Therefore I ask;
Why do you claim the non-God created universe is a more logical conclusion than a God-created universe?
Because to suggest the universe was made by something with human emotions, infinite power, and incomprehensible intelligence is a huge assumption to make, considering we have no evidence for any of those things. I think a much more reasonable assumption would be that the universe was started by a relatively simple event, like a transformation of some sort of energy into matter. I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a bit presumptuous to look at the massive universe we live in, with billions of stars and planets, and come to the conclusion that it was all made for us.
On earth? What evidence do you have that the natural laws are difference somewhere else in the universe? Taken further, what evidence do you have that the conditions required for these other laws can exist?
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s exactly my point. When someone says the big bang theory goes against natural laws, that might be true for the laws that we know. But before the universe existed (or even somewhere else in the universe), we have no idea what governs the properties of energy and matter.
And what evidence do you have that the laws change in such a way under under certain conditions that a universe can pop into existence?
Well we live in a constantly expanding universe, so it had to Ã¢â‚¬Å“pop into existenceÃ¢â‚¬Â at some point or another. You think that this was initiated by God, I think it was initiated by a scientific process which has yet to be discovered. We both rely on certain conditions.
That's the point. If you say you can't possibly understand how energy and matter behave outside of our universe, then you have blind faith.
Either there is a God or there isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s one or the other. If I choose to believe that God is significantly less probable than no God based on personal experience and observations, I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t consider that blind faith. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a statistical opinion IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve come to through my own reasoning. Obviously I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be 100% sure IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m right. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s still a chance God exists.
Hi Isabella. Totally serious question, you are atheistic--do you have a "concept of a creator," at all. If so, what is it?
I was a theist for a long time, so I know what itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like to be both emotionally and scientifically involved with your theory. At that time, God wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just a replacement for the big bang theory. He was someone who loved me and was watching over me. This attachment was something I would use as a very circular form of reasoning when justifying my belief in God. Now, when I consider the idea of a creator I think only in terms of the likelihood of some higher being creating life and the universe. I realize there is more to religion than that, as you pointed out with your historical evidence. That evidence, however, is not very concrete and often from a single source only. For example, the entire story of Moses in Egypt is documented in the bible, but not in Egyptian records.
Isabella, why would you have a fear of death--if you are truly convinced that there is no God or judgment of sin?
Because I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the idea of having a finite amount of time to spend with the people that I love. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not afraid or judgement in the afterlife, since I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in the afterlife.
Are you speaking in terms of your understanding of string theory or are you confessing a possibility of a spiritual dimension?
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m saying that if our universe wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always here, there must have been some sort of existing dimension from which it came. Not something spiritual though. Going back to my example of subatomic particles, you could say that they exist within their own realm of physical laws, much different than anything macroscopic. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nothing spiritual about it. We can describe electron behaviour by equations, but a different set of equations than we would use for everything else. I think that at the beginning of the universe, or before the universe began, we would need to describe the behaviour of matter (or whatever it was) in an entirely different way that has yet to be discovered.