about Blind faith. I knew this distinction might be confusing so I talked about how an Idea its self is circumstantial evidence, so that it’s actually not "no evidence" at all, it’s just circumstantial evidence. I understand that many people will just say "no evidence" and "no proof", this is fine because no evidence would imply "no proof" but not the other way around. It was meant to be a simple comment to make sure you understood the importance of the distinction, which now it seems you may not have.

        I assumed that this could be because maybe English wasn’t your first language and you were just making a simple mistake without knowing the importance of the distinction. I personally don’t know though, because I only know enough of another language to order a beer and find the bathroom lol (unless you include math ).

        There is no contradiction in what I am saying, but I do think we are having a problem with communication, because you keep saying the same things over and over, and so do I. So maybe neither one of us are really understanding what the other is saying. I believe I understand what you are saying, and I say that there is no contradiction. And, you believe you understand what I am saying, a say you believe there is a contradiction. I honestly don’t know how to help us communicate with each other better.
      • Jul 21 2012: **continued

        #4-6 “the direct information do not need to be sorted intrinsically because it's direct not complex”

        It does need to be sorted intrinsically, if for no other reason than storage and retrieval. It is the "inherent nature" of our brains to sort information, it receives electro-chemical stimuli and “makes sense of them” (it recognizes light, sound, touch, taste, smell, it processes emotion, it arranges and rearranges this information into patterns, etc.). In order to “know” that information is there you have to be able to sense and process it, and faith is a result of information of some kind.

        So, now might be a good time to answer my question, “what information leads to faith?” I will add to this: “why do you have faith?”, “what keeps you from not having faith?”, “why do some people have faith and other don’t?”. “Can you have faith without knowing it?” I have my own thoughts on these, but I would like to hear yours. I may have more questions once you answer, and I will try to be polite and not draw any conclusions during this conversation (I can’t promise that for future conversations, as I am highly skeptical).
      • Jul 21 2012: ***continued

        “You seem to show a symptom of this disease : - you are very sure of yourself when you talk about Schema , for example . Be careful and before continuing the discussion you better solve your 6 contradictions logically .”

        I see no contradiction to be solved, we simple have to arrive at an understanding. I have found many conversations where people might think that they are talking about different things, when really they have different concepts of the same thing in their minds. Simple concepts can become very complex if two people don’t understand each other. You seem like an intelligent person to me, and I have much confidence that in the end we will come to understand each other just like last time.

        Schema have been observed with MRIs in the repeating patterns that show specific thoughts. So much so, that you can tell what someone is thinking about (roughly) just by looking at their MRI – you can also tell if someone is lying with an MRI because the schema for lies are more elaborate than the ones for truth.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 22 2012: Robert :
          I'll try to be polite with you (polite as you understand this term , if I can) ; The single one who has here problem of translation or rather a problem of logic is you so far . It could happen because of my English , I understand English (intuitively very much) , there is a difference between understanding a language and using it .

          1. Google definition of proof :
          "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Maybe I missed the last part of it previously but it doesn't change even a little bit what I said , on the contrary it proves my point . Just look , I rewrite the definition in your terms , proof= direct evidence or circumstantial evidence . So it's obvious your contradiction.
          come on Robert : "The reason why the Google definition does not say: “Proof - Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement” is because some evidence in not proof in and of its self (namely circumstantial evidence)." how can you understand such a thing ? when it's obvious that in the definition of proof is included the circumstantial evidence .
          2. From the 1+ 'Circumstantial evidence according to 'you' are direct evidence to something else' results obviously that a piece of evidence is both circumstantial and direct generally talking . Now if we talk about a subject then that evidence remains both circumstantial and direct in general and also is circumstantial for that subject . So results obviously that proofs are evidence of any kind . So your observation do not make sense as long as it rest on that differentiation but just show the importance of an evidence or of another . Are we clear ?
          3. You didn't understand what I'm talking about here ; I'm not talking about God as content (it just disturbs you , let it away and thing only at evidence and proofs) , I'm talking about the content of evidence , give you an example : let's say and evidence is this : 1234 , then the content
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 22 2012: then the content of this evidence is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 , or all together or pairs of two or of three . Your distinction between evidence is not a distinction in the content , we agreed this but in order for your observation to make sense it should be . Understand what I'm talking about ?
          4. You didn't understand it either -- let's take an example of direct information and complex one :
          complex one : 1234
          direct one : 1 .
          To sort intrinsically could mean : - for the complex one : to understand the 1 , the 2 , the 3 , the 4 separately , and after this to understand them together or in pairs of two or three .
          - for the direct one : there is nothing to sort because 1 has a direct meaning to our mind . Am I clear enough ?
          Yes , it is the "inherent nature" of our brains to sort information and I gave you example of patterns ( the pairs ) .
          5. This was not so important and because you are far from understanding the rest I won't bring it up again .
          6. Am I right that that intrinsic process of the mind do not leads to evidence in the way we know them or in the way we can know them ? So just pointing to the inner process of the mind you don't solve your assumption (your assumption : that from believing in God should result evidence in the same way results from the evolution theory ) . It's right , this inner processes happens to everybody unconscious usually but it's need of more to lead to evidence .

          Please be really careful at this contradictions .

          I don't think it's a wise thing to answer to your questions right now but ... :

          “why do you have faith?”, “what keeps you from not having faith?”, I have faith because there is no powerful enough reason to determine me to don't have faith .

          “why do some people have faith and other don’t?” I can't answer you than generally --- because some people are different of the others in their living (I include here psycho living and anything).
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 22 2012: “Can you have faith without knowing it?” Yes , I think it's possible but I can't prove you it , I gonna need some materials .


          Robert , don't be superficial , we are rational people , aren't we ? we know what we're talking about , it's not only about reaching to an understanding , it's more because it is a rational talk.
      • Jul 22 2012: EG,

        “Just look , I rewrite the definition in your terms , proof= direct evidence or circumstantial evidence . So it's obvious your contradiction.”

        I know this “proof= direct evidence or circumstantial evidence” is what you think I’m saying, and I’ve been trying to tell you why that’s not right. I am not saying (and neither is the definition saying) proof = direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, what is being said is a series of qualifiers: proof = direct evidence, proof = direct evidence + circumstantial evidence, proof ≠circumstantial evidence (notice that circumstantial evidence in by its self in this last qualifier). So as long as direct evidence is involved you have proof, if there is no direct evidence involved you do not have proof. You can say proof = direct evidence “and” circumstantial evidence “together”, but you cannot say (and I am not saying, and neither is the definition saying) proof = direct evidence “or” circumstantial evidence, because that implies that circumstantial evidence is enough alone, which it isn’t. I hope this is more clear now.

        “Now if we talk about a subject then that evidence remains both circumstantial and direct in general and also is circumstantial for that subject . So results obviously that proofs are evidence of any kind .”

        No, if we talk about a subject it is either direct or circumstantial, not both. It can only be both when you are not talking about something specific. Since you were talking about God specifically, the subject was set and now the evidence is either direct or circumstantial, and in the case of God it is all known to be circumstantial -- which is why God can be neither proven nor disproven.

        “I'm not talking about God as content”

        Since you made God the subject of your statements, it was the apparent content with regard to “evidence”.
      • Jul 22 2012: *continued

        “complex one : 1234
        direct one : 1 .
        then the content of this evidence is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 , or all together or pairs of two or of three . Your distinction between evidence is not a distinction in the content”

        Yes but; it is not about the content of the evidence alone, it is also about the content of the statement. The content of your statement included evidence with regard to God. So, evidence { 1,2,3,4,…,n} would then be evidence with regard to God. Since, the evidence presented was represented by 1,2,3,4 I can say that it is known that 1,2,3,4 is all circumstantial evidence and therefor not proof. Which is why you can’t exchange the two words, if any of the known evidence was direct then exchanging the word evidence for the word proof would not be a problem.

        Just to reiterate my original claim: I agree that requiring proof is a contradiction to faith, but I did not agree that requiring evidence was; because circumstantial evidence is inherent since you have to know (in your mind) what you have faith about. Now, later in your next post you say that it might be possible to have faith without knowing it, I do not believe it is, but I really like the concept so I’m just going to let that one be “food for thought” :-).
      • Jul 22 2012: “To sort intrinsically could mean : - for the complex one : to understand the 1 , the 2 , the 3 , the 4 separately , and after this to understand them together or in pairs of two or three .
        - for the direct one : there is nothing to sort because 1 has a direct meaning to our mind . Am I clear enough ?”

        Almost. The direct one: 1, has to be sorted and filed too. For example: if you have a file and you want to file it away you first decide if the file has any similarity’s with anything else you are filing. If the case is that you are not filing anything else (i.e. it's alone) and/or it has no similarities with anything else (as in your direct one: 1) then you place it in a place by itself. Now let’s think about that file: so the file is all alone with nothing related to it, how do you know that? Because you reasoned that it was not related to anything or because you had nothing to relate it to. If the case is that you say you had nothing to relate it to (as in direct one: 1) you are not entirely correct; Because: how did you get the file? What is the file made of? What’s in the file? How heavy is the file? What’s the files length, width, depth? Whether you realize it or not your brain is inherently using everything is senses about the file along with all of the experiences (experiences are particularly relevant to ideas) tied to the file in order to reason through what should be done with the file.

        “Am I right that that intrinsic process of the mind do not leads to evidence in the way we know them or in the way we can know them ?”

        No, for the reasons stated above.
      • Jul 22 2012: “So just pointing to the inner process of the mind you don't solve your assumption (your assumption : that from believing in God should result evidence in the same way results from the evolution theory ) .”

        Believing in God and faith in God both result in and from the circumstantial evidence which is the idea of God itself.

        This point is made because: like the game “Katamari Damacy” The idea of God has just had circumstantial evidence stuck to it throughout a long history of believing in God(s). And Only until it is all unstuck will people start waking up to the importance of their being no direct evidence at the core. However, people have spent years their whole lives believing in this idea and trying to make it more believable that they have too much invested to really care to know what’s at the middle.

        ““why do you have faith?”, “what keeps you from not having faith?”, I have faith because there is no powerful enough reason to determine me to don't have faith .
        “why do some people have faith and other don’t?” I can't answer you than generally --- because some people are different of the others in their living (I include here psycho living and anything). “Can you have faith without knowing it?” Yes , I think it's possible but I can't prove you it , I gonna need some materials .”

        Thank you for answering the question for me E.G. I want you to know I really do appreciate it. I did not ask them to debate them, I really just wanted to know what your answers were. We can debate them some other time.

        “Robert , don't be superficial , we are rational people , aren't we ? we know what we're talking about , it's not only about reaching to an understanding , it's more because it is a rational talk.”

        It is about reaching an understanding though, even without a language barrier people don't always understand each other. But also your English isn’t always that great so I’m not always sure you know what I’m talking about, and/or that I know what you’re talking about.
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 23 2012: Robert :

          It's just unbelievable what you wrote , it goes beyond any normal logic .

          Why on earth from this simple definition of 'proof=direct or circumstantial evidence' would somebody understand your series of qualifiers ? Just go and ask 10 random people , you'll see it's impossible to understand that . More than this : you gave no reason why to understand by that definition that series of qualifiers , the single reason for that is " because that implies that circumstantial evidence is enough alone, which it isn’t" but this was what you were supposed to prove , why do you put it as a reason ?. Just read again your post . ......... it's just unbelievable .

          "No, if we talk about a subject it is either direct or circumstantial, not both." I lose any hope you can understand how it is possible to be both .

          "Since you made God the subject of your statements, it was the apparent content with regard to “evidence”." and "Yes but; it is not about the content of the evidence alone" ............ do you realize what you're saying ? I told you : let God aside , it's not about Him , it's about the evidence alone but you say : no , apparently it is about the subject of the statement and on this you rest your case as if I never said nothing; you just tell what I'm talking about to keep your point up ; if you knew what I'm talking about why the hell are you talking with me then?.................... it's just unbelievable .


          ". The direct one: 1, has to be sorted and filed too. For example: if you have a file ......" this take the pastry .... it's just unbelievable .... . Just look your reason :
          - 1 is a direct information , you say : that's right but a file is too and a file needs sorted and filled (even though you didn't understand even now what intrinsic means , you actually don't talk about intrinsic sorting so already your comment doesn't make any sense) therefore 1 needs too . It's not different than saying : a square is a geometrical figure bu
        • thumb

          E G

          • 0
          Jul 23 2012: but a trapeze is also a geometrical figure and a trapeze has no more than two right angles therefore a square has no more than two right angles ........ it's just unbelievable , I just don't have words to .... unbelievable !!!!!

          Everything else you said rest upon this nonsense , I won't waste my time to comment them , it's all over for me . Good bye . You scared me .
      • Jul 23 2012: “Why on earth from this simple definition of 'proof=direct or circumstantial evidence' would somebody understand your series of qualifiers ?”

        Because in English that’s what the words mean. And, the qualifiers were referring to what is being said in the real definition, not your definition of "proof = direct or circumstantial evidence" (which is wrong).

        “I told you : let God aside , it's not about Him , it's about the evidence alone but you say : no , apparently it is about the subject of the statement and on this you rest your case as if I never said nothing”

        Which is fine, but this was not included in your original statement which is how this all started (along with your lack of understanding of the English language). I’m not picking at you, and I’m not ignoring what you say, I was just pointing out your miss use of the English language (a concept you still fail to understand). If what you said, and what you meant to say were two different things that’s fine. If you had been aware of this miss use and just acknowledged it as a “liberty” you took, that would have been fine too. You speak better English than I speak any other language so I'm sympathetic -- but your English is still bad. So when you missed used it in an important way, I let you know. Still it seems like you lack the ability to understand the concept at this time.
      • Jul 23 2012: “but a trapeze is also a geometrical figure and a trapeze has no more than two right angles therefore a square has no more than two right angles ........ it's just unbelievable , I just don't have words to .... unbelievable !!!!! Everything else you said rest upon this nonsense , I won't waste my time to comment them , it's all over for me . Good bye . You scared me .”

        I understand that you don’t understand how it works now, but if you read it over a few times I’m sure you would understand it. Obviously you are having this trouble understanding how it works, and when you get down to it, it is very complex. In order to understand it you might have to sit down an think about it for a while, and maybe even read some articles, books, and/or research papers; but everything I said is true. I understand that my example is confusing to you, but when you sit down and let it sink in, it will all make sense. Maybe some later day you will understand it when you've put more time into it.

        You said this in reply to Ob1 with respect to needing evidence, "I agree with you on your suggestion generally but not in the case of God ." It's obvious that you don't care about the value of and differences between evidence, you sir are the scary one. It's people like this that don't have standards for or understand the importance of evidence and bomb buildings in the name of God. Good bye to you too.
  • Jul 17 2012: I would say it led to the creation of God(s), since it led to the creation of humans, and humans created God(s). (aside from any other life forms out there that may have used the God imagination to explain things at a time too)
  • Jul 17 2012: There are those seemingly adamant there is no God, or now we hear that God was killed in the big bang. Hmmmmm; never heard that one before. Someone said here on TED a few weeks ago the Big Band is only an imagined concept and cannot be proved. Has anyone proved this so called event?

    This question resurfaces many times. Could people accept the possibility of an uncaused Cause? We humans are not omniscient, so therefore we cannot explain everything----even scientists. The conundrum is that we non-omniscient ones cannot imagine or relate to omniscience. We likely never will. And we likely will never explain all things and unless we also develop a faith in the Possibilities One, we will not develop a satisfying concept. It is much more attractive than a dead end.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2012: It all depends on how much people value evidence, if people reject the fact the universe is expanding as evidence that there has been continual expansion well then the conversation is just over with them, because then there is no logical or reasonable argument you could provide for them that they'd accept if they don't value these concepts.
      • Jul 17 2012: Expanding. Yes I can accept that easily. Is the question of whether the universe is expanding or contracting the main basis for conversation on origin?

        MK

        Oh---could the universe contract for a while as much as it might expand for a while?
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2012: No, as I've said to Edward down below the big bang theory doesn't touch the creation of the universe. It's like abiogenesis to evolution, to separate things where evolution requires the prior and the big bang requires the creation of the universe.
          And I've heard the contraction idea also, I'm not sure how it stands with the cosmic background radiation but so far as I know it's main contention is that the universe could be in a state of collapse after an initial expansion and it factors in the fact that not only are galaxies moving apart but they're accelerating. Lawrence Krauss touched on this and from his math in his talks, he provides more evidence than I shall here I recommend you youtube Lawrence Krauss a universe from nothing, but he provides a lot of evidence to suggest we live in a flat universe (not the normal definition of flat), he shows that in the 3 models of the universe, expansion and contraction, expansion and finally expansion and acceleration you require 3 different types of universe for each. And the main point against an expanding and contracting universe is that it would be round, and if you could see far enough in one distance you'd see the back of your head, anyway watch the videos I've probably butchered this explanation.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: I like Scott Adams notion in his book "God's Debris." The big bang was God dissembling himself, and out job is to restore him.
  • Jul 22 2012: As I understand, the existance or not-existance of God is another topic. Personally, I have the theory that God might exist but I can not prove it. For this reason I will continue my research for the truth.

    If we conclude that the big bang create the universe and ourself and our belief is that also God create the universe and ourself, maybe our concepts of God and big bang are so interrelated that does not contradict each other. it is like if the H2O creates the water or the water creates the H2O.
  • Jul 21 2012: Conceptually God create the big bang because the universe can not recycle itself. It is in expansion and will end as it starts, as nothing. This is where relativity and quantum mechanics are oposites.
  • Jul 20 2012: No. God created trillions and zillions of big bangs before getting around to ours.
    • Jul 21 2012: are you saying that there are other universes besides this one?
      • Jul 21 2012: Oh yeah. The idea of the 'multiverse' is a hot theoretical physics topic now, but various mystics have put forth the idea since the time of early Hindu scriptures.
        It's both fascinating and irrelevant. The world we know is the only world we can influence.
  • thumb
    Jul 20 2012: Did the big bang also create God?

    Which god or gods or goddesses?

    How do you define God?
  • Jul 20 2012: Hi Arthur, in my mind big bang or creation cannot take place from nothing. Something has to be there to explode or come into existance.
    The only explanation that I can live with is a creation from nothing material. Only a creation from something spiritual is possible and still happens every day. Whether we create a painting or a car, that creation is based on and started by a love of paining or cars, or money for that matter. No small or big bang was involved :)

    God is a God of love, and from that love, everything was created that was created.
    That process is explained in this booklet. See if you can see truth in this..
    https://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/Creation_Odhner.pdf?attredirects=0
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: Hi Adriaan, I just don't get how you don't accept something from nothing, but you do accept something from spirit. But then spirit doesn't need a cause. It seems a circular argument. Can you see the issues with this reasoning.

      Basically you are saying something can't come from nothing. Something can come from something (spirit) but this special something doesn't need to come from anything. Technically this is the fallacy of special pleading mixed with an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.

      You don't really know what there was before the big bang. You don't really know how it all happened. You just have a belief that satisfies you even if it is fallacious.

      If spirit can exist eternally, why not some natural preconditions for the universe? Was there nothing before the big bang? Was there something? What is nothing? Could 2 opposites that cancel each other out come into being +1 -1 = 0? Do we have any idea of conditions before the big bang? No but some people have old books that make.

      Other than it makes sense to you, do you have any compelling evidence for your belief or does it come down to faith in some religious teachings?
      • Jul 22 2012: Hi Obey,
        --"Basically you are saying something can't come from nothing. Something can come from something (spirit) but this special something doesn't need to come from anything."--

        First sentence: yes and second sentence: yes (if by saying "something (spirit)" you are referring to God.
        Indeed, I am saying the universe could not start from nothing that existed before the universe existed and made the universe start by exploding.
        But you are 'saying' that's what happened!! And you are constantly asking ME for evidence? What evidence do you have??

        What I am also saying is that each time we create something now, it is created by our spirit. It is not created by our neurons or electrical connections or chemical (Im)balance. We have seen and thought about it and figured it out long before in our mind, before we put pen to paper or the chisel to wood.
        What this means is that God is the cause, the spiritual world is the means and the physical world is the effect. That is how the universe started and works and that is also how we work and get things started.
        You can decide that thinking, loving and meditating is all created by the meat between your ears because science cannot detect anything beyond matter. But all those activities are spiritual activities and no neuron can tell you what to love or say. There just is no alternative to spirit. It is only our spirit that makes us responsible for our actions.
        When you change your mind, do you change neurons?
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: Hi Adriaan,

          My answer is I don't know how it all started or what there was before the big bang or what there is outside the space of the current universe.

          Big Bang is based on our understanding of the universe, and how it works, back tracking nearly 14 billion years, seeing back 10 billion years with Hubble, detecting the background radiation from the bi bang, the force of gravity, observations etc.

          Your answer is everything needs a cause except a God. You offer no explanation for God. You actually have answered the question with a bigger more complex question.

          You assert spirit but all the human experiences can be better explained in part by evolution, psychology, neuroscience.

          There can be purely physical explanations for love, hate, fear.

          Just because you don't believe them or can't understand them doesn't make spirit the only answer. Try reading or youtubing pinker etc.

          You believe in spirit, but there is no evidence to prove it.

          Your changing mind versus changing neurons statement indicates a complete lack of understanding.
      • Jul 23 2012: Nothing is when everything is somewhere else, like you said: (+1) + (-1) = 0 = nothing, or A + B + C + n = 0 = nothing.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2012: Robert,
          commenting on your reply to me.

          You are right, science is not religion. They can never come together because they deal with entirely different issues. That being said, there are underlying principles to religion that are worth knowing, such as spirituality and philosophy, but organized religions are not going there.
          The Catholic church divorced itself from science after its attack on Galileo so that science would not undermine its doctrine. It was a step in the wrong direction, and until it is remedied, the problems will remain.
          At the turn of the 20th century, the word theology contained a reference to "that which is revealed by nature". The modern definition contains no such reference, and I believe it is because of what the Catholic church did in divorcing itself from science. They took God out of reality and many words were redefined to accommodate that change.

          Science cannot prove God in its current definition because it is wrong. Until the definition is changed to reflect the truth, science will continue to dispute God, and rightly so.
          Religions are built on associations. God is the common denominator, which we know in science as quantum fields. But the definition of God focuses on a personification, which is anthropomorphic, and quantum fields are not anthropomorphic. So long as religions view God as anthropomorphic, they will never be able to prove God exists because it isn't right to start with. That's my two cents worth.
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2012: Hi Roy,

          why not call quantum fields, quantum fields?

          why label them god with all the baggage this word carries?
  • Jul 19 2012: all i was trying to say is you could use the word god for the word universe
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    Jul 19 2012: The Big Bang , if it occurred + the evolutionary process created gods , that ones only from our mind . If you talk about God (Christianity)=give Him reality outside your mind , the Big Bang didn't create Him obviously , as much as I know the Big Bang is about the physical world , it's physical origins.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: The alleged Big Bang claims to have produced matter from non-matter in direct contravention of the First Law. Why this counts as science when it steamrollers the scientific laws eludes me. However the God of the bible claims to be a spirit; ie non-material, so any Big Bang or whatever would have precisely no effect whatsoever.
    If you want to create a spirit god I guess you need a Big Suck, where all the matter in the universe implodes into nothingness, or spirit. Just about as plausible as a Big Bang. In my humble opinion.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Jul 18 2012: Like I've stated previously, the big bang didn't create anything. Everything was created prior to the big bang which happened instantly after the quantum flux.
      And it doesn't breach scientific laws because for the laws to exist you need matter and in a place void of matter no laws exist. So it was only after the creation of the universe that the laws of physics started to apply to matter, at the start they were all bonded together as a single force and then as the universe cooled they separated.
      And also we observe quantum flux's daily which produce matter.
    • Jul 18 2012: In addition to what Stewart said I would like to say:

      Not knowing the answers for everything (yet) does not open the door for a tired ancient theory of an all knowing, all powerful creator that watches our lives and listens to our thoughts like a soap opera as an equally probable theory without the proper evidence to support it. Furthermore, people who believe these have repeatedly through our history been forced to concede their supernatural explanations to the natural explanation as metaphor, because time and time again the supernatural explanation and it’s “evidence” has been proven wrong. It astonishes me how intellectually irresponsible people are to self-hypnotize themselves into believing this ever receding theory with, “I know that I know that I know and that is what I believe.” Believe what you want, but I would suggest you stop trying to weave spiritual beliefs into the physical world as an explanation for why it exists because you are just fooling yourself. If you would actually like to know the truths about our physical world, then learn to set your spiritual beliefs aside and do science not "pseudoscience".
    • Jul 18 2012: I think Pete that you think that once something is declared a law there is nothing that will change what we know about some phenomenon. Do you seriously think that laws discovered and described from building such things as steam machines apply unambiguously and unchallenged to the eon-encompasing and huge picture of such things as the universe, or to the smallest and much more mysterious quantum realms?
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: If the law is redundant then it should be demoted. These things are laws because they are backed up by experimental experience. They should be removed by experimental experience, not by scientific conjecture. Otherwise science is demeaned & becomes a religion.

        :-)
    • thumb

      E G

      • 0
      Jul 19 2012: Peter :
      Many things count as science when in fact they aren't ( generally speaking now , I can't say about Big Bang ) ; especially the all 'scientific' support of atheism . Just bullshit .
    • thumb
      Jul 19 2012: Unfortunately as far as we can tell there is no convincing evidence for anything spiritual. There is just the physical universe through the perception of our sense and mind and the product of our minds.

      The millions of different views on some spiritual seems to be a giant group of delusions with seeds in ignorance and the fallibility of our super monkey minds.

      The space for spirit or some spirit beliefs are shrinking as we figure out plate tectonics causes earthquakes, centripetal force and gravity causes the sun to move across the sky not some golden chariot, that we were not created but evolved, that plagues are caused by microbes not gods etc.

      You seem to write off science whenever you fail to comprehend, or you lack a proper understanding, or hit the wall of our collective ignorance and go for the easy option of god, and the god of your culture.

      I'm not an expert on everything but I don't say god did it whenever I don't know.

      Most of us have no idea of what so called empty space is. That space curves and has mass. The complexity of the universe, understanding how it came to be, time, matter, space, mind, what was before they stretch my poor mind. But we have come so far collectively in the last 2,000 years, or more accurately the last few hundred years. A high school graduate (who actually studied) knows more about the universe than the great sages of the axial age.

      Most people on ted know 10 times more than high school graduates.

      But we don't know everything. But we do know if there are gods and goddesses no one seems to agree and they are extremely elusive and don't seem to exist in any meaningful way.
      • thumb

        E G

        • 0
        Jul 19 2012: GM :

        I guess there aren't compelling evidence for the existence of the spiritual , here spiritual meaning something different of our reality but I think there are things which point in this direction : the kinds of spaces 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D , who knows maybe infinite D ? and that would be a reality entirely different of ours . And again the lack of evidence do not means that that reality do not exist .

        There are views on what spiritual=exterior reality seems to be , I don't care about them . It's good to not confuse them with the religions as you actually did ; you seemed to commented to my posts above .
        But even if there are many different religions it doesn't mean logically that they are delusions ; there is a normal thing to exist different views . So far you already made a confusion and talk nonsense .

        "I'm not an expert on everything but I don't say god did it whenever I don't know. " I don't say that either , did you ever hear me saying that ? I don't think so .

        "Most people on ted know 10 times more than high school graduates." I guess so but they don't seem to be more logical than one and if that's what they know :"But we do know if there are gods and goddesses no one seems to agree and they are extremely elusive and don't seem to exist in any meaningful way." then they really don't know anything ; we talked about it before , you were actually elusive at proving this claim with examples .
        (by the way I'm not an high school student ) .
    • Jul 20 2012: Pete, sometimes they continue to be laws because they are useful that way and for the purposes and situations where they were described. Yet, they are often modified. Example, the law you were referring to was once modified to include the possibility for matter and energy to transform into each other. It might take a while to make other modifications, but I have been surprised more than once that at least some of the natural laws I learned in middle school were not as immovable as I was taught.

      FInally, that you do not understand something like the BigBang, or quantum fluctuations, or whatever else, does not mean that they are conjectures. I find it amazing that you would not even imagine that the laws of physics that you were taught could have a few mistakes. After all, they come from experiences far removed from such incredibly different scales of the enormous and the tiny, of the universe and its unimaginable masses and gravitational pulls, the quantum phenomena under those conditions ... Really Pete? Do you really think that building steam machines gave us a complete picture of what should happen at the time and dimensional scales of the universe?
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Hi Gabo.
        It's not a matter of what I think, it's the integrity of your profession that's at stake. When Mr. Cox or Mr. Attenborough (love them both) come on the box as esteemed scientists, then the public expect to get reliable information. The whole BB scenario is sold as a done deal. There is no explanation that this causes problems for the established laws; no word of any dissenting voices in the scientific community; just a slick presentation of the party line complete with beautiful graphics. The funny thing is that even with all the effort involved, lot's of people don't believe it anyway.
        Scienc doesn't always get it right as you say. We need to admit that, the public knows that & is very skeptical. I vote for honesty, warts & all, in the way science portrays itself in public arenas. Otherwise the scientific community will just be viewed as a propaganda mill.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jul 20 2012: How does the big bang theory violate physical laws?
      • thumb
        Jul 20 2012: Hi Stewart.
        1st Law. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
        BB theory. everything came from nothing.

        2nd Law. Things naturally go from order to disorder. entropy increases.
        BB Theory An explosion brought about an ordered universe.

        Boyles Gas Law. Gas expands to fill the volume available to it.
        BBTheory. Hydrogen gathered together to form stars. 30,000 per second since time began.

        These just off the top of my head. Also conservation of angular velocity etc etc. Surely you are familiar with these objections; I'm sure Gabo is.

        :-)
    • Jul 23 2012: Pete,

      Both Cox and Attenborough present the stuff as it is. Cox does not present the Big Bang as a done deal. I think you don;t listen to their words properly. When they present the ideas for the first time they tell you what the evidence is, or how the data pointed towards that direction, then what kinds of data provided confirmation, and so on. If (yes I said "if"), there were "dissenting voices" in the scientific community, and it mattered for the particulars they are presenting they would say so (they do when they get to points that are still under hot debate, both from the evidence and the scientists who have suggested alternatives). But if you mean creationist quackery, of course they would not present that. Why would anybody present such deformations of scientific understanding?

      Best and have a great week.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2012: Hey Gabo
        We must be watching different programs.

        :-)
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Jul 18 2012: I think that it's more reasonable to say that God died in the big bang - and from its remains (its aware energy), all that is created itself.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: Hi Arthur,

    How do you know the soup was created? This implies a creator. Are snow flakes created. They sure look designed.

    Maybe something has always existed that changed into our current universe, or the conditions which led to the current universe we are aware of always existed.

    Not sure why you need to add the idea of an invisible immaterial essentially non existent god to the origins of the universe as we know it. Is there any evidence for your hypothesis?

    Seems there is a more straight forward possibility. Human beings evolved and invented gods and goddesses. So in a way the development of the universe and life led to the creation of the ideas of gods, ghosts, goblins.

    I guess many choose to explain the origin of the universe with gods or goddesses that they can't explain and have no compelling evidence for any of them. Suggest it is better to be honest and say you don't know, but scientists are working on it.
    • Jul 18 2012: My theory was that the same event that created the universe also created God at the same time,now that they have found the god particle will it reveal that it existed before the bang and the role it played in that event or was it created at that moment also and will it tell us a more better timeline {I really hate to use that word but I do not know any other way to say it} back {if it is back} to the beginning,if their was a beginning .
      • thumb
        Jul 18 2012: Read the comment I said in reply to Edward down below, this is the current hypothesis, before this nothing existed, every single particle ever came into existence right before the big bang
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2012: Arthur, do you know what the higgs boson actually is theorised to be? Have you heard of bosons? The god particle is a label for one type of boson. Nothing to do with the supernatural myths.

        The big bang might also have resulted in invisible galaxy sized unicorns. And there is as much evidence for these as any gods or goddesses.
  • Jul 18 2012: The physical and social evidence discredits the theses of religions. The Judaic/Christian/Muslim mono theistic religions are no exception. Geology, archaeology and other scientific based investigations continue to point to the concepts of a god or gods as a pure invention of humans to explain or hid the limits of humans to control the environment or their individual and collective inability to control the physical and geological events that influence there lives for either good or bad out comes. The stories contained in the Torah, Christian Bible, or Koran are far older that any of the authors ascribed to them.
    • Jul 18 2012: Norman I feel the same way their needed to be structure and nothing better than an omnipotent entity that will rain down the wrath of destruction upon you if you do not behave in a moral way,that is not the god i am talking about,I guess what I am trying to understand is,is the universe god?
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2012: "Did the big bang also create God". Depends on which book you read.

    All the best. Bob
    • Jul 18 2012: what books are those are they books about the metaphysical or physics?
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2012: The big bang didn't create anything. The big bang deals with everything a millisecond after everything was created.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2012: Actually, according to the theory, it is not a millisecond (one times ten to the minus three seconds) but a unit of time called the: Planck-Wheeler time which is one times ten to the minus 43td second; the shortest time interval that can exist; if two events are separated by less than this it cannot be determined which comes before and which after. Chronologically, prior to this time all physical processes were influenced by gravity.
      That is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second, not .001 second. Quite a difference.
      The theory says the big bang was an event where Nothing exploded without defined cause for no defined reason and resulted in Everything. Why is that not Creation, Mr. Gault?
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2012: A few things, thank you for saying the exact time, I knew it was shorter than a millisecond but it's a time reference most people know and can understand and that's why I used it and also lack of knowledge of the exact time afterwards.
        And it's not creation because of a few things.
        Firstly there's a misconception in you're terminology, nothing exploded as such, it expanded.
        Also as we state the big bang comes after the creation of the universe. So for instance the big bang didn't create energy or quarks or atoms. You could say that the big bang created the size of the universe and the distance between the galaxies but not the galaxies themselves. As we know that's gravity's role in the grand scheme of things.
        So creation ex nihilo, the current model is based on the hypothesis that a quantum flux caused energy and particles to exist. Firstly this is observed daily as in a vacuum entire atoms pop in and out of existence relatively quickly. Further explained in Stephen Hawking's book, is the fact that the total energy of the universe is 0. So nothing made something which still equates to nothing. How does a particle appear from nothing? If a quantum flux occurs (I may be muddling this up a little I read the book a month ago) there are two possible outcomes. The energy is negative and cancels itself out. Or the energy is positive and not only exists but has a motion and a position.
        This is the current hypothesis of creation, it's the same misconception as is the "evolution can explain origins", evolution doesn't explain origins it doesn't even attempt to, neither does the big bang, in both cases you require something before anything can happen.
        So big bang is after creation, and not the actual creation.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2012: You say tomatoe I say tomato. The difference between an expansion and an explosion is merely duration. It is not important whether we call it a Big Bang, as everyone I've ever heard or read does, or a Big Expansion, as you do. What matters is the idea of Big Bang/ Big Expansion supporters claiming to obviate the need for God, when, in actuality, they offer no explanation for what transpired prior to the Planck-Wheeler Time just prior to the Big Whatever. Play with the theory all you want, call it whatever you want, but don't say, as Hawking and Dawkins do, that God is now proven to be imaginary and irrelevant. Thank you!
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2012: I never said that, although you know I think that, I never said it there. And what do you mean they don't give an explanation for prior to the big bang, I literally just said the current and most supported idea. Lawrence Krauss has many talks on it, something from nothing, how most of a proton or neutron's mass exists in the space between the quarks and how empty space always weighs something.
        Now as you say this hypothesis can not be proven, even if we made a quantum flux large enough and created a universe in a universe there would still be people who say (although briefly as we'd all die) that it doesn't mean it's how our universe started. BUT it does work mathematically, I don't know the exact maths of it of course but I trust that the peer review process of all this was thorough and that's good enough for me to call it plausible.
        Whats more is the fact that it's still a lot more plausible and explains reality a lot more than a god does. And it also renders a god irrelevant, the maths and the hypothesis show that a universe can and will exist out of nothing, m- theory is getting closer and closer to being complete.
        None of this can disprove a god, but it does say, very clearly, and with evidence and calculations, that the universe does NOT need a creator. And that is much more beautiful and inspiring than north korea in the sky blowing air into dirt and creating man and women from a rib.
        And the flip side appeals to you to Edward, don't say we need a god or that we would be lost without one.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2012: I need God and would be lost without Him, but you never heard me say you need God, nor will you ever hear me say it. So you need not warn me to not say it. Its ok if I trust God and you trust in peer review. At least we agree that the answer to Mr. Matsias' question is NO! The Big Whatever did not create, or kill, God. In fact, anyone who insists God does not exist is obligated to answer in the negative.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2012: Sure, why not.