Don't waste your time trying to debate a creationist. Just tell them to go and watch ANY of the David Attenborough nature documentaries.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Attenborough - Nature's Great Events: The Great Feast. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Attenborough - Nature's Great Events: The Great Migration. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Attenborough - Nature's Great Events: The Great Tide. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

The audio should be replaced by a narration from David Attenborough.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's a giant leap of faith to assume there is such a thing as "outside of the universe", never mind the assumptions you've made about things that exist outside of it.

Then what are string theorists and multiverse theorists dealing with? I'm not sure what you are saying here, so help me out
>> ^xxovercastxx:

When they talk about the age of the universe, they are talking about how long it's been since the Big Bang, ie: how long the universe has existed in its present state. Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark. We've only gotten to the point where we can even consider researching these things within the last decade.

Ok, but how does this negate anything I have said? "Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark." Yes, indeed that's true. So, how can you assume you know what came before the Big Bang was not God, when there are no scientific ways to test this, just theorizing?
What you seem to have just proposed, is that "I don't know and no one else knows, therefore your theory is wrong."


The point is that, yes, there isn't a fully endorsed scientific way to fully explain what was going on before the 'big bang'. There are lots of competing theories, with more or less scientifically provable basis, but they admit their shortcomings and welcome more information and the proof of their shortcomings.

You aren't addressing the issue with a 'giant question mark.' If you truly started with a 'question mark' you would doubt God as much as any atheist. You start with the result that you want.

How can I assume that what came before the Big Bang isn't God? I cant. I don't have enough information. How can you prove that it wasn't a giant chocolate fondu? Can you prove it? If you can't prove that this 'God' person was responsible for it, but you still believe it to be true, and resist any opposing theory, then you are not involved in any sort of science what so ever that would surpass 'it was a chocolate fondu!' theroy.

'God' starts with 'This is correct' and works backwards from there. Lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, and so many other things where all once God's domain... not any more in any but the most abstract of sense. Magic is no longer required, we can now see what is going on here based on logical observation. Learned information forced this to be incorrect in all but the most ignorant of believers. Same for thousands of other natural phenomenon. Why would you, with no evidence in your favor, declare it to be so on any subject and claim any sort of science. Science is a result of repeatable test and proof... not faith. Faith is to have an idea without proof or science.

Edit: And, if what you work with is faith, I share none of it, but I don't mean to disrespect your experience on this earth. I am just offended when faith is attempted to be included as an equal scientific companion to what can be proven. What 'can't' be prove is not, by any means, equal to what can be proven.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think it's a giant leap of faith to assume there is such a thing as "outside of the universe", never mind the assumptions you've made about things that exist outside of it.


Then what are string theorists and multiverse theorists dealing with? I'm not sure what you are saying here, so help me out

>> ^xxovercastxx:

When they talk about the age of the universe, they are talking about how long it's been since the Big Bang, ie: how long the universe has existed in its present state. Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark. We've only gotten to the point where we can even consider researching these things within the last decade.


Ok, but how does this negate anything I have said? "Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark." Yes, indeed that's true. So, how can you assume you know what came before the Big Bang was not God, when there are no scientific ways to test this, just theorizing?

What you seem to have just proposed, is that "I don't know and no one else knows, therefore your theory is wrong."

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Well I think there's a big problem in approaching things that exist outside of the universe with a scientific (not philosophical) mind. The scientific process is based on things (in our universe) being testable. Seeing as you can't test anything that exists outside the universe, any supposition or philosophy will be simply that: supposition or philosophy.
Knowing this concept means that both branes and god have an equal stance for the creation of the universe. I stand in the circle of "god" because (like GeeSussFreek mentioned), I have an understanding that if causality is the basis for our universe, where is the first link? I think that God (as a beginning) is a solid answer to that.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".
How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?



I think it's a giant leap of faith to assume there is such a thing as "outside of the universe", never mind the assumptions you've made about things that exist outside of it.

When they talk about the age of the universe, they are talking about how long it's been since the Big Bang, ie: how long the universe has existed in its present state. Anything that may have existed prior to that is a giant question mark. We've only gotten to the point where we can even consider researching these things within the last decade.

Well I think there's a big problem in approaching things that exist outside of the universe with a scientific (not philosophical) mind. The scientific process is based on things (in our universe) being testable. Seeing as you can't test anything that exists outside the universe, any supposition or philosophy will be simply that: supposition or philosophy.

Knowing this concept means that both branes and god have an equal stance for the creation of the universe. I stand in the circle of "god" because (like GeeSussFreek mentioned), I have an understanding that if causality is the basis for our universe, where is the first link? I think that God (as a beginning) is a solid answer to that.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".
How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.
Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?



I think there's a big difference in value between an explanation (even if it's speculation) and "God did it".

How can "God did it" ever be an explanation when God himself can't even be explained or defined?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have faith in the answers that I do think I have.

Along the same lines, wouldn't string theorists be replacing "I don't know" with "It was branes"? No one on Earth knows all the answers. We all have to work together to figure out what the hell we're doing on this rock.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.
Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?

>> ^TheJehosephat:

That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well.

Then aren't you just replacing "I don't know" with "It was God"?

My personal faith has led me towards the Religious Society of Friends (for the non-google oriented: Quakers). But I don't pretend to have all the answers, so I'm always learning and searching for the truth.

>> ^Smugglarn:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

What god? The Hebrew war god in the Bible? Odin? Brahma? Ra?>> ^TheJehosephat:

That's the reason (to me anyway) God seems to work well. Anyway, this was a pretty civil discussion. Thanks @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/heathen" title="member since April 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">heathen
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/xxovercastxx" title="member since February 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">xxovercastxx @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/TheJehosephat" title="member since October 12th, 2009" class="profilelink">TheJehosephat And even more damning is if you believe in causality as the prime way the universe works, you need a first link in the causality chain. Without causes and effects, you have no real meaning for time. You need a point to which causality starts, it is a logically necessary condition.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

The idea that time exists outside of the universe is a wholly unscientific idea. If God created the universe, God exists outside of time. The only reason we assume there must be a creator to the creator is because we experience time in a linear fashion. There was no creator of the creator, because the creator was always there.

EDIT: I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with the quotes here...


First, the quote system is pretty hosed here and probably won't be fixed any time soon.

To your main point... If God does not require a creator because he was always there, why does everything else have to have been created?