"In the end there must have been a creator"

There are lots of people who are willing to accept that everything in this universe is "governed" by the laws of physics and that it all began on a very small and simple scale. "But," they say, "I won't accept it that something comes from nothing; in the end there must have been a creator."Aside from the fact that this theory only raises more questions such as how did the creator came into existence, it also doesn't really make the creator very powerful. He only had to "pull the switch" which would "start off" the universe. From that point on everything would only follow the laws of physics and the universe became more and more complicated. So if that's the creator you believe exists, you might as well ignore him and get on with your life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floris O:
There are lots of people who are willing to accept that everything in this universe is "governed" by the laws of physics and that it all began on a very small and simple scale. "But," they say, "I won't accept it that something comes from nothing; in the end there must have been a creator."

​

Aside from the fact that this theory only raises more questions such as how did the creator came into existence, it also doesn't really make the creator very powerful. He only had to "pull the switch" which would "start off" the universe. From that point on everything would only follow the laws of physics and the universe became more and more complicated. So if that's the creator you believe exists, you might as well ignore him and get on with your life.

​

---

Really?...i happen to believe that the creator who can determine all the laws before hand,spark the light and watch the universe unfold exactly according to IT's plans is a hellavulot more "powerfull",not to mention wiser than the creator who's a complete control freak and throws a hissy fit when things dont turn out exactly the way he plans them...

"Aside from the fact that this theory only raises more questions such as how did the creator came into existence, it also doesn't really make the creator very powerful. He only had to "pull the switch" which would "start off" the universe. From that point on everything would only follow the laws of physics and the universe became more and more complicated. So if that's the creator you believe exists, you might as well ignore him and get on with your life."
--Doesn't make him very powerful, that is, if you believe in a deistic God, which I do not, and it is a matter of opinion (as is analogous to your stament that the creator is not very powerful), here is a little bit and it is also a bit appealing to those of the ID argument:

quote:

---

Second, why is it that the universe is so near the critical rate of expansion? To see what this means imagine you had a machine which made universes.
On this machine you would have two dials. One dial would control the expansion force of the Big Bang. The other would control gravity, the force which pulls everything back together. Set the dials to whatever you wanted and out would come a universe. After a few billion attempts you would find it to be a very boring experiment! In fact in order to get a universe which would produce carbon-based life those two dials need to be set quite precisely. If you set the gravitational force too high, then the universe would appear but within a microsecond gravity would pull everything back together into the opposite of a Big Bang, a Big Crunch! If you set the expansion rate too high, then the universe would expand at such a rate that gravity would be unable to form stars and galaxies. In fact in order to get a structure within the universe these dials need to be balanced to within one part in 10⁶⁰(1 followed by sixyty zeros!). In Paul Davies' words, that is the same accuracy as shooting a target 1 centimetre square on the other side of the universe -- and hitting it!

---

-----------------

so TC- where is your evidence that the universe has not expanded and contracted a great number of times, possibly an infinite number of times? where is your evidence that we are not one of millions of universes that are currently part of an incredibly large cosmos?if the cosmos is infinite, then it it guaranteed that life would emerge at sometime in it is history.take 2 billion decks of cards, and pick a combination. the chances of picking the correct order is undescribably low. yet every time you lay them out, you are getting a combination. are you witnessing a miracle?it is statistically certain that if you drew that deck, everytime you'd come up with a new combination. and draw that deck an infinite number of times, and you will get every combination, and that's nearly a statistical certainty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
take 2 billion decks of cards, and pick a combination. the chances of picking the correct order is undescribably low. yet every time you lay them out, you are getting a combination. are you witnessing a miracle?

---

No, not unless you have "specified" complexity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
it is statistically certain that if you drew that deck, everytime you'd come up with a new combination. and draw that deck an infinite number of times, and you will get every combination, and that's nearly a statistical certainty.

---

Besides being self contradicting....is there anything we should be getting from this statement?

i can never view new posts, and it's driving me up the wall!!

there is obviously a problem with this thread because i simply cannot view new replies. i think it needs to be fixed or could it be just my computer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:

Really?...i happen to believe that the creator who can determine all the laws before hand,spark the light and watch the universe unfold exactly according to IT's plans is a hellavulot more "powerfull",not to mention wiser than the creator who's a complete control freak and throws a hissy fit when things dont turn out exactly the way he plans them...

---

testing

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:

Really?...i happen to believe that the creator who can determine all the laws before hand,spark the light and watch the universe unfold exactly according to IT's plans is a hellavulot more "powerfull",not to mention wiser than the creator who's a complete control freak and throws a hissy fit when things dont turn out exactly the way he plans them...

---

So I take it you are not a Christian? Anyway, the supposed creator didn't necessarrily saw it's universe unfold exactly according to IT's plans. The world could have been different when the universe was recreated. Like shuffling a deck of cards: everytime they follow the lawas of physics, but which cards show up are just a matter of chance, and (almost) every time different. So there is no indication the creator had "plans."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floris O:
So I take it you are not a Christian? Anyway, the supposed creator didn't necessarrily saw it's universe unfold exactly according to IT's plans. The world could have been different when the universe was recreated. Like shuffling a deck of cards: everytime they follow the lawas of physics, but which cards show up are just a matter of chance, and (almost) every time different. So there is no indication the creator had "plans."

---

Or,the creator did have a plan and we're it...as we are today,as we were yesterday and as we'll be tomorrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
where is your evidence that the universe has not expanded and contracted a great number of times, possibly an infinite number of times? where is your evidence that we are not one of millions of universes that are currently part of an incredibly large cosmos?

​

---

Isn't it true that the universe is slowly losing energy in a way that it would be impossible for it to expand and crunch and expand forever?If you want to postulate universes within universes and whatnot, that's fine. But that is in no way evidence against God. In fact, you don't have any evidence that your postulation is true, so it is basically a theological decision. Just pointing that out, you may have already known this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Isn't it true that the universe is slowly losing energy in a way that it would be impossible for it to expand and crunch and expand forever?

​

.

---

LUD: Who said that? the universe is a little too large to afirm that its all loosing energy in anyway shape or form....believe it or not but there's quite a large part of it we have yet to see...

I believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics state:1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.So I think that there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that an eternal oscillating universe does not seem very feasible.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B] Isn't it true that the universe is slowly losing energy in a way that it would be impossible for it to expand and crunch and expand forever?[/QUOTE]Nope, it's not true that the universe is losing energy.So where did you hear that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]I believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics state:

​

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

​

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.[/QUOTE]

​

But this is different from "losing" energy. It just means that the energy available for work is reducing. The amount of energy is the same, it just takes different form.

​

[QUOTE]So I think that there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning, and that an eternal oscillating universe does not seem very feasible.[/b]

---

I have had this explained to me, but I don't understand it well enough at the moment to explain it to you.However, one aspect of it it that, in an occilating universe, there is no energy lost to friction.There are problems with the oscilating universe, but they don't have to do with the 2ndLoT.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2002]