Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html en-gb 30 Fri 29 Aug 2014 00:47:31 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2137 john,Can I take a punt at your questions. Your questions probe characteristics of the human psyche.1) Why do sincere faith-people of any religion live (statistically measurably) longer and recover more quickly from illness? I believe firmly that health and well being is linked to your mental state and, of course your, lifestyle. Maybe it is true that the faithful are on average more contented - perhaps because they are more relaxed about their destiny, maybe because they don't worry so much about the big questions in life, but more likely because they have some sense of fulfilment and recieve some degree of support from a community. This neither proves nor disproves God but says something about us being social creatures; it also says something about why there is a need to believe in something, it also says that whatever your views, religion has a very positive role even in our modern society.A comparison between people who have no interests (beyond the television) and those that are actively involved something - the church, a bowling club - that would be interesting!2) Why are increasingly secular societies also those with increasing social issues such as crime, depression and narcotics? Moral framework, community, family - these all tend to be stronger within religious communities. Also, the saying that money cannot buy you happiness - we know this is true - but money does buy you time. Time is a rope with which you can hang yourself - the devil makes work for idle hands. Sorry about the cliche's and metaphores but it seems appropriate. We have more free time when we live outside of family and community - but we also know that as a social creature we do not cope so well when disconnected. Maybe this is one reason why facebook is so popular - but I love the saying "2000 friends but no-one to have a drink with". Are we trying to fill a void - yes, I think so. Maybe the pub and nightclub is replacing the church as "social glue". I also think that the community aspect of religion, be it the Church or the Mosque is what makes it such a positive experience some for people - especially those that need community (which is probably most if not all of us). So, maybe my final word on this is its NOT necessarily because they have God in their lives, its because they have eachother. 3) Why are so many people, of all faiths, willing to sacrifice themselves, including to the point of death, in the name of their faith? Again, lots of reasons - very personal ones too - which will include negative reasons (conditioning, being carried away by mass hysteria, fear of God and Hell, fear of what their community or religious leader might say or do - and maybe even mental illness) as well as positive reasons - because that is what they instinctvely feel is what is expected. But perhaps the strongest factor here is that in dying, those that beleve in resurection in whatever form die 'knowing' they will be born again, go to heaven, or whatever. It is not, as most atheists believe, the end! Tue 07 Sep 2010 11:01:28 GMT+1 Freethinker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2136 1927. At 2:16pm on 06 Sep 2010, RubbishGirl wrote:Surely this thread is OVER, there's nothing left that hasn't been said & neither side is capitulating. I think it's best we just agree to disagree.Anyone that wants to continue can hop over to the "Popeathon" on the other thread.Besides I still want to be last.-------------------------------------------------------------------------I think there cannot be much more life left on this thread, the 9th anniversary of 9/11 is coming up in four days, and they will have to close this debate to make room for it.The new debate will probably have some innoccous title like "what are your memories of 9/11" or something similiar.Just like this one, all the 9/11 "truthers" and the 9/11 "faithers" will pile on to it and turn it into a shouthing match just like this one.------------------------------------------------------------------The BBC must have found a way to harness all the hot air emanating from pointless debates like this, and turn it into electricity to power their headquarters, why else would they keep this debate going on long after its sell-by date?!!! Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:53:32 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2135 2113. At 10:24am on 07 Sep 2010, pb wrote:Perhaps God will only be truely under threat when scientists can describe the very essence of life (and I don't mean respiration and digestion, etc. I mean what makes me ME and my consciousness as a living being - as a set of equations).That day, I think, will NEVER come. ---------------------------This is a question which has een answered with theories which are based on observation and science. Yet it will always be challenged by anyone believing in a god or human superiority.There is a belief that we are the same as everything around us. We are a reaction to our lives, causel systems who dont really have the free will we believe we have but instead are a complex system reacting to our environment based on our lives causes.This is rejected because most people want to believe they are superior. Humans have free will given by god so cant just be some reacting machine. But this is a facinating and fantastic thing in its own right and to a large extent has been shown to be heading towards the truth.Criminal profiling has proven incredibly accurate by looking at a persons crime scenes to describe the person. Various animals have been shown to be predictable and so are we. Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:34:02 GMT+1 wok http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2134 it's simple: reason ends where religion starts. (most) religious people seem to be happy to stay in the dark and accept the 'god did it' God of Gaps argument when we do not (yet) know an answer, where progress can only be made by education, critical thinking, rationality and continuing to search for answers (even when the answers are not necessarily the answers we want to hear). Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:24:07 GMT+1 RubbishGirl http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2133 STILL GOING?! wow, maybe the BBC are trying to prove that THEY are god, by allowing this debate to go on until it attains critical mass & collapses in on itself, forming a singularity & then..........BANG!Now imagine what a universe designed by the BBC would look like *shudder*that god guy suddenly doesn't look so bad. Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:22:27 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2132 Hi, intheuk #2114.I'm not referring to individual doctrinal issues; but to the message about the origin of the cosmos. It is this singe doctrine that I am maintaining has been consistent across all faiths; not any particular moral issue. I don't know of any faith that has ever claimed spontaneous creation of the cosmos; that's all I'm saying. I'm not going to pick up and oppose your attack on the validity of certain holy texts: that's irrelevent to the HYS subject. Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:16:39 GMT+1 D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2131 This post has been Removed Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:16:10 GMT+1 D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2130 492. At 5:51pm on 02 Sep 2010, Kentucker wrote:So matter creates itself out of nothing then eh? Now that's novel. So why did it stop?The problem with people like Hawkins and others is that their scientific ego is so big that even if they were presented with incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God they would still choose to disbelieve because it's not about evidence, it's about not wanting to submit to something or someone and their moral laws outside of themselves.Pride.No matter. One day he will stand before his maker and then he will know. Too late then Prof -------------------------------------------------------------------OK forget Hawkings, you provide the proof their is god, his findigns are based on existing trends and pure and simple facts! god is based on killing, murdering and control over humans! with religion there has always been those whose interests it helps, with science its not about personal interests, just scientific findings! [p.s. lets hear again what it says abouth when creation was? love this bit of pure fiction, and explain dinosaurs agains for us all? lighten up the debate! Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:14:15 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2129 Hi, Something fishy,How can this occur with the universe expansion rate accelerating?I think I've heard this kind of stuff before, generally alongside how time would be infinitely slow prior to this and so it would not occur. I'm going to have to defer to your greater knowledge of these postulated conclusions - but since this HYS is about origins I would suggest that looking at the Gnab Gib might be a diversion.I do see philosophical parallels between these nihilistic scientific world-views and the Viking myths. Theirs was the only lore that I know of that says, in the end, darkness wins out over light. I am instinctively repelled by such views but am more than willing to give them a fair hearing. My main articulated response would really be to look at what's outside the known dimensions and conceptualised multiverse. If you lack dimensionality, or rather, have super-dimensionality, it becomes very easy to exceed the limitations of time and cause and effect you describe. Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:11:00 GMT+1 D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2128 386. At 4:20pm on 02 Sep 2010, groenewald wrote:I find it difficult to understand that people like Hawkins, who is so clever, God has given him such amazing talents cannot see the truth. As a Christian community it will not help us to get angry at such views, but we must pray for them that they will no longer serve Satan (there is no such thing as an atheist, the person has simply given their soul to be burned in Hell for eternity) but that they will give their hearts and love the Christ the creator who loves you and died for your sins on the cross. Christ is always with you whether you believe it or not, and it is you who are far from him, not the other way round. Jesus came and save me and that is all I need to know. --------------------------------------------------------------------errr thats just creepy man!!! And i think you will find that we are not a christian society we are multicultural one, and thats based on the actions of the citizens of the UK and their right to drink, co-habitate, have abortions and pray to anyone they wish, have homosexual relations, jeez even marry same sex, go to illegal wars, support countries who execute its citizens (USA, Israel, Saudi). Christianity is not compatible to UK society and has had to devolve in order to be accepted at all, therefore we choose the level of christianity or remove all together! Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:10:45 GMT+1 I Love England http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2127 "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, leading physicist Professor Stephen Hawking has said." Do you agree with him? Partly yes. But I have little time for theories. Without proof I can't really commit to anything.Do you think God created the Universe? "God", that depends on what God is. If God is some supreme being (even alien!) that harnesses the power of creation and is capable of bringing life to a Universe by some means then yes, sure why not. I can't believe that we are the only ones around in this big dark open space.If not, do you agree with Prof Hawking's assessment? Again, I'll also go with the big bang. If there is undeniable proof, then that's fine with me too.What is your Big Bang theory? I really don't have one. What's the point it won't make any difference to how I live the limited time I have on this planet. I have more pressing matters than this. Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:10:35 GMT+1 Vince P http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2126 Of course not - God is a make believe creation to fill gaps in human knowledge. How the universe began etc will only gradually become clearer as science unravels more of the mystery Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:09:16 GMT+1 Dan_Dover http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2125 2009. At 7:34pm on 06 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:1994. At 6:07pm on 06 Sep 2010, Dan_Dover wrote:A response:--------------------------------------------------------I have to be honest, I don't know too much about Ayn Rand -- beyond people of the economic far-right using her ideas to essentially justify selfishness. (That doesn't mean I have any pre-conceptions about what she actually wrote, as people will twist and misrepresent anything to justify themselves.) But I was surprised to when I read Davidethics calling followers of her ideas a "cult".Well, suffice to say, you have proved him right. All you've done is provide a long list of "Rand says" and not sought to directly answer any of the questions I asked. I don't care what Objectivism says; I don't care what Rand thought. What do YOU think? Tue 07 Sep 2010 10:03:07 GMT+1 D http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2124 I like the fact that the earth and the universe is clearly millions of millions of years old and that god decided to talk to man 2,000 years ago, oh and find time to tell Jews they are the chosen one and they are the forever landlords of this peice of land in the desert! which is the creation of hundreds of years of murder and oppression, ooh or the fact that Tony Blairs god told him to go out and drop bombs on thousands of innocent iraqis because God will judge him correctly for it! Jeez isnt God clever! Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:59:31 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2123 Hello, the doctor (Your reversed name is amusing),While I approve of your message, the one point I would pick on is that you seem to confuse "the Biblical version of creation" with whether there is a God responsible for that creation or not. The HYS is entitled "Did God create the universe?", which has a simple binary answer. It is as wrong to say He didn't because the account in genesis is absurd as it is also wrong to say He did because the account in genesis is trustworthy. Genesis is not the only evidence to be brought to this crucible. If that's our only arrow, then it will not go very far with an unbeliever, who simply has to say, "I don't belive that" to win the argument.Much as I dislike having to use my opponents' tools, it's the only mechanisms they recognise. That's why I have urged them to try out a different paradigm, to experiment with faith, as it were, and experience rather than reason in ever-diminishing circles of particle bashing.Interesting post, though. It does sound a bit as though you are saying people have to put their intelligence to once side in order to understand faith. Have I misunderstood?And hey, guys, the ones arguing about whether religion is a good or a bad thing and who killed the most people - the debate is based on whether God created teh universe or not. To derive a result based on whether people are nasty to each other in the name of that God is to work out that the a Dog does not have an owner because fleas fight each other over who gets the best spots for blood-sucking. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:59:08 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2122 2109. At 10:17am on 07 Sep 2010, Dr Llareggub wrote:I think Lady Reason is not a very accurate description! But an all-seeing narrator might be inclined to invite the audience to listen to the dreams and innermost thoughts of the inhabitants of an imaginary small Welsh village, hay Dr Llareggub! ;-) interesting if you spell it backwards......but still an imaginary place in the mind of Dylan! Nice reference though.....do you like ethics too? I think the trick is that for logic to work, one must first accept the primacy of the rational and the objective! Logic can indeed produce wild claims if it attempts to provide justification for the irrational, dreams of a mystic all seeing narrator of stories! Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:58:51 GMT+1 Ian Jerram http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2121 Whilst I don't believe in the Creationist theory put forward by many Christians I equally don't support the notion that everything just happened and its all to do with Science.What aetheists cannot explain is what provided the trigger for the Universe to suddenly come into being and then what instigated life?Whether this is down to divine intervention is up to the beliefs of the individual. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:58:37 GMT+1 Daisy Chained http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2120 #2098 in_the_ukwrote : “They can’t all be right.”By what stretch of reasoning can you claim such a thing? Are there not roads that go uphill but a rolling ball appears to defy gravity? Are there creatures who appear to defeat all sense of reason by the very places in which they reside and thrive?One thing no one can explain is the sheer diversity of our ‘known’ environmental sphere, and it is sufficient to suggest no one is right, they are all right, or any variations thereof.At best we have a whole plethora of ‘why’ explanations. Are any ‘why’s’ more convincing than any other. Perhaps you think you have chosen but only time will tell if you have chosen ‘wisely’. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:56:34 GMT+1 Sultan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2119 2110. At 10:18am on 07 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:I disagree. I have yet to find a contest between religion and any other form of destruction either natural or man made.---------------------------------------------------------------------How about the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, created by science and which killed over well over 100,000 people instantly, a feat never rivalled in even the most vicious religious war?. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:53:47 GMT+1 U14368420 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2118 This post has been Removed Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:49:44 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=99#comment2117 2109. At 10:17am on 07 Sep 2010, Dr Llareggub wrote:///But Usher's followers claimed that if God could create a world in six days he could create parts of it at any age he felt like. Yes implausible, clutching at straws perhaps, but not illogical.///But of course its illogical - it appeals to an irrational illogical assumption to reach a logically consistent conclusion! Its just nonsensical to justify ones conclusions in a logical sense by appeal to that which is irrational and not objective...It makes no sense does it? Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:46:20 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2116 Hi, intheuk,Why do we never agree on anything? Great post: the level of debate is finally going up in HYS.I concede how I look to you and even have sympathy for your viewpoint. I once agreed with you but decided to find out for myself through experimentation. I decided that it was actually me, the sceptic, who had been brain-washed into rubbishing belief without thinking it through or experimenting.I released myself of prejudice without removing scepticism; studied the suggested way of life and then tried it. The results have been remarkable; but are entirely subjective and wholly unacceptable in a scientific crucible. There are a few intersting questions that should at least make you want to investigate more thoroughly for yourself:1) Why do sincere faith-people of any religion live (statistically measurably) longer and recover more quickly from illness? (Glib answers not acceptable - there is a paradox at work here)2) Why are increasingly secular societies also those with increasing social issues such as crime, depression and narcotics? 3) Why are so many people, of all faiths, willing to sacrifice themselves, including to the point of death, in the name of their faith? (Some, like conan doyle [don't laugh]) regarded this as a proof that their religion was real. (I do not include suicide bombers in this list of martyrs as they believe that killing others gets them special slaves and so are demonstrating selfishness, not selflessness)I don't want to hear the usual glib answers: I already know them and have ready arguments to hand to debunk them: I'd like to hear something original or at least something well put. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:38:04 GMT+1 Stebizzle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2115 What was the position before humans had the brain capability to have faith?If we assume that science is absolutely nowhere near finding any sort of answers to the creation of the universe, why does this mean we must still accept the possibility of a God creating it?"Everything is far too complex and improbable therefore a complex and improbable deity must have created it"???? Everything around us is evolving but the greatest and most evolved thing of all was there at the beginning???It is sad that this sort of topic is still on such a base level. Worse still, even if there was any sort of creator, how that would ever relate to an organised religion is absurd!I don't care about science not having all of the answers but please can we open our eyes and come up with some other realistic possibilities. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:37:53 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2114 2108. At 10:08am on 07 Sep 2010, Sultan wrote:Thats fine, we live in a democracy where everyone is allowed freedom of expression.Don't let your keyboard get too foamed up though otherwise you may not be able to see what you type!!!--------------------------And what do you say to the poor children who are dragged to church to indocrinate them? My partners brothers fall into that catagory. Told to disregard truth and facts because the bible says so (catholicism).One of the lads is now old enough he only has to go to the large masses while the younger is forced to go every week. Both are athiest/agnostic and the eldest stays we me over the masses to get out of them. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:36:25 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2113 2103. At 09:59am on 07 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote:In contrast, theologians have offered a message that has remained consistent and is not disproven by any science. This is not a proof, mind, just an interesting contrast.The more I hear about the expected behaviour of trans-dimensional entities, black-hole event-horizon behaviour and the madness that is quantum mechanics, the more I wonder why they get exasperated at the mere bagatelle, comparatively, of walking on water or raising the dead to life. -----------------------------Religion has not remained consistant though. Christianity for example rejects god completely and worships the actions of jesus while giving credit of the good things to the evil and destructive god.The holy trinity is a roman invention because they had a belief in the power of 3 in superstition.The virgin mary is wrong translation which should be young mary.Satan did not exist until a revised version.Jehovas witnesses claim it was a stake not a cross jesus died on.Worshippers of the abrahamic god still sacrifice goats yet christians dont.Religion is the most inconsistant group of supporters I have ever met. Science doesnt change that regularly and only after a lot of proof to support the theory. You may hear weekly about the result of various experiments but that is not scientific fact until the scientific community has questioned the findings.When science reveals something supporting a god the believers support the science and defend it as works of god. When science reveals something refuting god the believers claim that science cannot get near god etc. But they cant have it both ways Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:29:00 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2112 John "in their humanity, opress and vilify the next New Wave which is debunking the old school."Yes, we can also look at arguments raging over String Theory (I have a book I'm abiout to read called "the Trouble with Phisics")"In contrast, theologians have offered a message that has remained consistent and is not disproven by any science. This is not a proof, mind, just an interesting contrast."To be fair to scientists, they have been exploring the unknown on a vast numbert of fronts only recently realising the interconnectedness of things (not so long ago Astronomy and Physics were quite separate). Theologians have had a more limited number of texts which have existed for a long time -so I suppose it is fair to say that they have had more opportunity to get their act together. That said, there are areas where theologians don't see eye to eye otherwise we would not see the religious divides we have today."The more I hear about the expected behaviour of trans-dimensional entities, black-hole event-horizon behaviour and the madness that is quantum mechanics, the more I wonder why they get exasperated at the mere bagatelle, comparatively, of walking on water or raising the dead to life. "Going back to my principle that the simplest of explanations is usually the right one, yes, you might have a point here too. Well, perhaps the idea of an omnipotent being having existed for all time is at least as odd as some of the current theories of Physics. Scientists prefer the latter because they can describe them as a them as a set of equations. Perhaps God will only be truely under threat when scientists can describe the very essence of life (and I don't mean respiration and digestion, etc. I mean what makes me ME and my consciousness as a living being - as a set of equations). That day, I think, will NEVER come. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:24:55 GMT+1 Shift That Paradigm http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2111 2058. At 11:25pm on 06 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote:...I mean, just e.g. there was a post above, describing a perectly respectable theory: there is only one electron, in the entire universe, which is very, very, very, very busy. And it travels in time. A lot. One electron. That travels the entire universe infinitely. It's a respectable theory that neatly solves some quantum issues; and who am I to argue? But how hard is that to accept? It defies belief, yet it is conceivably true. And there are harder concepts than that to cope with. I recently encountered a theory that described how an entity could be in simultaneous places: something of an extension of Schrodinger's cat which described simultaneous states. It made my head hurt just reading the article.............................Hi John,Ignore the pain. Try viewing it like a guitarist learning to play and feeling the blisters upon the blisters until the pain is gone and the glorious music begins to flow.So now come with me to the closing stages of the universe as we know it. The black holes have now finally joined forces and there is only one black hole which is virtually all the mass that there is [The Singularity], one electron which has a charge and will spin forever at the speed of light, and the boundless void. Quite a trinity to consider, each element having absolute purity of form [and formlessness!]. The Electron crucially has mass and it is this property that draws The Electron to The Singularity until the Planck Epoch when contact is reality whereupon the final philosophical question of what happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object is answered by... ...the inevitable event of the so-called Big Bang which, of course, would be paradoxically quite soundless but not before the genesis of mathematics has occurred in the very first Planck Epoch post-contact.The question now becomes, "Did God create the eternal mass of The Singularity, The Electron, and... ...The Void?, or, "Is God this Eternal Trinity?".I personally think that there are more universes somewhere [The Positron!!] which puts me firmly in the "God exists and is The Creator of the universe" camp though I do not intend exploring these multi-dimensional avenues at this time. There's more than enough right here in this universe!What say you? Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:24:27 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2110 2093. At 09:36am on 07 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote: ///We have no shared terms of reference which you would accept as a legitimate method of proof. ///I guess that is the central problem! Those with belief and those without are talking at cross purposes......maybe the whole business requires a new language with a new set of concepts and means to gaining truth and knowledge! - but I am a bear of small brain and require a language humanity does not have knowledge of.///What I can say to you is that it is possible to keep one's brain in its place and still believe. I have yet to find it impossible to reconcile my Bible-based belief system with my education, and not through any compromise of either.///Well I am pleased you can achieve this - but I will never be convinced it possible...///I think it's like a swimming pool and I'm having a lovely time: while you sceptics disdain the pool and even deny its existence. Come on in and find out for yourself; the water's lovely once you're in!/// I think we are all in the same swimming pool, I guess the difference is some are going in straight lines, some are doing the butterfly, some the breast stroke, some free style and some are in the shallow end! - Not sure which is which though ;-) Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:20:47 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2109 2099. At 09:49am on 07 Sep 2010, Sultan wrote:I disagree, the biggest killers of people in history were secular ideological wars, WW1 and WW2 which killed at least 60 million people between them.Granted the people who fought in them came from every religious background and none, but religion was not the motivating factor behind them, as was the case with the crusades or the present day Taliban.Communist Russia in the early to mid 20th century did not kill millions of people to impose religion on them, and neither did Mao zedong kill more millions in China to impose religion on the Chinese people.--------------------------I disagree. I have yet to find a contest between religion and any other form of destruction either natural or man made. You claim WW2 was secular but thats only believed by catholics (and christians who can feel the blood on their hands). Hitler used catholic support to form his army, justify killing jews and a base for his desired outcome for the world. And the catholic church supported him.Not to forget the many people stoned to death, burned alive, hung, tortured to death, massacred, genocides, murders, witch hunts and wars. Some of which are written in various holy books, others recorded throughout history and continuing today.Why do armies have religious figures to bless them, absolve them of sin, etc? What happens if you remove religion from armies? Your fighting for the country but leave out the god parts. No more prayers or happy place to go when you die.The religions are an easy way to recruit fighters who are less concerned about dying. Someone thinking there is an afterlife is less concerned for their life than a rational thinker.Religion may not be the reason for the war to begin, but it is the reason for armies to develop. The taliban rely heavily on their peoples faith to forge armies. People not afraid to meet allah strap on a bomb and end their lives. Would they do that if they wernt brainwashed to believe in an afterlife?Religion is a socially accepted cult. The same methods of control are used and they are very effective at brainwashing people. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:18:19 GMT+1 ProfPhoenix http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2108 Looking at the comments and some of the cries of victory from the atheists it would seem that the competition has been won by the atheists. It was not very difficult for them as their arguments appealed to evidence and rationality within a culture that has fairly secure ideas about evidence, rationality and its connection to science. Basically, once Lady Reason (let us give her a big R) `is on your side you are bound to win as no one wants to be tarred as irrational. In fact Rationality and its link with Objectivity has replaced Divine Authority, and Lady Reason sits in heaven where God used to live. Those who appeal to Lady Reason can be no less intolerant and dogmatic than the Medieval theists.At the risk of giving great offence I concede to be a rational person who values the rationality of science, and without any commitment to religion I value rational inquiries in the attempt to understand religious belief and how it gives meaning to people's lives. I do not attack, but like a scientist try to understand.Suppse we say that religion and science are two rational activities, both are rule governed but have different sets of rules. Like soccer and cricket. Both have rules for winning, losing, fair play, and so on. But they are different. There is no LBW in soccer and no Offside rule in cricket. Now it would be odd to claim that there is a super duper set of rules by which each could be judged. It would be meaningless.Yet somehow the atheists claim that there is a super level of Rationality (with a big R) that allows judication between science and religion.I put it to you all that rationality in science is not external but that it evolves with science - it probably has with religion. An example, you may think of better ones. In the 17th century it was rational for doctors and scientists to believe that blood transfusions from a mild animal - a lamb - would be beneficial when applied to a human being of troubled and violent disposition. It was rational because it fitted in with the beliefs of that time about the nature of blood, human psychology, etc. Some survived, some died, and possibly the survivors were much calmer after the experience. But the practice ended with a murder trial. Today it would not be rational as we know about blood groups, rejection and so on. Rationality evolved with science. One more. It is rational to seek evidence for scientific claims. Agreed. The debate on spontaneous generation in the 18th century featured opponents who rejected claims that mussels were spontaneously generated from sand and mice from rags. Scientists experimented with their soiled underwear sealed in containers and awaited the spontaneous generation of mice. Curiously, as scientists are fallible human beings, there were claims that mice has been generated, which supported the sponenaity camp. We know they were cheating. And by and large, and with further evidence about living phenomena it was established that it is irrational to maske claims about spontaneous generation. Rationality, internal to science, evolved with scientific knowledge. If you don't believe this then apply for a scientific research grant to repeat the experiments. That would be irrational.My point is that to understand rationality one must understand the state of knowledge in any discipline; Lady Reason does not sit on high like the ancient gods of Divine Law, yet this is how it appears to many contributors to this HYS topic.Finally, we have the misapplication of logic in these contributions. Logic involves the recognition of contradictions and invalid arguments. But it can permit wild claims, which is fortunate for the thought experiments of the great scientists who have wrestled with theories of anti-matter, string theory, and so on. One might also make wild claims in religion about the abilities of an almighty creator who allegedly made a world in 6 days giving Adam a navel and a language for him and Eve to communicate with a serpent. Very implausible, but is it illogical? Bertrand Russell, an atheist, once posulated that God might have created the Universe five minutes ago and gave us all memories. Implausible, like many great scientific thought experiments, but not illogical. Bishop Usher claimed that calculations in the Bible set the age of the Earth around 3000 years. Impossible, said his opponents who refered to fossils and the rock formations. But Usher's followers claimed that if God could create a world in six days he could create parts of it at any age he felt like. Yes implausible, clutching at straws perhaps, but not illogical.So you people have displaced Divine Authority and, so it seems, exalted an external notion of Reason to do the same job. At the risk of giving great offence to those who have it all sorted out I am appealing for a notion of reason that is not so metaphysical, simply conforming to everyday practices whether of a scientific or spiritual dimension. And what I am saying, if you are still with me, ought to make sense to those who - with perfect logic - claim to be religious and practicing scientists. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:17:43 GMT+1 Sultan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2107 2001. At 7:00pm on 06 Sep 2010, wookiee69 wrote: "As a child I was beaten for dareing to question the faith. I strike back now against superstition and dogma with my tongue and my keyboard".------------------------------------------------------------------Thats fine, we live in a democracy where everyone is allowed freedom of expression. Don't let your keyboard get too foamed up though otherwise you may not be able to see what you type!!! Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:08:50 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2106 2099. At 09:49am on 07 Sep 2010, Sultan wrote:///Communist Russia in the early to mid 20th century did not kill millions of people to impose religion on them, and neither did Mao zedong kill more millions in China to impose religion on the Chinese people.///No, the Communists,the Maoists and all other gangs of brutish thugs employ force and kill millions of human beings, in order to impose an equally delusional belief system on those whom survive as obedient slaves of the Doctrine of Sacrifice! ;-) Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:07:46 GMT+1 Rocky12345 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2105 It doesn't really surprise me with the comments that are coming out. We live in a society that says anything goes. If it's alright with me, then who cares. It's my life and I'm going to do what I want. Typical of the state of this country as we use to be a christian country. We have allowed anything we call god to come in and it is religion and not God who has caused all this. Jesus said that He has come to give life. Religion says you must obey rules and regulations. Jesus brings freedom. Religion does not. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:07:13 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2104 #2099. Sultan wrote: I disagree, the biggest killers of people in history were secular ideological wars, WW1 and WW2 which killed at least 60 million people between them.Undoubteldly true, but is this only because of timing? What would Saladin or Richard the Lionheart have done if he had such massive populations from which to draw his armies, efficient mass transport with which to move them quickly, near unlimited modern weaponry such as aircraft, bombs, rockets, handguns, field guns, landmines - maybe the Nuke - and targets that were so massively populated. A religious war today could see the death toll exceed WW1 and WW2.Also, aren't ideological wars and crusades effectively the same thing - it is still one belief system - be it social, political or religious - against another. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:04:10 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2103 2093. At 09:36am on 07 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote:What I can say to you is that it is possible to keep one's brain in its place and still believe. I have yet to find it impossible to reconcile my Bible-based belief system with my education, and not through any compromise of either. I think it's like a swimming pool and I'm having a lovely time: while you sceptics disdain the pool and even deny its existence. Come on in and find out for yourself; the water's lovely once you're in!-------------------------You wrote a good post explaining the religious side and I wanted to say that first.You mention how scientists dont reject a theory without disproving it and that is correct. But that theory must have some foundation to exist such as-1) A gap in the equationwhich is an unknown and cant be currently observed. Scientists will insert a theory to quickly explain it without stating the theory as a fact.2) Proof for a theory exists which affects the equation they are doing (such as the universe).God fills none of the above criteria because the universe can be explained without god (no gap for a god), and god is an unproven entity so is not really a theory. Just like ghosts are unproven and so irrelivant scientifically.You invite me into the swimming pool of faith. But then will you accept a psychiatric patients invite to talk to darren- the invisible 3 eyed bunny standing beside you which only he can see?That is not to insult but to show you how your request looks to someone who doesnt have the same faith/belief you do.Dawkins book 'The god delusion' was well titled. Not to state god is definately a delusion but to point out that the only similar thing we have to religious peoples beliefs are childrens imaginary friends and mentally unstable people. From the skeptic point of view it becomes difficult to see much difference. Tue 07 Sep 2010 09:03:42 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2102 Hi, pb,The reason I remind them of luminiferous ether is not to point out their arrogance, but to draw attention to how they can be so certain of things they create the wrong experiments to work out what's going on, and, in their humanity, opress and vilify the next New Wave which is debunking the old school. Any why should we expect that current scientists are any different? It makes me smile when, on a weekly basis, some young gun comes up with a new experimental result, and the proponent of the dislodged theory launches into the poor scientific procedures as carried out by the new kid. It is possible to praise science for its record of self-critisicm; they do get there eventually; but sometimes progress is held up for generations while we wait for someone important to retire.In contrast, theologians have offered a message that has remained consistent and is not disproven by any science. This is not a proof, mind, just an interesting contrast.The more I hear about the expected behaviour of trans-dimensional entities, black-hole event-horizon behaviour and the madness that is quantum mechanics, the more I wonder why they get exasperated at the mere bagatelle, comparatively, of walking on water or raising the dead to life. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:59:10 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2101 2098. in_the_uk wrote: ...Even though they can't all be right.See my comment 2082 ! Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:54:16 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2100 2092. At 09:33am on 07 Sep 2010, Rocky12345 wrote:///Thanks to all who do not believe in God. You have proved the bible right again. Here is what it says:Psalm 141. The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.3. They have all turned aside,They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. 4. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge,Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the LORD?5. There they are in great fear,For God is with the generation of the righteous.6. You shame the counsel of the poor,But the LORD is his refuge. ///Maybe I can re-write the bible for you?Psalm 141. The fool attempts to 'think' with his heart,"I believe in God"They have corrupted their rational minds to accept the unacceptable!And in obedience, they can do no good.2. The Lord would have humanity remain as children....To understand and believe in nonsense and seek fairy tales 3. hey are all irrational, they have voluntarily corrupted their own minds...And their belief in God precludes the good, not one of them is good - just obedient4. Have all the destroyers of humanity no knowledge. They consume the creative value of the rational as they eat bread,But the would have their bread, before they bake it, or even posses the knowledge necessary to build an oven, And when the rational ask 'how', they reply 'somehow' By the will of the Lord5. And the believer lives in constant guilt and fear,For God will punish emotional reflex and damn the seeker of knowledge, the productive and the joyous for their sin of living! 6. And the believer creates the guilty victims, to offer counsel and alms,On condition they reject the rational, consent to slavery and mindless existenceIn the Lord as their refuge, as their fake salvation from priestly torment and torture! Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:51:34 GMT+1 Frank http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2099 Professor Hawking is correct; God is redundant.Religion is just an archaic attempt at explaining the existance of the Universe. It depends on where you were born as to which cult you are/were in. All are proved wrong now but their cultural /moral views on the world are interesting & should be re-graded philosophy & not given priveledges in a modern society.Science is slowly revealing the answers; give it time & we may get a "why" (do we need it?) Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:49:33 GMT+1 Sultan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2098 2079. At 07:56am on 07 Sep 2010, Karlwebbo wrote:On a serious note.If there was a god then whey so many catastrophes in this world.religion being the biggest killer of them all.-------------------------------------------------------------I disagree, the biggest killers of people in history were secular ideological wars, WW1 and WW2 which killed at least 60 million people between them.Granted the people who fought in them came from every religious background and none, but religion was not the motivating factor behind them, as was the case with the crusades or the present day Taliban.Communist Russia in the early to mid 20th century did not kill millions of people to impose religion on them, and neither did Mao zedong kill more millions in China to impose religion on the Chinese people. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:49:18 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2097 To 2092. Rocky12345"Thanks to all who do not believe in God. You have proved the bible right again. Here is what it says:"I see how you can fall into that trap but I would like you to find a cult (any cult will do) that doesnt demand full belief in its figurehead. As a result they look down on the other people as non-believers and therefore lesser.But this is where the trap becomes a huge problem. Various suicide cults use the same tricks of total belief and excluding/punishing non-believers and it is proven to work.Look at your statement and tell me how that is any better than the demands of any other religion? All their gods demand you believe or suffer punishment. Even though they cant all be right. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:46:33 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=98#comment2096 2092. Rocky12345 wrote: Thanks to all who do not believe in God. You have proved the bible right again. Here is what it says:Psalm 141. The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. --------------------------------------------------Sigh!It is easy to interpret these words to your cause, but it is a double edged sword. There has been, and are, many who believe in god who were / are corrupt, have done abominable works and have done no good. But of course, you will answer.. but do they really believe in God? So its a futile argument.There are many who don't believe in God who have done wonderful things. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:43:03 GMT+1 Glenn Willis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2095 "1962. At 4:39pm on 06 Sep 2010, BF wrote:Re - 1937: Original bible what, you mean Old Testament? Why does Jesus refer to Satan 27 times in the New Testament? I think your facts need more fixing my friend. You can't chop the bible in half and forget the other bits which by the way were actually written prior to 'christians' discovering Pan in britain. Coincidentally, have you read the book of Job in the old testament? Oh dear."And you can't take half my arguement & destroy the bits that you have limited knowledge of BF.Jesus only refers to Satan because the bible has been re-written any number of times to conform to then-current dogma. In the original versions of the new testament, Satan doesn't exist. Likewise, the book of Job in the old testament is a recent addition to help merge the old & new testaments.This is the difference between science & religion. Science looks for answers, religion blindly accepts what it's told. These are FACTS BF, not blind faith. I've studied religion, in great detail & from various angles. Many times in my life I've looked for a 'god', on which I could hang the blame for what was happening in my life. Guess what? They all fell short. Only by accepting it was partially my own fault & partially just other people exploiting my weaknesses (including religious leaders), did I find that peace I was looking for.Take away god, the universe still exists under the strictures of physics, take away physics, the universe can't exist! Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:41:05 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2094 Hi John,I can see your point... perhaps it is splitting hairs just a little... or perhaps not. We can talk about a law of gravity, a man made description of how things are seen to behave but behind most of this is the simple observation that e.g. an apple falls to the earth. Our laws of gravity, be they Newtonian or Einstien's, are how we try to describe the falling apple in terms of mass, distance, acceleration, etc. but none of this changes the basic fact that the apple falls to earth. Some HYS-ers are saying, in effect, that this simple behaviour had to have a creator rather than being an intrinic property. I don't know whether there is God or there isn't - God may have made the apple and the Earth, but it does not mean that he must have created all of the laws around the matter that these are made of. (My wife makes a great cake, but uses the raw materials she has available.). Of course our man made descriptions may not be complete - as demonstrated by the Newtonian laws which begin to fail on a large scale - e.g. calculating the orbital period of Mercury.Lumineferous ether - you touch on something here that always gets me on my soap box... the many comments on HYS that scientists are arrogant and think they are so clever to know everything. This is so far from the truth. Scientists often stand by their own beliefs but usually stand down when there is irrefutable evidence. Lumineferous ether has been debunked, experimments (Michelson–Morley I seem to remember) showed that the model did not work and so this has been assigned to history - it has happened before and will happen again. The speed of light - here you give another wonderful example. So much of our so called understanding of the universe is based on HUGE assumptions. A universe where we can see almost to the edge of time - over 13 billion years - estimated on, for example, the basis of assumptions that the speed of light has always been a constant, that that supernovae are good standard candles and so on. Dark Matter could be explained by Modified Newtonian Dynamics - we live in such exiting times. I for one await results of the LHC with bated breath - to find the so called 'God' particle (I hate that label) would be amazing, to not find it would be simply incredible - it could lead to a revolution in our thinking.The "golilocks rules" - I do believe that we see physical constants as perfect as they are because we would not be here to observe them if they were not able to support life as we know it. Our physical form would be different if "g" was just slightly higher or lower, and so on. In my limited intelelct, I have to believe that the simplest explanation is the most likely... cause and effect not creation... this may be counter to the views of the faithful but again, IMHO, my explanation does not disprove the existence of God, it just challenges the role that a God played. Herein lies a problem. Some cannot accept that any part of the bible is wrong because to do so challenges their faith in all of the Bible. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:37:53 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2093 2090. At 09:14am on 07 Sep 2010, Variant1 wrote:I respect Carl Sagans work also, but I disagree with him on one point.A finely made watch DOES imply a watchmaker!-------------------------While an atom can simply change due to the energy around it. To regress to the very beginning would remove god (as an intelligent entity). If we call physics god then that makes sense but it is not the intelligent and evil monster of the holy books.You say something has to exist for other things to be created. So it is more likely the universe always existed in some form than a god always existing because the universe is the simpler entity. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:37:29 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2092 Mr. Ghost, what an excellent and provocative post. One might almost come to like you!Behavioural research is showing that some of your claimed uniqueness is not so unique. I forget the details, but animals have demonstrated learning skills (perhaps even from us!) and passing them onto their off-spring. I don't accept either that animals do not demonstrate startling memories, tool-usage and deductive skills. Throughout known history and even in folk-lore, humanity has repeatedly progressed by observing the skills and abilities of animals.This seems like an argument for the common, evolved, shared genetic history of all life; and it could be so used. I certainly take it to mean my physical body is most definitely of this world, and I am most emphatically not a descendant of aliens, as some have proposed (e.g. Douglas Adams).You describe humanity's predicament well; but your conclusion is not, I think, supported by your agreed evidence. You argue against an irrational "magical" solution to describe our problems or the solution to those problems. Why not? Have you tested your suggestion?A scientist does not discount a theory until the evidence disproves or refines it. Part of the reason that science and theology seem so contradictory is the paradigms of experimentation. Science is now a thought-based laboratory, from which experiments arise, perhaps much later. E.g. the use of satelites on the other side of the sun to prove Einsteinien theorems. Theology is also largely thought-based, but the "experimental results" are derived through experience, and so are inconsistent and certainly hard to replicate. This is obviously anathema to a scientist.It also explains why I have no confidence in any argument to persuade you of the reality of the faith-world and the incompleteness of your own rational one. We have no shared terms of reference which you would accept as a legitimate method of proof. What I can say to you is that it is possible to keep one's brain in its place and still believe. I have yet to find it impossible to reconcile my Bible-based belief system with my education, and not through any compromise of either. I think it's like a swimming pool and I'm having a lovely time: while you sceptics disdain the pool and even deny its existence. Come on in and find out for yourself; the water's lovely once you're in! Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:36:37 GMT+1 Rocky12345 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2091 Thanks to all who do not believe in God. You have proved the bible right again. Here is what it says:Psalm 141. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. 2. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.3. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. 4. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the LORD?5. There they are in great fear, For God is with the generation of the righteous.6. You shame the counsel of the poor, But the LORD is his refuge. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:33:01 GMT+1 Daisy Chained http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2090 #2001 wookiee69“As a child I was beaten for dareing (sic) to question the faith. I strike back now against superstition and dogma with my tongue and my keyboard. These pernicious ideas which warp young minds deserve all the abuse I can throw at them!”It wasn’t the ‘idea’ causing your discomfort, it was a person. You defended yourself, and still do so, but against what? Anyone can try to ‘sell’ you an ‘idea’, but you must buy it. What do large corporations like fast food outlets do if it isn’t selling you an ‘idea’? The food is just a part of the message.Hawkings is selling an idea, along with buddies Dawkins and others. Buy it if it suits but do not complain afterwards. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:22:53 GMT+1 Variant1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2089 As soon as ANYTHING exists...a speck of matter....a beam of light...a gravitational field, one must ask the question, from WHERE did it originate?You can make a logical progression back to the big bang, but what about beyond that?There comes a point in that progression where one must conclude that something....some unified energy, has to have ALWAYS existed, in order to create what we know as matter...and time...and everything..from itself!As we all know, ENERGY is infinite, and cannot be destroyed, but can only CHANGE it's form.As everything inescapably is derived from this one eternal creative energy source, it becomes clear that those attributes must be considered to be akin to those of God.What is also clear, is that to give this energy a name is to embroil mankind in thousands of years of infighting, whilst the truth remains parodied by some, denied by others and used as a tool of oppression by still more.The truth is, everything is a product of the one energy, myself, all of you, your pets....the kitchen sink...EVERYTHING.Consequentially, know that as part of that energy, your consciousness can never be destroyed....merely change it's form within the energy which brought it forth.I would dearly love to hear professor Hawkings 0+0=everything when it goes against the most fundamental highschool mathematics.I respect Carl Sagans work also, but I disagree with him on one point.A finely made watch DOES imply a watchmaker! Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:14:28 GMT+1 Craig H http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2088 It is a futile debate. When science finally finds out exactly when and how the universe was created the religious will say that God caused those conditions to occur. Then here we go again until the next leap in knowledge. I'm happy to say I don't know if there is a God or not. Even if I don't believe in organised religions - I am not so mean and hard that I would deprive myself of living in hope of hidden harmonies. I always find it incredible that people will refuse scientific fact but equally sad when people aren't regarded as intelligent because they experience a spiritual life. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:04:04 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2087 2084. Apolloin wrote: What is really quite depressing is that the vast majority of some 2000 posts have been written about something that Professor Hawking never said. Agreed, but amongst the many predicatble comments has been a hugely interesting set of exchanges... that whay makes HYS so worthwhile.A topic like this is bound to stir things up as it touches on some pretty fundamental characteristics of the human mind and something which is so important to the lives of many. Tue 07 Sep 2010 08:02:47 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2086 Hi, pb, You see, the thing is, I agree with your conclusion, but not your argument. I do agree that the universe conforms to rules; and these are "Goldilocks" rules that are just right for producing life, which is either a very, very strange co-incidence or designed in as you say. You would be better to argue about the inter-connectedness and incredible serendipity of the combined laws than using semantics about metaphors.I am going to save the scientists the trouble of answering you: Scientific Laws are structured descriptions of repeatable behaviours that stand up to experimenation, within defined parameters: as such they are "Descriptions of observations made by people"; and so do not require a "lawgiver". These laws are not to be confused with acceptable social paradigms which result in punishment if contravened: which do indeed require a lawgiver. On the one hand, there are descriptions, and on the other rules. Descriptions are now known to have parameters: but within those descriptions, physcial behaviour is consistent and so the term "Law" was coined. On the other hand, social laws are required because people are constantly contravening the rules and so rules are created for the good of society as a whole.So on the one hand conformity and on the other rebellion. The upshot is that I am afraid the scientists have you on this one: scientific laws are man-made, not God-given. Whether they describe the intricacy of His design is the next obvious question; but not the question you raised.I would press them on the assumed constancy of their laws, such as the speed of light, and whether the laws of thermodynamics held true during the Big Bang, if I were you. Latest thought exposes that their Laws might not have always been as rigid as we currently observe, and indeed may not even be rigid now. This flexibility would disprove dark matter and so mean that the millions spent on underground heavy water chambers is a total, utter waste of resources. Oh, and remind them about lumineferous ether, too.Regards, Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:54:05 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2085 2080. At 08:05am on 07 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote:///Hi, Mr Ghost,Even if you are correct, which is not conceded, the debate is about whetehr God create dteh universe, not whether the people who adhere to this persepective are hypocrites or otherwise.I take it this means that you giving up on rational argument as being a lost cause and opting for smugness instead?///Sorry, about that - I am just attempting to be controversial! Unfortunately, as much as it might be an easy option to 'give up' on rational argument...I slip from time to time toward emotional reflex....It is an impossibility for me to maintain irrational ideas, beliefs or accept mysticism. I used to cling on to such things, but the unanswered question never subsided and I was always unable to 'forget' or 'blankout' the contradictions and unintended consequence of such belief systems. I found my instinct wanting .....I can slip into a smugness I guess, and I am apologetic for my failings, but I do not posses the magic 'get out of rabbit holes card' and instinct cannot save the souls of humanity! I often ponder the question of human instinct and can only conclude that human beings must first be defined as Sovereign Rational Beings, who cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere percepts. ... Human being's cannot provide for thesimplest physical needs without a process of rational thought. Uniquely, our species require a process of thought to discover how to plant and grow food or how to make weapons for hunting. The instinct or percepts might lead one to a cave, if available — but to build the simplest shelter, one needs a process of thought No percepts and no "instincts" will tell me how to light a fire, how to weave cloth, how to forge tools, how to make a wheel, how to make an airplane, how to perform an appendectomy, how to produce an electric light bulb or an electronic tube or a cyclotron or a box of matches. Yet one's life depends on such knowledge—and only a volitional act of consciousness, a process of rational thought, can provide it. A process of thought is a process of identification and integration, which only an individual mind can perform. There is no such thing as a collective brain. human's can learn from one another, but learning requires a process of thought on the part of every individual. We can cooperate in the discovery of new knowledge, but such cooperation requires the independent exercise of the rational faculty by every individual. A human being is the only living species known of, that can transmit and expand the store of knowledge from generation to generation; but such transmission requires a process of thought on the part of the individual recipients. As witness, the breakdowns of civilization, the dark ages in the history ofmankind's progress, when the accumulated knowledge of centuries vanished from the lives of folk who were unable, unwilling, or forbidden to think. So I might ponder the origin of the Universe and look for a rational explanation, or I might choose to suspend my judgement of all things until a rational answer becomes apparent...but I can never maintain a 'belief' without question.I may be 'unable' to think, I might be 'unwilling' to think, but I will never, never be forbidden to think! Instinct will provide no answers, emotions will never reveal truth and delusional belief systems merely serve to deny humanity the faculty of our only means of survival! Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:52:30 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2084 2070. John McCormickA nice response John McCormick. You show tollerance, an open mind and a willingness to question. It is a lack of these things that make others feel threatened and appear threatening whatever side of the fence they sit on. Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:52:13 GMT+1 Apolloin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2083 What is really quite depressing is that the vast majority of some 2000 posts have been written about something that Professor Hawking never said. All he said was that the concept of a Creator or God wasn't necessary in order to understand the process by which the Big Bang occurred. Things Stephen Hawking DIDN'T say include:1. There is no God.2. There is a God.3. God didn't create the Universe.4. God did create the Universe.5. Race you to the corner.If some of you would actually read some of his excellent books you might see him expound his theory, which is that whether or not there IS a Creator, the Universe appears to function according to observable laws that can be empirically observed and tested. Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:48:45 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2082 This post has been Removed Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:30:29 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2081 "1964. UNIQUENESS wrote:I ASK YOU - WHICH HOLY BOOK OR SCRIPTURE OF ANY RELIGION - IS THE VERBATIN WORDS OF GOD APART FROM THE QURAN?????????????????**************************************************************************In this simple sentence UNIQUENESS tells us, on several levels, why so much blood has been spilled in the name of religion, he/she tells us why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, why there will always be tension between different faiths. Catholic and Protestant, Christianity and Islam, Islam and the Jewish faith, Shia and Sunni, and so on.Thank you UNIQUENESS for stating this so clearly.Notice that I don't take sides - all religions embrace a range of views and tollerance, but the fundamentalists in any religion will not even tollerate their own if they do not share their strict adherence. These people are the ones who, ultimately, will keep the world locked in conflict... be they Christian, Moslem, Jewish or whatever. Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:29:54 GMT+1 pb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2080 2023. At 8:25pm on 06 Sep 2010, wookiee69 wrote:2022. At 8:18pm on 06 Sep 2010, itsbombie wrote:This may seem very simplistic but Stephen Hawking repeatedly refers to "Law" ie the Law of science; there has to be a "Lawgiver" for there to be a Law, all those scientific facts are based on obedience to Laws. God wrote the Laws into the creation and those Laws are obeyed despite many attempts by man to distort them.Of course God created the universe.*************************************************************************Well what do you know...Anthropomorphic pesonification AGAIN!!!!!!---------------------------Maybe you need to use some smaler words - say less that two sylables because this is NOt sinking in.> This may seem very simplistic but Stephen Hawking repeatedly refers > to "Law" ie the Law of science; there has to be a "Lawgiver"Sorry but this is complete bunkum. Using "law" to describe how something behaves is just the scientists using a metaphore to things. DOH!!! Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:16:00 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2079 Hi, Mr Ghost,Even if you are correct, which is not conceded, the debate is about whetehr God create dteh universe, not whether the people who adhere to this persepective are hypocrites or otherwise.I take it this means that you giving up on rational argument as being a lost cause and opting for smugness instead? Tue 07 Sep 2010 07:05:17 GMT+1 Karlwebbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2078 On a serious note.If there was a god then whey so many catastrophes in this world.religion being the biggest killer of them all. But life goes on for the time being. Sometimes we need beliefs and if god is the way then so be it. My belief is that we evolved from organisms through millions of years and as life has gone by we have adjusted and got more intelligent so much that we will probably be the ones who destroy the good we and our ancestors have built. Tue 07 Sep 2010 06:56:29 GMT+1 The Ghosts of John Galt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2077 2067. At 00:49am on 07 Sep 2010, hypocracyrules wrote:///If religion disappeared tomorrow would people in a few generations believe in a so called "God"?On another point, why are religious HQs so disgustingly luxurious. I thought greed and pride were sins, are they not. ////That's easy...because such things are only sins for you - not them! And for every 'giver' there must necessarily be a 'taker' - For centuries the church had a monopoly on 'taking' - quite simple ;-) And on the pretence of 'relieving poverty' they can amass a fortune - but one must understand that in order to remain relevant religion must have a viable pool of poverty, deprivation and suffering to 'relieve' - SO they invest their money in creating more poverty and suffering to justify their continued existence - Hohoho....;-) Tue 07 Sep 2010 06:45:32 GMT+1 Karlwebbo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2076 No I didn't Tue 07 Sep 2010 06:41:57 GMT+1 Begreen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2075 So if it's not the big bang theory, so what. All this does is to send us back to the same old worn out question that is where did the gravity come from? Any body with half a brain could easily realise that gravity has no intellect and therefore could not possibly creat itself. Tue 07 Sep 2010 05:12:17 GMT+1 Freethinker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=97#comment2074 At 02:44am on 07 Sep 2010, Sultan wrote:If we are going to ask our politicians their religious views, then I suggest also asking them whether the Moon landings were faked, their position on the 9/11 conspiricies, whether they believe JFK or princess Diana were murdered by secret agents of their respective countries.I will also want to know whether they believe in telekenisis, palm reading, horoscopes, water divining, or ghosts.The point is so long as they keep church and state seperate, their personal life-beliefs on any subject is irrelevant.-------------------------------------------------------------------Capital idea Sultan!!!Perhaps when Tony blair and George Bush invaded Iraq, it was because their personal fortune tellers bungled the tarot card reading, and mislead them to believe they would find WMD's there, and they would have the place under control within the week!!!! Tue 07 Sep 2010 03:30:29 GMT+1 junkmonkey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2073 Is this an appropriate discussion for a news site forum? Personally, I don't think so. Atheism is as much an act of faith as a belief in God or Gods.Belief and worship or it's lack, don't tell us anything about the intelligence or morality of an individual. Plenty of smart moral people have been on both sides of this issue. And plenty of amoral scumbags as well.A stupid waste of bandwidth that proves or settles nothing. Tue 07 Sep 2010 02:44:59 GMT+1 Sultan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2072 If we are going to ask our politicians their religious views, then I suggest also asking them whether the Moon landings were faked, their position on the 9/11 conspiricies, whether they believe JFK or princess Diana were murdered by secret agents of their respective countries.I will also want to know whether they believe in telekenisis, palm reading, horoscopes, water divining, or ghosts.The point is so long as they keep church and state seperate, their personal life-beliefs on any subject is irrelevant. Tue 07 Sep 2010 01:44:17 GMT+1 Captain_Scarlet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2071 2071. At 01:58am on 07 Sep 2010, Sultan wrote:Why do athiests continually bring up this old canard about christians and other religious people believing the world was created in a week?-------------------------------------Whilst I am sure the vast majority of Christians no longer believe this, there are still many "orthodox" Christian groups who do, the Mormons and 7th Day Adventists being two obvious ones.The seven(six?) day scenario has been put forward as fact several times during this discussion. Tue 07 Sep 2010 01:19:48 GMT+1 Sultan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2070 2057. At 11:25pm on 06 Sep 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:Did God create the Universe?LOL.Or the earth in 7 days and all its species, EXCEPT HUMANS, because millions of years ago when the earth was formed, humans did NOT exist.Could the BBC PLEASE ASK a more RELATIVE and VITALLY important question.Could the BBC PLEASE ask those who seek leadership of the Labour Party, thus leadership of UK the following SPECIFIC question. Do you believe in a mystical supernatural superpoweful being with planet and species creating powers/abilitys who was able to create this planet and all upon it in 7 days, and who apparantly has a punishment zone filled with fire to punish and torture for an eternity of agonising pain naughty people and those who do not believe?-------------------------------------------------------------------Why do athiests continually bring up this old canard about christians and other religious people believing the world was created in a week?It was a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, not secular a scientist who first proposed the big bang theory of the creation of the universe. Tue 07 Sep 2010 00:58:02 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2069 Hi, Wookiee69,It's refreshing to be called intelligent by an adversary on HYS, even if prefixed with seemingly. Could it be that you respond with derision as you have no reasonable argument to respond with?I think you are threatened by the fact that I am an insider who by his nature attacks your prejudice that all God lovers are ignorant and would agree with you if they only knew what you knew.I was raised atheist, indeed hostile to the notion of church and have had a very long journey to faith: one that you may yourself wander down one day. I'm not going to go into details, as they are subjective; but suffice to say that I will freely admit my mind is plagued with rational doubt as to whether my belief is self-hypnosis or not. I came to faith orginally through a rational reasoning process, but it was experience of the inexplicable that has kept me firmly and unwaveringly in the faith camp. I have discovered a subjective world that is only open to those who take a sincere step into trusting this God we have discussed. It's a world of self-discovery, self-improvement, dreams, vision, empowerment, hope and much more that is quite opaque to a cynic. I have come to a place where I can appreciate the value of even my most virulent critic and opponent, and desire to share the enlarged view of the universe that faith can bring. I hope that the posts I have placed here have been tolerant and redolant of affection for science and scientists: I know where they are coming from so well: I dwell there and still share so many of their doubts. Part of what my faith brings is a freedom to doubt and question. I hope that surprises you. Faith is so often prefixed with "unquestioning" that it is somewhat of an oxymoron. I feel that an unquestioning faith is a rigid, stunted, unquesting faith. Why do so many children die? Why does suffering occur? Why do young men die in war while politicians grow fat? Why do crime lords live in luxury while aids workers live in squalour? If a faith-person isn't tearfully asking this of God, then you should be. (I know the hackneyed answers: it's men who pull the triggers, not God. But it's not enough - Paul tells us in his epistles that God is charge and controls our destinies - so the questions still stand unanswered).So I write as a committed, science educated god-botherer: but I hope you take from this that I am not blind to logic, deaf to the news, nor do I have any truck with the glib and easy answers of some. I stand with Job, unshaken in my belief, but demanding to know "why?" and hoping that I will get satisfactory answers. Tue 07 Sep 2010 00:33:38 GMT+1 permanent waves http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2068 1956. At 4:18pm on 06 Sep 2010, Total Mass Retain wrote:And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.Two issues arise: If the sun was created on the fourth day, it would not be possible to have light on the first day. Second: There is only one "great light": the sun. The moon is not a source of light; it merely reflects the light of the sun. I have a wall mirror, and if I shine a torch at it, it will merely reflect the light; but the mirror can never be described as a light.This proves that the people who fabricated this story were primitives who had no knowledge of anything outside their immediate environment.---------------------------------To be fair, they were trying to make sense of the world with the limited information they had. At least they were trying to understand the origins of the universe and come up with what seemed like a coherent explanation. Then, as now, most people around them probably didn't have a clue what they were on about and cared even less. They would probably be astonished to find that thousands of years later so many people would be ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary and continue to believe this version of events through 'faith'. If they had known they would probably have added a footnote, "this is just a theory". Actually, they probably did but it was edited out by priests centuries ago. Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:56:55 GMT+1 Captain_Scarlet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2067 2064. At 00:14am on 07 Sep 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding.Of all my comments which reject the existance of god, which reject this fantasy supernatural planet and species forming creature, who apparantly has a fire infested punishment zone to punish non believers and naughty people, NOT ONE comment has OPPOSED or countered my comments.------------------------------I think we're all hoping that if we keep quiet, you'll stop your ranting. Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:51:43 GMT+1 hypocracyrules http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2066 If religion disappeared tomorrow would people in a few generations believe in a so called "God"?On another point, why are religious HQs so disgustingly luxurious. I thought greed and pride were sins, are they not. Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:49:36 GMT+1 martin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2065 Dear Stephen and AllTry this:If there is something,Then there has always been something, and,If there has always been something, then,There always will be something.It is based on TWO assumptions:That there is something! and,Something cannot come out of Nothing!TO reiterate, if SOMETHING cannot come out of NOTHING, not even once.Then, there has always been something and therefore always will be something.The same applies to LIFE, or rather the potential for life; THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POTENTIAL FOR LIFE!Or so this logic and assumptions would have us believe.Hope you get out of hospital soon StephenMartin Jones Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:32:41 GMT+1 Dimitri Konstantinov http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2064 Hawking is criticised for theorising that something was created out of nothing. If God is real, then surely God is 'something', an entity in his/her/itself. In that case, what created God? Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:18:53 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2063 Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding.Of all my comments which reject the existance of god, which reject this fantasy supernatural planet and species forming creature, who apparantly has a fire infested punishment zone to punish non believers and naughty people, NOT ONE comment has OPPOSED or countered my comments.Believe what you want to believe, but I plead, do NOT indoctrinate your children with such beliefs. If you TRUELY believe in god, then allow your childrens minds to develop to a stage of their INDEPENDENT awareness and intelectual reasoning. Teach them good moral standards, but if you truely believe in god, then surely such a being would reach down into your childs heart and mind by its OWN accord.If people NEED to be convinced or indoctrinated in existance of a god, then why use threats of fear and eternal punishment and basically blackmail of a hidden invisible world of such perfection which is ONLY attainable AFTER death, as reward.The arguments for existance of god in my opinion are as weak as humanitys ability to outlive the dinosaurs! Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:14:57 GMT+1 uglyTruth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2062 Super god created god.Super duper god created super god.Super duper duper god ,,,,,Man invented god.Where did man and ever thing come from?I do not need to invent an answer.Man Created God.Amen, Amen, Amen. Mon 06 Sep 2010 23:00:57 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2061 I think, we actually need an OPEN and FULL public debate on religion and the reality and consequences for the sustainable existance of humanity and of indoctrinating further generations with ultimately, fiction and fantasy.Is it really ANY parents right to indoctrinate their children with lies and deceit and fantasy.Basically, as far as I am concerned, religious indoctrination of children is just plain and simple child abuse.If the argument for religion is so strong and convincing, then why is it necessary to indoctrinate our species when at an age when understanding of ANYTHING is so easily manipulated.WHY not just teach, preach to adults! Because indoctrination and DOMINATION is actually and factually the REAL name of the game and using this mystical being and threat of eternal punishment is enough to warp the minds of any young child.Religious indoctrination is in my opinion no less evil than Nazi Youth indoctrination.In my opinion there is nothing as dangerous and vile as religion. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:55:15 GMT+1 wookiee69 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2060 2058. At 11:25pm on 06 Sep 2010, John McCormick wrote:Hi, John in #2036.The stuff they're coming out with in quantum mechanics does defy logic and reason. It is so hard to comprehend latest developments they say only life-trained professionals or 5-year olds can accept the absurdity of the theories.I'm continually puzzled by the very fact of any difference between observable and quantum universes at all. Why don't quantum effects multiply up to the macro universe level?I mean, just e.g. there was a post above, describing a perectly respectable theory: there is only one electron, in the entire universe, which is very, very, very, very busy. And it travels in time. A lot. One electron. That travels the entire universe infinitely. It's a respectable theory that neatly solves some quantum issues; and who am I to argue? But how hard is that to accept? It defies belief, yet it is conceivably true. And there are harder concepts than that to cope with. I recently encountered a theory that described how an entity could be in simultaneous places: something of an extension of Schrodinger's cat which described simultaneous states. It made my head hurt just reading the article.Quite frankly, I find it easier to believe Jesus' miracles than some of the stuff quantum mechanics say. (By which I am just trying to establish a scale or index of how difficult it is for the human mind to comprehend quantum events).BTW, in passing, some people have posted queries on how God came into existence (In a derisory mannor). As a vaguely-interested student of quantum, I recently found a description of how a trans-dimensional entity would behave, which fascinated me. It would have little regard for our concepts of distance, movement, direction or time, and be able to phase through objects we think of as completely solid. Indeed, it rang bells in me as describing exactly how Jesus is described as behaving after His resurrection. I'm not staking a claim or asking anyone to play HYS tennis with me on this one, just pointing out how our concepts of God have to escape from our concepts of time, space and dimensionality. If God is there, beyond our time-dimension, outside our frame of spacial dimensionality, it's actually as easy for him to be omnipresent, eternal and omniscient as it is for us to fold a piece of paper and bring two opposite corners together. Time has no meaning for Him, so he is eternal; and he can see (and comprehend) the entire universe: not because He is "Big", but because He is beyond concepts of size like he is beyond concepts of time. Again, I'm not claiming to prove His existence, just trying to say that this is who we are talking about, and He isn't subject to our comprehension of what's possible, doable or real.*************************************************************************I'm used to dealing with people who were indoctrinated as children to believe an all powerful fariy can read their innermost thoughts.Their firm belief in this nonsense is understandable in the context they have known nothing else.This seemingly intelligent, educated man has admitted in previous posts to, as an adult, comming to the conclusion that this pile of old cobblers is real!That must take a level of self delusion on an epic(and I mean Cecil B Demille)scale. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:48:20 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2059 THEORY =a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. contemplation or speculationguess or conjecture. Basically, religious theory is based PURELY upon GUESSING, CONJECTURE, CONTEMPLATION and SPECULATION. It is NOT based upon ANY proven or proveable evidence, it actually REJECTS facts, evidence, common sense, reality and truth. HHence, this is WHY there is NO place for god in theories of the universe or ANYTHING, because ultimately it can actually and factually be PROVED to be a COMPLETE LIE and DECEPTION, and falshood, etc etc.I would stand and put my argument and opinions against the existance of a god in front of ANY TV audience, I would make ANY religious leader look as ridiculous as I believe they totally deserve to look. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:46:14 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2058 2050. At 10:51pm on 06 Sep 2010, RHamlet wrote:No-one can prove whether God created the universe. I don't know, and neither does Hawkings============================================So, what do you say to those who indoctrinate children and adults with the belief that this planet and all its species including humans, were created in 7 days, the very same people who knew NOTHING about the universe, but NOW science has awoken us with evidence to its existance, these very same people take ownership of it and insist that EVERYTHING new to human knowledge, is created by this mystical fantasy creature, when in human terms, not so long ago, the earth was CATEGORICALLY stated by such people as the CENTRE of the universe, or ALL things.How does this fit in with our knowledge of history and of millions of years ago when even before dinosaurs, humans did NOT exist in ANY shape or form resembling modern humans.So, what do you say to those who categorically state that if you do NOT believe or if you are considered a "naughty" human, then you will spend an eternity in a fire infested place and suffer eternal horrendous and excruciating pain!Your VERY words can be USED in ANY form.Tell me, HOW can you prove that PETER PAN did not create the universe, how can you prove that Robin Hood did not create the universe, how can you prove that goblins and fairys did not create the universe! Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:35:36 GMT+1 John McCormick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2057 Hi, John in #2036.The stuff they're coming out with in quantum mechanics does defy logic and reason. It is so hard to comprehend latest developments they say only life-trained professionals or 5-year olds can accept the absurdity of the theories.I'm continually puzzled by the very fact of any difference between observable and quantum universes at all. Why don't quantum effects multiply up to the macro universe level? I mean, just e.g. there was a post above, describing a perectly respectable theory: there is only one electron, in the entire universe, which is very, very, very, very busy. And it travels in time. A lot. One electron. That travels the entire universe infinitely. It's a respectable theory that neatly solves some quantum issues; and who am I to argue? But how hard is that to accept? It defies belief, yet it is conceivably true. And there are harder concepts than that to cope with. I recently encountered a theory that described how an entity could be in simultaneous places: something of an extension of Schrodinger's cat which described simultaneous states. It made my head hurt just reading the article.Quite frankly, I find it easier to believe Jesus' miracles than some of the stuff quantum mechanics say. (By which I am just trying to establish a scale or index of how difficult it is for the human mind to comprehend quantum events).BTW, in passing, some people have posted queries on how God came into existence (In a derisory mannor). As a vaguely-interested student of quantum, I recently found a description of how a trans-dimensional entity would behave, which fascinated me. It would have little regard for our concepts of distance, movement, direction or time, and be able to phase through objects we think of as completely solid. Indeed, it rang bells in me as describing exactly how Jesus is described as behaving after His resurrection. I'm not staking a claim or asking anyone to play HYS tennis with me on this one, just pointing out how our concepts of God have to escape from our concepts of time, space and dimensionality. If God is there, beyond our time-dimension, outside our frame of spacial dimensionality, it's actually as easy for him to be omnipresent, eternal and omniscient as it is for us to fold a piece of paper and bring two opposite corners together. Time has no meaning for Him, so he is eternal; and he can see (and comprehend) the entire universe: not because He is "Big", but because He is beyond concepts of size like he is beyond concepts of time. Again, I'm not claiming to prove His existence, just trying to say that this is who we are talking about, and He isn't subject to our comprehension of what's possible, doable or real. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:25:19 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2056 Did God create the Universe?LOL.Or the earth in 7 days and all its species, EXCEPT HUMANS, because millions of years ago when the earth was formed, humans did NOT exist.Could the BBC PLEASE ASK a more RELATIVE and VITALLY important question.Could the BBC PLEASE ask those who seek leadership of the Labour Party, thus leadership of UK the following SPECIFIC question. Do you believe in a mystical supernatural superpoweful being with planet and species creating powers/abilitys who was able to create this planet and all upon it in 7 days, and who apparantly has a punishment zone filled with fire to punish and torture for an eternity of agonising pain naughty people and those who do not believe?I think, that such a question is MORE important and MORE relevent, than "did god create the universe"I think that the people of this nation should have a CLEAR understanding of the beliefs of those who seek to govern and how and why they reason and make decisions and on WHAT basis they base their decision upon, whether TRUTH, FACT, EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, COMMON SENSE, REALITY, or FANTASY/FICTION! Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:25:14 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2055 2044. At 10:11pm on 06 Sep 2010, Cronk wrote:Hello Wookiee69,You say holy books aren't evidence, I couldn't comment on that. So what constitutes as evidence, science? I suggest you go and study it then you'll see it constitutes nothing though it's utterly compelling! ------------------------Holy books are extremely flawed with huge mistakes and have little (or none) supporting evidence. People still believe in them but from a science point of view they are highly flawed.So yes science (otherwise known as facts or truths)-God interacts with man by speaking to him. Therefore must have some physical interaction and be in the relm of science.God creates things. Therefore must have some physical interaction and be in the relm of science.All I am getting at is that you need facts and evidence to enter into science which must stand up to strong scrutany to be accepted. So maybe this would be a good way to show people god exists by providing the facts and evidence to prove it. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:18:13 GMT+1 Andrew http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2054 136. At 1:17pm on 02 Sep 2010, Malcolm wrote:" ... Remove man from this planet and it is perfect ..."I feel sorry that you have such a low opinion of man and his achievements (I say man, only because I assume you meant mankind and meant to include women as well, of course).Man is as much a part of the ecosystem as any other species. Remove man and it will be the same as removing any other species. In fact, probably worse as so many species have evolved to become dependant on man for their existence. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:17:53 GMT+1 in_the_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=96#comment2053 2042. At 9:58pm on 06 Sep 2010, Cronk wrote:"What?! You're married?! Wow. I'm guessing if your internet persona and real life persona match, your wife must be a Saint!...And there you were looking to me for proof of God."About as close as you can without getting married (not a belief I hold but thats irrelivent to this topic). She is great and she is also entertained at how difficult you find my posts. She suggests it could be that we are both above average intelligence."Seriously dude, the ONLY possible position you can take is that 'you don't know' and neither does anybody else! Deal with it."So as nobody knows it cannot be a problem to accept that god probably didnt make the universe. At least from a scientific stand point where reason and facts are necessary to support a claim. While the 'god did it' argument is used to stop people from looking for facts. The creationists use this argument because otherwise they must accept facts that their bible has mistakes. Therefore their god may make mistakes. But the perfect being cant make mistakes so the facts and truth must be a lie.It sounds stupid but thats the kind of logic which they want to teach children! Yet with or without god starting it, there is proof to support the science of how the universe developed. But it has no proof of god so god is not taught. This means god is not attributed the successes but also not blamed for the failures.So how can this cause a problem for the religious people who have an interest in truth? Surely to them it must bring them a step closer to finding god? Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:13:24 GMT+1 Will http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2052 Any missing piece of the jigsaw, anything that science has not yet, or perhaps can never hope to answer fully, is then left to the ever shrinking realm of human imagination. When in doubt of their world, human beings will jump on a simple and popular explanation of how it came about, such as the idea of an intelligently designed universe. A faith can never be challenged, proven nor disproven, and therefore until human beings know every last detail of their existence, religion will always occupy the remaining unknowns. The question of a creator is not one that falls into the normal category of rational debate. A faith is a faith. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:13:01 GMT+1 Andrew http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2051 All Stephen Hawkings said was that the Maths/Physics imply that the universe doesn't need a Creator to be involved.That is the most any scientist will ever claim.In fact, it is the most any person can ever claim.Anyone who claims they know how the universe was created needs to provide some kind of empirical evidence for their claim. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:07:33 GMT+1 JOESCOT http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2050 1890. At 12:06pm on 06 Sep 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt ------------------------------------------------------------------------No need for all that spiel.Beliefs ,Faiths and Religions should be banned from humanity as they cause nothing but aggro.Life should be lived with FACTS not fiction. Mon 06 Sep 2010 22:07:25 GMT+1 RHamlet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2049 No-one can prove whether God created the universe. I don't know, and neither does Hawkings. Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:51:15 GMT+1 hypocracyrules http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2048 In my own personal opinion.To believe in a God is the lazy way out.To question everything around you takes effort.Evolution is being proved, day in, day out.We'll never remove religion though, they keep moving their own goalposts. Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:27:58 GMT+1 Cronk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2047 1999. At 6:46pm on 06 Sep 2010, steve_the_chauffeur wrote:Maybe God did - maybe God didnt. (no gender bias here)Do you suppose Gods actually cares what we think about it.Will our opinion change the fact that it exists anyway?I think God cares more when people blow up other people in his name.Anyone disagree?..............................Good point, there should be a debate on this!Does anyone think the BBC would allow it? Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:22:20 GMT+1 Cronk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2046 1866. At 11:10am on 06 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:1862. At 11:00am on 06 Sep 2010, Cronk wrote:Your tenuous grips at argument suggest you're not enjoying it but very much like having the last word. I had a girlfriend like you!-----------------------Then that provides conclusive proof. You are not always right. I only do what I enjoy unless I am providing enjoyment for someone else (which often gives me a degree of satisfaction). I can promise you cronk that I am not doing this for your enjoyment (although you do keep coming back).Also I can see why you used a past tense when you stated a girfriend like me. Your really not my type and you have difficulty reading my comments to you.......................I thought you were a fella, the comparison with my ex is genuine because she argued much in the same way you do...badly! "Your really not my type" ... Never thought you'd type something I'd agree with but it's a start. Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:20:48 GMT+1 1degC-maximum-by2100 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2045 Zen Buddhism and the Quantum World are intriguingly compatible.Why is this?Why should it not be? Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:15:55 GMT+1 Captain_Scarlet http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2044 We have moved God from the top of a mountain 4,000 years ago to the other side of the Big Bang, who knows where a deity will be in a 100 years? If you have Faith that a God instigated the Big Bang then good for you, you will find no one here who can deny the reality of that Faith.For those who hold to scientific principle and find no evidence for the existence of a God, you are perfectly correct, there is none.Now as nobody has actually offered anything new to this discussion for several pages, can we close it and move on. Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:12:14 GMT+1 Cronk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2043 1936. At 2:43pm on 06 Sep 2010, wookiee69 wrote:1817. At 08:51am on 06 Sep 2010, Cronk wrote:Hi Wookiee,you don't know if God exists or not. I mean, dude, YOU DON'T KNOW! That's it, the ONLY possible logical position that you can take is that of not knowing.Who are you then, to dictate what is fantasy and what is not??....................................Precisely!I, we, can never know. It's a matter of whether you want to make up your mind for yourself based on the available evidence(holy books are'nt evidence) or blindly accept the mythology your society indoctrinated you with since birth. Given a state where no religious indoctrination were allowed I doubt if many would seek such superstition out in later life. A crutch will always hold you back..........................................Hello Wookiee69,You say holy books aren't evidence, I couldn't comment on that. So what constitutes as evidence, science? I suggest you go and study it then you'll see it constitutes nothing though it's utterly compelling! Mon 06 Sep 2010 21:11:10 GMT+1 1degC-maximum-by2100 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2042 Hi all, Sir Roger Penrose worked with Steven Hawking on the origins of the Universe theory (Big Bang), and on Black Hole theory, and is currently working on a "regenerating universe" hypothesis, where one collapsing universe creates the next Big Bang. I think. Please correct me if neccessary. Thus neatly and entirely eliminating the need for a creator!Hooray! Who needs him!There are videos on Google video.Anyway if God exists who created HIM ? Mon 06 Sep 2010 20:59:05 GMT+1 Cronk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2041 1854. At 10:40am on 06 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:1841. At 10:14am on 06 Sep 2010, Cronk wrote:Hi in_the_uk, I struggle to take your comments on 'freedom of thought' seriously when there's a glaring lack of reason in your own posts!If anything, we are all agnostics! (shh, keep it quiet but: nobody knows)-------------------------So when my (effectively) mother in law states that god is definately real because she believes in him she is agnostic? If I asked her to accept the possibility of zeus, appollo, etc I cant imagine getting a good response. How can you believe the possibility of all gods when the abrahamic god demands that you only believe in him (to be his true servant)?We are all athiest of many deities. I go 1 further.......................................What?! You're married?! Wow. I'm guessing if your internet persona and real life persona match, your wife must be a Saint!...And there you were looking to me for proof of God. Seriously dude, the ONLY possible position you can take is that 'you don't know' and neither does anybody else! Deal with it. Mon 06 Sep 2010 20:58:30 GMT+1 clickclack http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2040 1990. At 5:58pm on 06 Sep 2010, pb wrote:1976. clickclack wrote: I think only a primitive would interpret Genesis literally.But many DO accept genesis as the truth - just as many believe the world was created 6,000 years ago. Faith can be blind.------To be honest, although I began my comment with "I think..." in fact I didn't think about this one but was just being a smart Alec. Now I have thought about it and here's what I think.Regardless of what any of us believe is the truth it will be way off in terms of what is actually the truth, there might not even be such a thing as truth. So in that all of our models of reality are incomplete, primitive even, it's not such a bad thing that people take religious scriptures literally, is it? I mean if has the effect that they are looking for then they should do it. "Believe as fools believe" as the Koran would say.However if your motive is to be critical then you do yourself a disservice by only looking at a literal interpretation. Mon 06 Sep 2010 20:51:56 GMT+1 chrisk50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2039 The last post number will be the year when the earth is destroyed.Armageddon decided by HYSAnyway who's coming down the pub. Mon 06 Sep 2010 20:39:35 GMT+1 matt-stone http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/09/did_god_create_the_universe.html?page=95#comment2038 Why is it that the so-called AFTERLIFE is conveniently hidden after death? We all know no one can come back after death to say that there is indeed an AFTERLIFE - once you've snuffed it, that's it, you're gone. This is just a ploy perpetrated by the Creationists to make us toe their line of religious teachings or the wrath of god will descend upon us like a ton of bricks. Why indeed can't AFTERLIFE be possible without having to die first? The answer of course lies in the fact that to experience an AFTERLIFE without dying first would surely reveal the big con that has kept the religious fanatics the world over a firm grip on Mankind to manipulate as they wish. Amen !! Mon 06 Sep 2010 20:39:31 GMT+1