Is there a creator?

[qmvsimp]

This was my reply to a doubter:

The Universe contains the exact amount of mass so that galaxies and thus planets can be formed. A little more mass and the Universe would have immediately imploded upon itself after the big bang, a little less mass and the Universe would have exploded upon itself.

Here is a link about it.

answers.com/topic/missing-mass-essay

If there is no creator, then you won the biggest lottery of all time. The universe happened to have the exact right amount of mass so our galaxy, solar system and planet could form. Our solar system formed with the perfect angular momentum so our planet could become sufficiently stable, but not so stable that it couldn’t support life. Our planet had the perfect amount of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (or chemical systems to create them) to be able to support life, our planet just happened to create this possible life on its own. This life through evolution, just happened to evolve into an intelligent being, capable of making moral decisions even though it was not required to further its existance.

As a mathematician, when a probability is sufficiently low, it is essentially zero. Let’s compare this to you winning both the Powerball and MegaMillions lottery ten consecutive times each. My dear sir, the chances of all this happening without any outside help whatsoever, is for all practical purposes, zero.

You must have an awful lot of faith to think this is what happened

 

[bobby_bambino]

Ohh, you’re a mathematician? Me too! What are you studying now?

 

[qmvsimp]

I started out as an actuary. Worked in the field for 8.5 years and now I’m a pawnbroker.

 

[Seeks_God]

I like the explanation. I also like to use the Hesienburg Uncertainty Prinicple to explain to atheists that all measurement is uncertain and therefore cannot disprove God…

Thanks for the extended insight…

SG

 

[RobNY]

qmvsimp:

This was my reply to a doubter:

The Universe contains the exact amount of mass so that galaxies and thus planets can be formed. A little more mass and the Universe would have immediately imploded upon itself after the big bang, a little less mass and the Universe would have exploded upon itself.

Here is a link about it.

answers.com/topic/missing-mass-essay

If there is no creator, then you won the biggest lottery of all time. The universe happened to have the exact right amount of mass so our galaxy, solar system and planet could form. Our solar system formed with the perfect angular momentum so our planet could become sufficiently stable, but not so stable that it couldn’t support life. Our planet had the perfect amount of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (or chemical systems to create them) to be able to support life, our planet just happened to create this possible life on its own. This life through evolution, just happened to evolve into an intelligent being, capable of making moral decisions even though it was not required to further its existance.

As a mathematician, when a probability is sufficiently low, it is essentially zero. Let’s compare this to you winning both the Powerball and MegaMillions lottery ten consecutive times each. My dear sir, the chances of all this happening without any outside help whatsoever, is for all practical purposes, zero.

You must have an awful lot of faith to think this is what happened

To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here… even if a chance is sufficiently small, given an infinite amount of time, wouldn’t it (eventually) happen?

This is the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence, no?

 

[qmvsimp]

RobNY:

To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here… even if a chance is sufficiently small, given an infinite amount of time, wouldn’t it (eventually) happen?

This is the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence, no?

Yes, but the Universe is at most only 20 billion years old. It would take trillions and trillions of years, and it still would not account for the perfect amount of mass to begin with.

Now, if there existed trillions of Universes, then maybe you’d have a point.

 

[Seeks_God]

qmvsimp:

Yes, but the Universe is at most only 20 billion years old. It would take trillions and trillions of years, and it still would not account for the perfect amount of mass to begin with.

Now, if there existed trillions of Universes, then maybe you’d have a point.

The “multiple universe theory” exists…

 

[RobNY]

qmvsimp:

Yes, but the Universe is at most only 20 billion years old. It would take trillions and trillions of years, and it still would not account for the perfect amount of mass to begin with.

Now, if there existed trillions of Universes, then maybe you’d have a point.

That was my exact point. If the Universe regularly cycles from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang… then it seems entirely plausible. The Universe may be 20 billion years old, but if this has happened ad infinitum for all of eternity, it hardly seems unlikely. This, though, leads to more questions.

 

[Seeks_God]

RobNY:

That was my exact point. If the Universe regularly cycles from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang… then it seems entirely plausible. The Universe may be 20 billion years old, but if this has happened ad infinitum for all of eternity, it hardly seems unlikely. This, though, leads to more questions.

So explain why science cannot predict the precise moment of the Big Bang. All theories and studies can predict the Big Bang within a 10E-65 of a second (which is immeasureably small), but it cannot be pin-pointed. I KNOW it cannot be explained in logical means (i.e. mathematically and physically) but only through the possibilty of a creator. Time is a concept that cannot be fully defined, why? There is a reason for this - God.

 

[RobNY]

Seeks God:

So explain why science cannot predict the precise moment of the Big Bang. All theories and studies can predict the Big Bang within a 10E-65 of a second (which is immeasureably small), but it cannot be pin-pointed. I KNOW it cannot be explained in logical means (i.e. mathematically and physically) but only through the possibilty of a creator. Time is a concept that cannot be fully defined, why? There is a reason for this - God.

There’s no need to argue that with me… as I said before, I’m playing Advocatus Diaboli so to speak.

As for why it can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed… for the same reason that we can’t exactly p(name removed by moderator)oint anything… our measuring instruments are imperfect. They can only measure to such an exact amount, and that is why we adopt the method of Significant Numbers, for instance.

Time’s existence comes out of the interplay between space and mass… right? I know so little about physics as it is. It certainly is fascinting. Is it a continuum? Does the present simply just always exist? I dunno.

 

[Seeks_God]

RobNY,

I forgot you mentioned you were playing Devil’s Advocate…but either way, I was just countering the argument our atheist friends would make.
I often wonder why there is so much emphasis on disproving God. Do they feel sorry for us being “ignorant” in their minds? Do they believe they are helping…I’m just curious and not trying to be argumentative.

SG

 

[RobNY]

Seeks God:

RobNY,

I forgot you mentioned you were playing Devil’s Advocate…but either way, I was just countering the argument our atheist friends would make.
I often wonder why there is so much emphasis on disproving God. Do they feel sorry for us being “ignorant” in their minds? Do they believe they are helping…I’m just curious and not trying to be argumentative.

SG

I assumed you were being friendly. It’s how I approach arguing.

I think the emphasis on proving/disproving God all has to do with being insecure. People who have all the answers are the people who’ve asked all the questions. And the people who’ve asked all the questions are the most insecure on the inside. They don’t want to prove it to you as much, although I’m sure they do, they want to prove it to themselves in doing so.

I know because I’ve got a heavy strain of that. I’ve always found it very hard to believe-- despite wanting belief to come easily. It’s always easy to assume people are coming from a negative angle, but I think most people are being honest with themselves.

Sigh Don’t we all wish it was easy?

 

[infoguy]

…

An accessible, fun text on the scientific evidence for God is The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel.

…

 

[qmvsimp]

RobNY:

To play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here… even if a chance is sufficiently small, given an infinite amount of time, wouldn’t it (eventually) happen?

This is the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence, no?

Seeks God:

The “multiple universe theory” exists…

This is what is known: there is only one universe, the universe is at most 20 billion years old, there was only one big bang, humans exist on earth, etc.

Based upon what is known, there must be a creator because the perfect mass, perfect angular momentum, perfect planet, etc. lottery is impossible to win.

If we venture into the unknown, including multiple universes, multiple big bangs, aliens creating and controlling our universe, or even that we’re all living in a Matrix, then the possibilities are limitless.

You can never disprove an unknown, so you have to deal with what’s known.

 

[Ghosty]

That was my exact point. If the Universe regularly cycles from Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang… then it seems entirely plausible. The Universe may be 20 billion years old, but if this has happened ad infinitum for all of eternity, it hardly seems unlikely.

The problem with this theory is what I highlighted in bold. The “Big Cycle” has been effectively disproven by relatively recent observations about the universe. As predicted in the original “Big Bang” model proposed by Fr. Lemaitre, the universe is not only expanding after a large explosion, but *accelerating apart. *This concept was largely rejected by scientists until it was essently nailed down as true (as far as such science can do it) just a few years ago.

This has be driving atheist scientists absolutely NUTS, because it means that the Big Bang happened only once, could happen only once, and happened *perfectly *as described in the original post. The Big Bang theory already made atheists uncomfortable, but now that it’s becoming scientifically set in stone, and the “big crunch” has been almost completely ruled out, they’re scrambling like mad to come up with explainations that eliminate the philosophical necessity for a “first cause”. So far they haven’t been too sucessful

You can read a little bit about the Big Crunch here. I’ll see if I can dig up some articles on the actual observations that sent the Big Crunch to its sudden death.

 

[Seeks_God]

qmvsimp:

This is what is known: there is only one universe, the universe is at most 20 billion years old, there was only one big bang, humans exist on earth, etc.

You can never disprove an unknown, so you have to deal with what’s known.

There are many prominant scientists that theorize about more than one universe…my point is that for some atheists the one universe idea is not a known but another possibility to what is unknown.

My point in arguing the unknown is simply this: Atheists cannot prove to an absolute determination that existance is real. They can’t because according to the rule book they use - science - dictates that there is no absolute. Everything has an element of uncertainty. I say this because the atheistic argument is always “God is intangible because we can’t hear, see, touch and expereince Him.” So, my response will always be “Prove to me your existence.” It can’t be done. If you don’t believe God exists because He can’t be measured, then you can’t prove to me that you exist because there is uncertainty in measuring your existance.

SG

 

[john_doran]

Ghosty:

I’ll see if I can dig up some articles on the actual observations that sent the Big Crunch to its sudden death.

well, roger penrose and stephen hawking’s development of the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems is at least one factor in the demise of oscillating cosmological models.

hawking himself said that the theorems
Stephen Hawking:

…led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20

apart from the fact, noted by buffalo, that the expansion of the universe seems actually to be accelerating rather than slowing down, one must also consider that entropy would be preserved from cycle to cycle in a big-bang-big-crunch-big-bang model, so that each successive cycle would result in a larger expansion just prior to collapse. this, in turn, means that each previous expansion must have been smaller, which, of course, means that at some finite distance in the past there must have been precisely the initial singularity the oscillating model sought to avoid.

you can read about it here, if you like:

I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zeldovich, “Physical Processes near Cosmological Singularities,” *Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics *11 (1973): pp. 401-02.

Joseph Silk, *The Big Bang, *2d ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1989), pp. 311-12

 

[qmvsimp]

Seeks God:

There are many prominant scientists that theorize about more than one universe…my point is that for some atheists the one universe idea is not a known but another possibility to what is unknown.

My point in arguing the unknown is simply this: Atheists cannot prove to an absolute determination that existance is real. They can’t because according to the rule book they use - science - dictates that there is no absolute. Everything has an element of uncertainty. I say this because the atheistic argument is always “God is intangible because we can’t hear, see, touch and expereince Him.” So, my response will always be “Prove to me your existence.” It can’t be done. If you don’t believe God exists because He can’t be measured, then you can’t prove to me that you exist because there is uncertainty in measuring your existance.

SG

Good points. Another point that I like to make is emotions. Prove to me that you’re happy. You can give me all the signs, but only you know if you’re happy. Prove to me that God is in you, affecting your life. Again, you can give me all the signs, but only you will know if God is in you.

 

[Ghosty]

john doran: Thanks for the reminder on that info. I was looking more specifically for the recent astronomical observations of expansion and acceleration, rather than just the hypothesis. I remember reading about observations by the Hubble Telescope that pretty much sealed the deal.

I’m not certain how entropy could be applied to an absolute singularity, but then I’m not a physicist by any means

 

[Magicsilence]

I remember watching a program about this topic, it was done by atheists, BUT the guy said, the chance of us occurring by chance is about 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

And they showed all the zeros on the screen it looked similar to that.

And i couldnt BELIEVE that after that and NOW i know that the Big Crunch will NOT occur how anyone can say we occurred by chance.

THANKYOU LORD!