-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of creation
- Thread starter janesix
- Start date
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
What evidence is there that anything ever started all by itself for no reason?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No one says that life started for "no reason". Would you care to rephrase your question?
But this is a nice dodge. It is an admission that there is no evidence for the creation myth.
What, specifically, do you mean by "created?"
In a general sense, we know that the universe, solar system, and life (on earth) has not always been here. Thus, at some point, these things were "created" or had an origin/beginning. Just like at some point you were "created" when your mom was inseminated.
In a general sense, we know that the universe, solar system, and life (on earth) has not always been here. Thus, at some point, these things were "created" or had an origin/beginning. Just like at some point you were "created" when your mom was inseminated.
What would you consider as "evidence"?
janesix
Active Member
I mean created, as in created by a God or Gods.
In that case, the question takes on a somewhat different context when your gods are literally the universe and all of its aspects. There isn't a distinction between "creator" and "creation." There's abundant evidence for the existence of the universe, it's aspects, and their natures.
That said, what a person chooses to deify is not a matter of proof or evidence it's a matter of values and perspective. There is no "proving" that life, the universe, and everything are gods. It is simply something you believe or you do not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "perfect eclipses"? The Sun and Moon are close to being a "perfect distance" apart for the Moon to just cover the Sun, but that is not the case. If it did the path of a totality would be infinitely narrow. In most eclipses the Moon more than covers the Sun so that the path is miles wide. For example the most recent one was about 70 miles wide at its maximum. In about 600 million years there will be no more total eclipses because the Moon is continually receding from the Earth:
Earth Will Have Its Last Total Solar Eclipse in About 600 Million Years
And the geometry of the Earth and the Moon are simply due to gravity. No deity need apply.
exchemist
Veteran Member
There is some evidence from cosmology that the universe may have started from nothing.
Does that qualify as "created" for you, or by "created" do you mean evidence that there was a creator who created it? For the latter there is no evidence.
P.S. Oh I see you've answered this already. So no, no evidence in the scientific sense, i.e. evidence that is close to objective. A lot of people have a subjective, aesthetic feeling there is or was a creator. It sounds as if you may be one of those. But I am not sure in what sense any of that could be termed "evidence".
dfnj
Well-Known Member
There is no "evidence". There is "no reason". An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. An omnipotent God is NOT bounded by the laws of physics. Sometimes I just don't understand why it is so hard to grasp the idea of what "omnipotent" means.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes of course that is possible, if you hypothesise the existence of such a tinkering God. That would mean a deceitful God too, of course. Some of us would reject such a conception of God, on grounds of both aesthetics and conflict with scripture.
Furthermore, the evidence provided by these fossils, radioactive dating (not carbon, the half-life is generally too short) and DNA similarities strongly suggests an alternative hypothesis, for which such a God is not required. This alternative hypothesis has the virtue of being a scientific one, in that it enables predictions about future discoveries to expect. The Deceitful God hypothesis does not do this.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I don't see scientific evidence for creation, I think God is something you either experience or don't. So we attach extra meanings to creation or non-creation as proof of a creator or lack of proof. In reality of our lives it doesn't really matter if there is evidence or if there is creation, we are living today and can step into the Kingdom of God or follow the pure stream of the Tao. For those of us so inclined to ascetics or endowed with luck to have the mystical experiences without them all that extra loses meaning meaning over time and becomes just another idol or false god.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why would you believe in a lying god?
In fairness, it is a level of ability and awareness that is so far beyond what any human is capable of it is effectively incomprehensible to us. The concept seems inherently difficult to grasp for any of us, yeah?
Spheres naturally form if there is enough mass because of the action of gravity. In fact, that has even been suggested as a definition of the term 'planet': that it is large enough that gravity makes it spherical.
The orbits of planets are NOT 'perfect ellipses'. They *would* be if Newtonian gravity were a correct description and there were no other planets. An inverse square force law inevitably leads to orbits that are conic sections (so bounded orbits must be elliptical). In practice, the gravity of other planets will change the parameters of the ellipse over time. Corrections due to General Relativity also make the ellipses imperfect.
So, both of your examples actually have very good explanations in the working of gravity, a natural law.
Are there any other evidences that show the working of something other than simple, natural laws?
Thisis certainly true for the Earth the solar system, and life on Earth. It is less clear when we come to the universe and is dependent to some extent on the definition of the term 'beginning'.
We have no evidence that there was a time when the universe did not exist. It is possible, however that time only goes finitely far into the past. It is possible that at some point there is no 'before'.
It is also possible that the Big Bang was simply a transitional event between a universe 'before' and a universe 'after'.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
Only took 4 minutes from someone to deflect the question. Is that a new record?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I made the same error that you did. The poster said "eclipses" not "ellipses". But then again the answer is still much the same. They aren't perfect.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Its hard to imagine an infinite regress of eternal inflation. According to some scientists it must have had a beginning from a previous eternal state. Eternal inflation is said to be an eternal process of expansion.
As of yet its all to the contrary that there even was a creator.
But i am convicted that science will always reform what they know in regards to the universe's processes, and the nature of ultimate reality. Why is there not an equal amount of matter and antimatter in our universe? What role does dark energy play in inflation? What will they discover with the vast amount they dont know of the universe? Its all a lot to swallow.
As of yet its all to the contrary that there even was a creator.
But i am convicted that science will always reform what they know in regards to the universe's processes, and the nature of ultimate reality. Why is there not an equal amount of matter and antimatter in our universe? What role does dark energy play in inflation? What will they discover with the vast amount they dont know of the universe? Its all a lot to swallow.
Last edited: