TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 11 2013: Somebody remarks that if i need a cause for the world ,why not a natural cause?......And also why don t I apply the causality principle to God.? And finally why do I suggest 1 God and not several Gods? 1) I mean that the alternate sequence of causes and effects describes our spacetime universe and that chain of causes can t continue eternally.Indeed ,something coming from infinity never reaches its destination.So,the universe has to have a beginning ,which is confirmed by the Big Bang.Our spacetime universe comes into being at the Big Bang.But now what causes it doesn t pertain to the same continuum of space and time.It is a creative transcendence that is not subject to the limitations of space and time.So,it doesn t need a cause.It is uncaused.It is.You can call it John or transcendence or GOD! It s NOT a natural cause as it operates outside our world and it s supernatural in the sense that it is omniscient,omnipotent........2) Why not several Gods? Because ,in reference to Occam s razor principle,it s simpler to postulate 1 God than several though ,if the multiverse theory is correct ,you can suggest 1 God for each universe but ,once again,with Occam in mind,I lean towards the creation of 1 universe.
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2013: Why not a natural cause outside space and time.

      Big assumption that a universe creating agency is required.
      I'm not sure cause applies before time

      Big assumption a mind can exist with out a brain, without any matter or energy whatsoever
      occams razor is not evidence or proof of one creative agency.

      sure we generally look to avoid assuming extra complexity . But this principle is not proof of one god. could argue assuming a univerde creating agency is more co.plexity than a natural cause
      in the end we don't know the answer. .
      to assume agency is very speculative. it's just convenience to assume your cause doesn't need a cause.. it's actually the fallacy of special pleading.
      • Nov 11 2013: Natural causes and effects happen in our spacetime universe.By definition,a cause capable of creating a universe finetuned to be fertile is supernatural and owes nothing to chance;Indeed,scientists admit that such a complexity can t arise spontaneouly and to account for it ,scientists have to resort to the multiverse theory or to the creation of an infinite number of universes .Only ours would have hit the jackpot
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Your assertion that a supernatural agency that exists somehow outside time and space and is capable of making universes must exist and is the only explanation to explain the universe is is simply an assertion.

          Logically speaking this looks like an argument from ignorance.

          We have no way of verifying something outside space time, let alone a universe creator.

          If the the universe was created for life, it's a bit of a failure.

          99.99999999999999999999999% of it is inhospitable for life, even on this speck of planet 2/3 is water humans can not live on, and much is too cold or hot. And all animals live by eating other life. What a great plan.

          You might say that the universe is this way because your god concept wanted it this way. A nice circular argument.

          I suggest that as a species we don't have all the key points figured out down to t=0. We don't know. You can make assumptions that intuitively make sense for you, but that is not proof.

          Yes magic can be used to fill any gaps, disease, lightening, earthquakes, origins.

          I guess humans don't like doubt. We create explanations to fill the gaps. Science is based on doubting things, looking for evidence, not relying on intuitive explanations.

          A magic being unsupported by evidence may fill the gaps satisfactorily for you. After all magic can be used to plug any gap and no evidence is required.

          The physical constants, I guess we don't know why they are the way they are. However the more we understand the more it looks consistent with a universe that has net 0 energy and came from nothing. Certainly the physical constants are not evidence of god. Its just a question we have not answered and you plug with magic.

          I hope you can see the distinction between evidence and jumping to a conclusion based on magic.

          There may be universe creating beings, but there is no proof. Just speculation. What is intuitively satisfying for some, fails basic skepticism. And saying magic doesn't explain how anything happened

        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: Michel, I would add if there was compelling evidence for god beings I would believe.

          I just find it odd that an intuitive leap to magical gods to answer difficult questions is not obviously intellectually questionable.

          I guess we evolved to assume agency. I guess once we have formed god filled world views we look to fit reality to that world view, and vice versa.

          I would hope you can understand how some reasonably don't accept a magic god must have done it as reasonable answer not because there is evidence of gods or the gods doing anything, but because it makes intuitive sense to some, it fills the gaps, perhaps it fits their emotional beliefs.

          To me, trying to clinically look at this, trying to suspend my predispositions and simply apply basic skepticism, logic and reason, it honestly looks like the uncaused cause argument is riddled with cognitive bias and logical fallacies.

          I understand the physical constants, and questions of why the universe exists and is the way it is are baffling and on the surface saying a magic agency did it because it could and it wanted to may seem satisfying. Again we tend to assume agency when there is none (may of helped evolutionary survival I guess)

          But I hope you can see this just pushed the questions back. Why did the gods make it this way. How did it do it. Did it have to be this way? What is god? Where did they come from?

          From my perspective some modern god concepts look designed exactly to fill gaps like this. They are defined as being outside the reality we can test, but capable of making this reality. All powerful, all knowing, invisible. Magic. But in the end this no explanation of how they exist, how they do creation, how does their mind work without a brain etc.

          I hope you can see why asserting a magical being is the only answer is not a convincing argument and just pushes the questions back.

        • thumb
          Nov 11 2013: My understanding is the multiverse hypothesis is based on string theory. Experts can correct me. Scientist haven't resorted to it to simply plug a gap. They have followed a line of scientific inquiry.

          Seems quite speculative to me, as is much at the cutting edge of science at any time.

          Why assume if there are near infinite universes this would be the only one where life with minds similar to ours or better would evolve?

          I'm happy with the position we don't know some things with reasonable confidence. Lets keep working on them.

          Others assert magic is the answer. We've heard this before, and magic wasn't the answer. In the end saying it was magic explains nothing. You need to explain how magic works.

          As far as we can tell everything we have reasonably figured out in the universe is explained by natural causes, not magic. Much that was attributed to magic, gods, spirits now has mundane explanations.

          I leave the door open to gods, goddesses, spirits, immortal souls, demons, elves, faerie, other dimensions, alien abductions, afterlives, ghosts, telepathy, speaking with the dead, but am not aware of any compelling evidence, so am not in a position to believe.

          Thanks for getting me thinking - ob
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2013: Michel, there are several assumptions in your comments.
      1) you speculate about what was before the big bang. Thing is we have not the slightest idea.
      2) You say, space and time is limited to our universe, but again, we have no means to know that for certain. Our space/time might be unique, but couldn't it be embedded in another space/time continuum ?
      3) whether or not the birth of our universe had a cause is another thing we can't know.
      4) God, Occam's razor doesn't even apply here because there is not even a reason to assume the existence of God. Actually, if you want to apply Occam's razor, the conclusion should be that there is no god.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.