That post will not influence anyone who isn't Christian. Dogma doesn't do much in debate.

^That's true. I always feel though, that even with logic, it all links together pretty simply. The hard part is just getting people to believe it. Even looking up articles and books completely devoting to using logic to disprove God's existence, I see flaws just by reading and digesting the material and applying it to the own ideas I believe. That's a completely different debate though, on the count of the Big Bang:

I do think there is another place in which time doesn't function the same, or possibly even exist, and the link between there allowed for the big bang to happen. Time just makes events possible and things progress, right? So in a realm of no time, there won't need to be a start or a beginning, it'll just always, be. That would clear up how it started from nothing if that was me, but only dogma and personal revelation backs me up there. What do you all think?

I agree basically with the common notion that our mind/development of technology has no yet allowed us to percieve certain factors that only logically would have contributed to the creation of the Universe. We have no means of providing concrete evidence on a logical explanation, therefore the only explanation must be that there is Existence outside of our understanding of existence.

I've always had a theory that perhaps and the origin of the universe, there is a completely undiscovered particle/particles, things that exist at a size smaller then any perceivable particle we've found. Smaller then the smallest sub-atomic particles that we have discovered. These things interact or whatnot to create the particles that "exist", and particles that could also give us insight into the workings of universal origins.

Also a kind of subtheory, is that of an "existence" of some kind of anti-mass. Implausible and probably more confusing and illogical then the creation of something from nothing i realise. Yet what if there was SOMETHING (adhering to human perception) that could EXIST in NOTHING (human perception) that inverted itself to create SOMETHING (human perception). This something then developed from resulting energy to create particles and etc...



That's my 2 cents. and i completely fucked my mind thinking about it.

As much as I disagree with your post (mainly the part where if it doesn't agree with your ideas, its inherently incorrect), Lord Buddha said:
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. "

As long as you admit its dogma and unprovable, I could care less what you believe (I mean that as nicely as possible, friend.)

CaptainAwesome wrote:

I agree basically with the common notion that our mind/development of technology has no yet allowed us to percieve certain factors that only logically would have contributed to the creation of the Universe. We have no means of providing concrete evidence on a logical explanation, therefore the only explanation must be that there is Existence outside of our understanding of existence.

I've always had a theory that perhaps and the origin of the universe, there is a completely undiscovered particle/particles, things that exist at a size smaller then any perceivable particle we've found. Smaller then the smallest sub-atomic particles that we have discovered. These things interact or whatnot to create the particles that "exist", and particles that could also give us insight into the workings of universal origins.

Also a kind of subtheory, is that of an "existence" of some kind of anti-mass. Implausible and probably more confusing and illogical then the creation of something from nothing i realise. Yet what if there was SOMETHING (adhering to human perception) that could EXIST in NOTHING (human perception) that inverted itself to create SOMETHING (human perception). This something then developed from resulting energy to create particles and etc...



That's my 2 cents. and i completely fucked my mind thinking about it.

Wait, because there's no current method to provide concrete evidence of one theory, you subscribe to another unprovable one?

I don't subscribe to it by any means, my "subscription" is still undecided. I realise that that theory is not widely acknowledged and it almost completely unsupported by scientific means. I was simply adding something else into consideration..

Basically whenever i try and think of how the universe is created, my mind swings to that notion. I'm not using it to shut down any other theories either, as they are mostly warranted to a greater degree then mine.

You stated that the only option is one outside our existence.

I did, but that was a result of me adhering to simple logic. The theory i suggested is one possibility of that spectrum.

I revoke my previous statement, and i'll change my "subscription" to, there is something that humans are yet to understand in which caused the "beginning" of the universe.

I was not attempting to imply that the ONLY explanation is that of my theory/subtheory.

Thank you for clearing that up. I don't think anyone except a couple of the more religious here will disagree that the beginning of the universe is still up for debate.

Agreed, i just had another thought...does the bible/religious teachings provide information regarding the origin of God?

Because according to the religious views, he "exists", and is even existent everywhere? (not to knowledgeable on the subject) So if he is existent on any degree, he must have some sort of origin?

Christians, Muslims, and Jews adhere to the belief that God is timeless and exists constantly. He has no beginning, nor an end, nor a present. He is everywhere and anywhere possible.

I don't agree with such curious thoughts.

That is possibly the most contradictive statement that I have ever read. No offence to religious individuals.

God is timeless and exists constantly. He has no beginning, nor an end, nor a present. He is everywhere and anywhere possible.

Just...how?

On another note, this has provided me with another theory; God and the Universe are the same, the Universe is an extreme of a higher order being. It lives or expands and could be an "offspring" of a maternal/paternal universe...

Note: this is all just spontaneous ramblings, and i have put little thought into it. (it may contradict previous statements, as i am yet to incorporate the theory into my list of possible realities.)

You're asking the wrong person. That is a question best fitted for a Christian, not a Buddhist.

Understandable, also what are the Buddhist views on origins?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect us.

Edit: Almost every Buddhist except for the more spiritual Mahayana Buddhists or very strict Theravada Buddhists will go by science.

Ok.

CaptainAwesome wrote:

That is possibly the most contradictive statement that I have ever read. No offence to religious individuals.

How is that contradictory?

CaptainAwesome wrote:

Because according to the religious views, he "exists", and is even existent everywhere? (not to knowledgeable on the subject) So if he is existent on any degree, he must have some sort of origin?

Why does omnipresence require an origin?

You invariably run into origin issues when discussing the universe, whether you have a God associated with the universe or not.

If God exists, there are two possible explanations for his existence. Either he came from nothing, or he's eternal and has always existed.
Same goes for the universe. Either the universe had a beginning and came from nothing, or the universe is eternal.

JCpatriots wrote:

So a big invisible man in the sky making things magically appear makes more logical sense? :confused:

Who was that directed at?

And if you're going to fallaciously caricature something to that degree, at least be a little more creative than using a watered-down version of God that sounds similar to something a kindergartner would say.

While I don't support organized religion I must state that the Big Bang disproves only Hindu beliefs. Besides Hinduism it has no direct contradictions with other religions and the Catholic Church at one time used it as proof that God created the universe and that the 7 days was metaphorical and not literal. In a sense the origin of the universe and what happened before the universe are two very different questions with two very different answers, one of which may never be possible to be answered.

Concerning the idea of a "God Particle," actually referred to as the Higgs field, that was one of the purposes of the construction of the large hadron collider in Europe. While we have not yet proven the existence of the Higgs field the simple idea behind it is that the universe was in a state of complete and timeless symmetry prior to the big bang and that particles lacked mass, as neutrinos do, however by passing through the Higgs field the particles gained massive mass and so the symmetry was broken which caused the big bang and the creation of the universe through the spontaneous symmetry breakdown.

Anyways, god has no place in a discussion on physics because god has nothing to do physics anymore than physics has to do with creationism.

JCpatriots wrote:

Umm, it was directed at the OP. I didn't care to read all the typical religious debate bullshit that always comes with these threads, because they appear every single week. But the whole "big bang theory making no logical sense" part had me perplexed as to how the insinuation that a big invisible man (how that is a "kindergarden" interpretation of God is beyond me, because that's what God is, correct?

Did the OP say anything about God being behind the creation of the universe? I don't recall him mentioning God once. To the contrary, he said he's not religious. Also to the contrary, he's agnostic.

You're seriously suggesting that the proper characterization of God is, "a big invisible man?"

JCpatriots wrote:

No one has ever seen God, right? He's invisible. People look up into the sky and pray to him. He must be pretty big, right? He has a penis, right? He's a man. Big invisible man, and he's in the sky.

Is he invisible? Depends on the God you're referring to.

People looking into the sky= God being big? I don't follow.
People look down, people kneel, and people also face a wall when praying.

God has a penis? There are so many inaccuracies within that statement I don't even know where to begin.

Not to mention, the issue I had with your statement was its connotation more than anything. I can make just about anything sound illogical using the same methods you did. As an example, if I were to describe an object such as an "invisible and humongous spinning hole the size of millions of suns that captures anything that comes in its path," does that sound logical at all? Not really.
I suppose it would come as a shock then to realize that such an object sits at the center of every galaxy.

JCpatriots wrote:

. I can't say I've ever heard any kindergardeners debating about God before.)

I said a kindergartners version of God. How did you get kindergartners debating God out of that?

JCpatriots wrote:

making everything suddenly come to life makes any more logical sense than scientific explanations for how the universe was created. Both of them give the interpretation that someONE, or someTHING, made everything suddenly appear, so they both make equally as little sense when thought about in perspective. Yet one of them has hundreds of years of science research/data to back it up and another is based off what? Which one makes more logical sense? I'm gonna go with the scientific explanations.

You'd have a point, if it weren't for the fact that you blatantly assumed the OP believes that God was what started it all.

AlexMason wrote:

The belief that God created the world and all that inhabits it. It was the very first belief before there was any other, because it is the only true belief. It has been proven, but only on the individual level. God proves Himself to those who are willing to accept Him. If He were to prove Himself to the point where doubt is no more then there would be no need for faith. Christianity requires us to put faith in what cannot be proven. If you close your heart to God you will never understand, but those who open it up will be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Rational atheists and theists don't just disagree on whether God exists or not They disagree fundamentally over what is required to justify having a belief.

Believing that something is the best explanation we have for something we observe when it actually *is* the best explanation we have for what we observe is not the same thing as making something up and calling it a theory.

You misunderstand the type of beliefs that rational atheists have. For example, they don't believe "the Big Bang definitely occurred and is the complete explanation of the origin of the universe." They believe "a Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the observed background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe."

While the Big Bang itself is a theory, the *belief* rational atheists have is simply that it's the best explanation we have for what we have observed. This belief is objectively valid. Or at least people think it is. If you can show them that they're wrong, they'll change their beliefs, as they did when science rejected the steady state theory.

The problem is not that Christians cannot prove the Bible is 100% true, the problem is that they cannot justify believing the Bible is 100% true.