Again there is order in the universe not dis-order. All-things observed were created by God. A God of order, a case for intelligent design. All science can do is attempt yo observe and try to understand

Something, be it outside our universe, a physical law or principle, or the "energy of the universe" itself, existed "before" the universe as we know it.  t.



I mean, we know this is the case.  In order for the logic of our universe to make sense, it is a necessity.  If you think atheists believe that everything came from nothing (no higher dimensions, no physical laws, no energy, truly "nothing" (and not just the absence of matter, energy and spactime))  then I could see why you'd think it is completely irrational.



I've not read hawking, so I'm not sure exactly what he's saying...so I won't speak for his ideas.  Suffice to say, even with some sort of mathematical model showing "something from nothing", you still need a framework for that model to work...and thus...always have "something".   Do you agree?



I think you miss the mark with the part in red.  There is nothing about believing in a higher order (by that I mean, something we simply cannot explain with science AT THE MOMENT) that necessitates the belief in a god.  Do you believe the weather is intelligently controlled? Of course not, its a symptom of the physical laws of the universe, even if we don't fully understand it.  I think the same goes for the existence of the universe itself.  In the past man always wanted to throw god in there to explain things we didn't understand.  I don't see the origin of the universe as being any different.



Using similar logic to yours: "I believe anyone who thinks that something can exist that is not defined by our laws of physics has already admitted that anything is possible, and thus are essentially agnostics."







 

Again, there is no requirement for intelligence to be behind the order that is observed.



Your argument has no logical basis in reality beyond your faith.





Which is fine.





Just don't pretend that its somehow a more reasonable than taking god(s) out of the equation.
 

I don't pretend my faith is no different than your faith or belief in creation because your concepts are unproven. At least i am not denying the fact that 0+0sttill=0 that is the fact Hawkings can not get around. It kind of reminds me of the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, a couple of con men convinced the king that they had magical cloth, which only the wise could see.

Google entropy.  If boiled down to its simplest meaning it is the measure of disorder.  If that doesn't make sense then leave your lawn alone for 1 year and see if it stays orderly or if you start getting letters from the city to reverse the disorder and straighten your lawn into something respectable.

We differ in that, given new facts, my beliefs can change.  Yours never will regardless of what information is brought to light.





Ironically to me it sounds like the pretense for all religions.





 

That's not what he says really.  I just read his book.  Have you?

You misunderstand the point I think.  The point is NOT that any of this disproves God.  Rather, it's that relgion's interpretations of "God's Word" can be, and has been, wrong innumerable times.  Galileo believed a principal advanced by Thomas Acquinas:  If the sceintific evidence and our interpretation of "God's word" appear to be in conflict, we must consider that in may be our interpreation of "God's Word" that is wrong.

I used the quotations becuase I myself am an atheist.  But I think the point is well worth considering to any believer.

If you can imagine a God that is eternal, why can't you imagine a cosmos that is eternal?  Keep in mind that the idea of time as you understand it would not work the same way at the moment of the Big Bang.

Well, the reason is because the available science actually corroborates the opposite of the universe....namely, the universe had a very real beginning from a singularity, ie the Standard Cosmological Model.

All other cosmological models out there are mental gymnastics contrived to avoid this singularity and the "uncomfortable" metaphysical issues it raises.  (Well, I say uncomfortable....they are only uncomfortable to some around here.)

I don't base my belief on what other scientists believe, just as believers shouldn't base their faith on what other people believe.

Stephen Hawking, The Pope and myself are all on equal ground in our knowledge about whether or not a God exists.

Then what do you base it on?

My logic, education, experience, observations, etc. Not someone else's.

What about you?

I'd say the same for myself.  Yet, I find others opinions/ideas to be rather helpful as well, as I do not consider "myself" to be a completely reliable authority on all matters all of the time.

Speaking of authority.....whose authority and conclusions do you reckon carry more weight?  Hawking's or the Pope's?....after all, they both cannot be correct can they?

Debating whether science or religion holds more weight (which is really what you are doing) is just asking for an uneccessary war.  The Pope's opinion of the world is simply an opinion based on faith and for what it is worth he doesn't even speak for all christians, let alone other religions.  This is the interesting part of christianity because they can't agree on a great deal of what is presented in the Bible from one denomination to the next.  Different christian groups believe that, even though they believe in the same god, the other group is going to hell because they believe differently.  This just shows that faith holds only as much weight as a believer or non-believer is willing to place on it.  

Scientific principles have been hypothesized, tested and accepted as fact given the world around us and the finite amount of information that we have to work with.  Are there some question marks about the very beginning....sure there are.  It is difficult/impossible to comprehend the beginning.  The difference between science and religion is that science has question marks about the beginning and most religious explanations of the world are one big WTF.

If you took a group of people that had not been educated on the creation of the universe and you read them the bible while educating them on the scientific explanations of the world I am guessing that you would not get your desired result.  The reality of the matter is that by the time the average person has a science class that covers the topic they already have a faith based opinion that is very hard to let go of.  They are able to overlook the questions that science creates with the bibles explanations because they have faith.  

The reality of the matter is that science can give us a tangible explanation which holds weight with those that study and understand it.  Religion only holds weight with those that are either otherwise uneducated on the matter or those who are willing to overlook its shortcomings for the promise of a forgiving god and an eternal afterlife.

Laws + energy = universe, before you say God made the energy,  Big Bounce/Crunch

You guys are to much where did the laws come from and the energy. Again last time i remember nothing can be created from nothing still haven't explained how 0+0=0 or as bad science tries to sell us (i would call it a fable) you have something and it becomes something more. Well where did the something come form. you still violate your own laws of math by say 0+0= 1. You see you can not explaine where energy comes from. It had to be created some how? I know how your laws came about, Mathmatical laws came about by observing The Lord God's Creation,.I will agree to a point on most physical and mathmatical laws.

That's so nice of you to 'believe in' scientific principles.  The laws did not come from anywhere other than observation of the way the world around us works.  They were not handed to us as if they were the ten commandments brought forth to us by a higher power via our contemporaries.  They were observed, tested and written down.  As for the energy, if you read the big bounce explanation you would see that the hypothesis is that it came from the collapse of another universe.  So instead of 0+0=0 it is more like -1+1=0.  0 meaning an equilibrium for energy in space and time and not the lack of matter.  You are correlating 0+0=1 as if 1 = the existence of matter.  In reality we are all made up of energy and matter is the consequence of energy being organized.  As for energy needing an origin, why does energy need an origin any more than god?  I have faith that energy has always existed.  There, the argument is over.  You can not prove me wrong because I believe and I have faith in energy.

I suppose it is true that there could be a category of atheist idealism, but from my perspective it seems absurd - the guiding ideal that serves as the foundation beneath physical existence is God, regardless of how a person may feel about the word itself.

The example of the weather is interesting but not persuasive, placing too much emphasis on the concept of 'control'.  The fact is that weather is driven by some very particular imperatives - fluid dynamics, thermodynamics - which makes certain things impossible - i.e. it's not possible that cold air will rise above hot.  It proceeds in an orderly manner.  It's 'controled' to the same degree that an internal combustion engine is 'controled' by it's designer - the cylinders always fire in the same sequence, every rotation (leaving aside the possibility of malfunction, which still give evidence to 'order' and 'design' to the extent that it's recognized as 'malfunction'), without the designer personally actuating every single spark.  We hardly deny that internal combustion engines are reflective of will and intelligence.

I would also take issue to your premise that most atheists aren't materialists.  Even here, I've seen many atheists propose that the universe was created through purely random chance, matter preceeding form.  And they also turn around and characterize that as being the most rational conclusion.

First, no, you couldn't be more wrong.



What if the big bang was created by the collision of branes in higher dimensions?  There is no need for your "god" in such a universe.  There is no need for a god in a universe where the universe itself "always" existed.  The point, you are missing it.



Secondly, I knew trying to demonstrate the position that the unvierse is naturally occuring due to physical laws, just like the weather, wouldn't work for you.  You are stuck on the idea that a law must have a creator.  What you can't see is that some people believe that these laws always were.  Rather than requiring a god to create them...which, in turn, needs "super natural laws" for his existence.



As for the part in red I've NEVER seen that.



The inverse if formed due to physical laws, not random chance.  



Its clear that you don't know nearly as much about the atheist position as you are pretending that you do.



 

Can you guys maybe edit your quotes once in a while?  There are posts on this page that have three new lines of content that are four pages long.

The laws were always here here, we just discovered them by observation, I'm assuming that's what you meant.
Not quite, E=MC^2, all the matter compacted back into a singularity, converted to energy, then the Big Bang when energy converted back to matter

Indeed good sir!

First, no, you couldn't be more wrong.

What if the big bang was created by the collision of branes in higher dimensions? There is no need for your "god" in such a universe. There is no need for a god in a universe where the universe itself "always" existed. The point, you are missing it.

Secondly, I knew trying to demonstrate the position that the unvierse is naturally occuring due to physical laws, just like the weather, wouldn't work for you. You are stuck on the idea that a law must have a creator. What you can't see is that some people believe that these laws always were. Rather than requiring a god to create them...which, in turn, needs "super natural laws" for his existence.

As for the part in red I've NEVER seen that.

The inverse if formed due to physical laws, not random chance.

Its clear that you don't know nearly as much about the atheist position as you are pretending that you do.

fatalerror113 what you say here "What you can't see is that some people believe that these laws always were"
the laws you mention are an observation of the working of the creation of God. No creation no laws to observe.
fatalerror113 and what you claim takes faith belief "What you can't see is that some people believe  that these laws always were.
We are not so different we have faith in what we believe, me in that God created everthing.  You your observations of the creation to formulate your conclusion. Its the same argument which came first the chicken or the egg. Answer neither Both are observable, But both are only abservable and knowable after they were created. First the creation then observation.

I think we are arguing semantics.  Your explanation simply the more thoroughversion of the point I was trying to make.

I'm oversimplifying for a reason

Thank you

Gotcha

You're just being obtuse now.  A bit rude also.

I think we keep missing each other's points:



You assume for the universe to exist, it must be created by god...who himself was not created.  You say "by definition god is not created".



I assume that the universe exists, and that by definition "the universe needs not be created."



Both are assuming something "need not be created"...we just differ on what that thing is.  You think it is an intelligent, all powerful being...I don't.



 

wrong again....google it.  you should really read more.

I think you are either intentionally or unintentionally mischaracterizing the atheist position, and completely dismissing any definitions of "the universe" that don't fit into your preconceived boxes (theism, atheism, idealism).



 

So let it go...

For an atheist to complain about a Christian 'mischaracterizing' atheism is rich.

I'm entirely comfortable with my beliefs and characterizations, and I'll leave it at that.

OP's (my) request -- see above.