bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
Roma said:
bouzane said:
"so with that thought in mind why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator? "
I believe what the current evidence supports. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns or ghosts. Additionally, God is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, explaining the origin of God complicates things and Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one.
The question should not be "why is it so hard to believe that we are created by the creator" but why is it so hard to believe that there is no such creator? |
well because there is nothing that can come out of nothing. isn't that what science says? did the universe create itself? can a women give birth to herself? of course not because that means she has to exist to be able to give birth to herself which in itself is not possible.
what kind of evidence would convince you of a creator?
|
Actually, out of the void it is possible to create both an equal part matter/energy and anti-matter/energy. From zero arises both one and negative one. If you simply combine all of the matter/energy and anti-matter/energy all of it would cease to exist along with the distortions in the space-time continuum that give rise to gravity and time. All of reality is simply like a series of waves on a pond with matter/energy as the crests and anti-matter/energy as the troughs). The origin of this distortion is still a mystery but a magic, omnipotent creator is such an absurd, inelegant explanation that I would never entertain the prospect without hard evidence. What kind of evidence would I require? Anything that is quantifiable and absolute and nothing that is ambiguous and ill-defined.
|
sounds complex but who created the area in which the universe exists in? in order for me to create something in Maya I need a place to create something in it and in order to model something I need to start with some form of object. who created the positive and negative energies?
how do you explain evolution? if I drop a glass for three billion years will it one day brake in to two smaller perfect glasses filled with water?
I know it sounds absurd because it haven't been proven yet. electricity was something that only crazy people believed could exist yet later on it was created :P
|
The "area" only exists because of the distortions that exist within it. No matter, anti-matter, etc... means no space-time continuum. Why does there need to be a "somebody" to create positive and negative energy? They are simply like the highs and lows in waves, just distortions in the nothingness that is existence. That's why they attract, to approach or return to the natural state of non-existence. How do I explain evolution? Basic science already explains things rather well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
I have no idea what you're getting at with the glass analogy.
Sorry but I view a belief in God the exact same way as the Flat Earth, Geocentric Model and Intelligent Design / Creationist hypotheses. Nothing supports them so they in no way serve as proper explanations to the questions which science presents us. If we have no explanation, we don't just make something up and follow it as gospel. Theories are not hypotheses because they have consistent, internal logic that can be tested, supported by evidence and eventually proven as fact. Religion has none of these things therefore I reject them as potential explanations for the few things that we no longer understand.
Finally, using a God to explain the origin of the Universe is counter-intuitive because you are in turn presented a problem even more difficult to explain. No offense but this is the exact opposite of what makes sense and it is an affront to logic and reason. I see no reason to continue this discussion because I have said everything that I need to say. I provided all of the answers that modern science has given us and anything that remains should only be addressed by logic, not wishful thinking or what i consider to be preposterous superstition. Again, not trying to offend, but I see absolutely nothing to support your line of though.
|
