Creator of God, Big Bang

It's a valid argument - if you go around adding extraneous undefined entities, you can replace the word god with anything you like. It's not meant to mock the concept of god - it's meant to point out the violation of parsimony and special pleading on behalf of those who believe in a god. "Purpose" is not required for existence. Human beings like to try to find purpose, but that doesn't mean it's there, or required. The Universe can simply exist, without any purpose whatsoever."Purpose" is a human concept, not a property of nature. This has nothing to do with anything. Or helping other people. Or progressing human knowledge. Or whatever else a person wants to define their own purpose as. We determine our own "higher callings," Phat. We always have.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Certainly true. But again, you're using special pleading. The argument you're using, "I can't prove it exists, but you can't prove it doesn't," applies equally well to "invisible pink unicorn," "purple fairy," or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as to any deity. Right, but without any evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of a deity, there's no reason to believe in one except for the emotional desires of the human mind. You literally pick a deity that you "like" or were brought up to believe in, and insist in the possibility of its existence, while agreeing that the existence of the invisible pink unicorn is highly unlikely despite being able to use the exact same argument for both. Logic is a human creation used to test the validity of arguments. That's all. I accept the possibility of any given deity's existence. I simply also realize that the existence of any one particular deity is exactly as likely as the existence of any other supernatural creature from myth, or any other unfalsifiable extraneous entity.As an Atheist, my position is not "no deity can possibly exist." My position is "I see no reason to believe in one, any more than I see a reason to believe in fairies."

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Exactly. Believers in god violate parsimony by adding an extraneous entity to the equation.If(the Universe as we observe it) = (Matter) + (Energy) + (the observed behaviors we describe with the Laws of Physics)And(The Universe as we observe it) = (Matter) + (Energy) + (the observed behaviors we describe with the Laws of Physics) + (God)ThenGod = 0, and is irrelevant.It's exactly like saying:If4 = 2 + 2And4 = 2 + 2 + xThenx = 0, and is irrelevant.Does it mean "x" or "God" can't possibly exist? No. It just means there's no reason to believe they do, because at best they are irrelevant.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Navel grazing nonsense. It's all irrelevant.If the universe with god appears tot he observer exactly the same as the universe without god, then god is irrelevant to the observer, and the observer has no reason to believe god even exists.Your silliness regarding "the existence of existence" is not relevant to this thread.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

There's a very, very large difference between starting with the assumption that god exists, and inferring the existence of god due to evidence.The former is a violation of parsimony, adding an extraneous entity for no objective reason. The latter would be a valid way to show the existence of god, if only he would provide some evidence he even exists.As I said to Phat, you're engaging in special pleading for the deity of your choice. Could have fooled me, with this:

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Again, this is special pleading. The Universe could not possibly have always existed, but your god can? Even the Big Bang does not suggest that there was a point "before" the Universe existed - only that it existed as the Singularity at the beginning of the expansion we now see. Right. And it's interesting to think of what existence would be like if we didn't experience time in a linear fashion. But it's all just irrelevant navel-grazing. You're still engaged in special pleading. More special pleading. You insist that there could be no "before" god, but scoff at the concept that there was no "before" the Universe. We have actual evidence that shows time is just another property of the Universe like the other dimensions, and that asking what came "before" the Universe is like asking what is North of the North Pole. But you insist that this cannot be...and that there must be a deity that created the Universe, and that he has no beginning.It's the same argument, except one has the weight of evidence, and the other violates parsimony by adding an extraneous entity.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

It's not a difficult concept, randman. It's special pleading - it means you're setting a different requirement for one side than the other. Even given evidence, you wont accept that the Universe has always existed. But without any evidence, you claim the existence of a deity. You insist that Creation requires a Creator, but deny that the same logic requires that a Creator must require a still higher being to bring him in to existence. Did it not occur to you that, if the Universe contains all of time (since time is a property of the Universe), asking what came "before" is like asking what's higher than up, or what's North of the North Pole? You either don't know anything about the Big Bang, or haven't read genesis. The Big Bang does not propose "Creation ex nihilo." It doesn't have anything to do with 6 days, or anything else in Genesis. Again, you're demanding more from one side than the other - special pleading. You insist that the Universe is too complex to be anything but design, and so insist that there must be a God. But then you insist that God does not require a Creator himself, despite the fact that a God must be infinitely more complex than the universe itself.The fact that you cannot see your double-standard is astounding.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

I'm not saying that the Singularity came from anything at all. In fact, Im saying quite the opposite. We know that the Singularity existed, and that asking about "before" the Singularity is a nonsense question. We also know that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - there is no special pleading, because we know that the Universe exists. There is no evidence of god, and thus he is an extraneous entity.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Try every paper ever written concerning the Big Bang. The Singularity is simply the single point from which the Universe expanded at the Big Bang. We know it existed by extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards.The Singularity does not, however, imply that the Universe did not exist at some point, as you seem to believe. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - the Singularity is simply the state of the Universe as it began expanding. Creationists are the ones who claim the Universe did not exist at some point.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Correction: The Big Bang shows that the Universe as we know it had a beginning. That doesn't mean there was ever a point in time that the Universe did not exist, just not in the state we see it. Atoms may not have existed, but that doesn't mean that matter and energy did not exist in a different state.Look, this is getting way off-topic for this thread. If you'd like to discuss the Big Bang, start a new thread in the science forums. This isn't the place.The topic here is the insistence that the complexity of the Universe demands a Creator, while insisting that the obviously complex Creator does not require a Creator of his own. That's not what the Big Bang says, ICANT. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, period. The Singularity is the point at which our physics break down, because everything existed as a single point. You can't calculate speed, for instance, because (speed = distance/time) would be (speed = 0/0) which doesn't make sense to our math.No scientists claims everything came from literally nothing. If you ask "what came before the Big Bang," the question doesn't make sense any more than "what is farther North than the North Pole?"Again, if you'd like to discuss the Big Bag further, please start a new topic. "I believe in fairies.""I believe the Earth orbits the Sun."One of these statements is based on evidence. The either is not. Scientific theories are based on evidence and the repeated testing of predictive models. Religious beliefs are based on old books and superstitions, and can never be pinned down to offer evidence. The best they can ever do is say "Yeah, but God did it!" which both explains nothing, and violates parsimony all at once. I'd like to see that paper if you have it.As for my source for the Singularity: here is one paper discussing the possible structure of the Singularity prior to the Bang.Really, the Singularity is simple extrapolation. We know from direct observation that the Universe is expanding over time. If we trace that expansion backwards, the Universe reaches a single point.There are models being worked on that do not include a Singularity, like String Theory. But as of yet, to my knowledge, these models are completely untestable with modern technology. I'll concede that it is possible there was no actual Singularity in the way we understand it today, but even still, nobody is suggesting that matter and energy were created ex nihilo. Asking what came "before" the Universe is still a nonsense question. Only if you violate parsimony by adding an extraneous entity, and then somehow rationalize 6-day Creation with a billions-of-years-old Universe.In other words, it doesn't even in the slightest prove anything of the sort.Let's get back on topic now.You claim the Universe requires a Creator. What definition of "Creator" do you use that allows it to not require its own Creator by the same logic? If you cannot, then either there must have been infinite Creators creating each other, or no Creator is required at all. If no Creator is required by the evidence, then the existence of a Creator violates parsimony.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Then why are we talking at all? The answer is that you didn't read far enough:

quote:

---

My question is who created God, or how did God come about?

​

Now I know the answer is he wasn't created, he has always been there..

​

However doesn't this throw the whole argument that machines require an engineer out the window? Humans cannot arise by chance, but a God with infinite power can?

---

You left off the last part. The OP asks why, if humans are too complex to have arisen without a Creator, the Creator can exist without himself having a Creator, since he must be more complex than humanity. I would think "the observable Universe." Since this isn't part of the science forums, Im somewhat uncomfortable with going far afield into the Big Bang without moderator go-ahead. The OP seems, to me, to be speaking about the question "who created the Creator," which is a different subject.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

What "makes sense" to you is irrelevant. General relativity doesn't "make sense" unless you study it for years, and not always even then. Nature is not required to work in a way intuitive to the human mind. This is just another version of the Argument from Incredulity. First: that doesn't really have anything at all to do with the fact that lightning is undirected.Second: you are mistaken. Take a look at the Nitrogen Cycle.Lightning does produce Nitrogen Oxide (not Nitrogen - lightning doesn't cause nuclear transmutation!), but it's a rather insignificant portion of the cycle.

quote:

---

Nitrogen in the air becomes a part of biological matter mostly through the actions of bacteria and algae in a process known as nitrogen fixation. Legume plants such as clover, alfalfa, and soybeans form nodules on the roots where nitrogen fixing bacteria take nitrogen from the air and convert it into ammonia, NH3. The ammonia is further converted by other bacteria first into nitrite ions, NO2-, and then into nitrate ions, NO3-. Plants utilize the nitrate ions as a nutrient or fertilizer for growth. Nitrogen is incorporate in many amino acids which are further reacted to make proteins.

---

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Cavediver began to reply to your Singularity/Big Bang statements. I think I have a decent grasp of the concepts for a layperson, but Cavediver is not a layperson. When he/she speaks on this topic, I'll listen. I suggest you do the same. Didn't you just say that God (or "one energy," whatever that means) makes "more sense" to you than Big Bang cosmology?Besides that, we're talking about apples and oranges. General relativity has actual evidence and mathematics to support itself. God has nothing. First: Lightning still does not create Nitrogen. It forms Nitrogen Oxide, which is very, VERY different from saying Lightning produces Nitrogen.Second: "Purpose" is not a good term. It has no more "purpose" than a rock tumbling downhill, or rain, or an earthquake. I'm sure you attribute all of this to your god's "plan," but this is both off topic and not borne out by the evidence unless your god is compeltely insane.Third: The original quetion on this subject was whether lightning is "directed." It is most certainly not, and is an example of chaotic behavior. (tesla's inability to define the words "chaos" or "order" in any useful way notwithstanding)

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

It may surprise you, Lemkin, but a very large number of Christians accept Big Bang cosmology, and even modern geology and evolution.Christians come in many more flavors than literalist Creationists. Hell, even Creationists come in multiple flavors.