Welcome to Gaia! ::

Or we could infer he was bored. I mean, i have done numerous experiments despite knowing what the results would be. Imagine all the high school and college experiments one may have done, and you should see a number of reasons to set up a test other than to find out some unknown.

Just saying.

I don't remember ever saying God was omnipotence or omnipotent. Besides you don't have to be omnipotent to know everything and map everything out. If I was to make a clock I know everything about that clock right? Even if no one else knows how it works or how I made it. The same is for the universe. And even if I can't be omnipotent I still control time and space. If want to be in two places at once I just stop time or go back in time.

If you was playing a "god game" and you need time to think about something you pause the game. And if you made a bad call or things didn't go as planed you restart over (go back in time). You are not everywhere at once but it looks like you are. If I wanted 1 second to equal 10 years I can and know everything about that second in the same way person watching a movie over and over again. When you know how things are going to end it is easy to change it if you wanted to.

For all I know God watches over things in much the same way I watch over the characters in game. I can see all their stats and history and make plans for them. And if they don't do what I want I have the option to tell them what I want them to do and if they don't listen I can make them do it if I so choose. But I rather let the game play itself, only showing up when needed to my make plans come true.

Humans play god all the time. Even now every time you go online or play a game and you have to make an avatar you are playing god. You know everything about that avatar and you control that avatar making it do what to want because it is representing you. People seem to forget that one of the meanings of the word avatar is a god in physical form. What if we are nothing more than avatars in a game, would we know it? lol

You must not have played with games that use A.I. and you have the option to put the game on "auto" and let the game play itself. The characters/avatars do what they want, when they want, how they want. Besides there is no point in making your exist obvious if you are trying to see how things would play out if you was not around. "Free will" is just like "auto" in that we, the characters, do want we want until we are told to obey orders, that is if any orders come at all. People always want to know how smart and skilled the A.I. is, so they are always testing it and letting it run itself without any interference from the outside.

Have you ever played a game where they had a evolving A.I.? Meaning that the more you interact with the A.I. the more it learns. You can even teach the A.I. to act and think like you if you wanted. If you teach it to do bad it'll do bad, if teach it to go good it'll do good, and if just play as you normally would it'll end you acting like you. The thing is when you make something in your own image all your flaws and short comings are reflected and amplified in it. I wounder what flaws are reflected and amplified in humans if we are truly made in God's image?

Sometimes if you want to make a better A.I. you put a number of evolving A.I.s in a program/game and let them go at it until only comes out on top or they end up working together or they mix together and form something new. And if make the program or game world they are in is never ending and ever changing with as little set rules as you can make it the A.I.s well have to keep making copies of itself and branching off to find the best way to exist in the ever changing program/game. Now, dose that not sound a lot like Earth?

Also that wouldn't make our existence insignificant even if we was just avatars. Think about it, do you not care for the characters you make? Every character is apart of you, and for as long as you care about yourself you'll care for your characters. Just ask any artist or writer if there is any insignificant characters. Even a character that only shows up once and has one line on the whole story are not insignificant. Think about it, a lot of people call God "The author of the our lives" well if that is the case than God and any good story writer has a lot in common. I, myself, being a writer love all my characters, even the ones I make out to be the bad guys. You can't really hate something you yourself made, but you can hate how it turned out if the image in your mind don't match what it has become. But than again sometimes you like it better that way, even if it was not planed.

Like I said, if humans do act and think like God on some basic level than it shouldn't be that hard to put yourself in God's place for a moment and to figure somethings out. I mean do the piece on a game board, no matter how smart, can see the over all plan of the person playing the game. I mean look at wars for example. Do all the people in the war know what is going on at times? Do they know what role they play? Can they understand the thinking of the people controlling the war while they're in the heat of things. Odds are for as long as you are in something you tend not to notice it, especially if that is the only world you known. After all most people tend not to notice things about themselves until someone else points them out. Often people don't see the master plan until they are taken out of the game.

I believe that God the almighty created us.
The "Bang" Theory requires a vital piece of information.
Evolution this theory takes "millions of years" to happen.
most of mankind believe this to be true,
however the earth has been proven to actually be about 6,000 years old
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God (God being the divine creator) created the Heavens and the earth.
One of these Heavens is space, the continuous infinatium .

I can go deeper with this but it could take a book worth so i will leave it at the bare bones for you
as for the Jehovah's Witness he is right but that religion is screwed up bad
they re write the bible to fit their needs

you date the rocks by the fossils and you date the fossils by the rocks
thats called circular reasoning (EAT THAT!)

Ok, new to the thread, so I kind of have to take the whole thread on at once:

As a materialist (it just means that i do not believe in anything that can be both non-material and affect matter, and if the non-material cannot affect matter it doesn't exist for us and is in no way important or possible to discover) , I consider matter and energy to be the same, just at diferent states of aggregation, or in other words, that a sufficient amount of energy produces matter and a sufficient decay of matter produces energy. They are one and the same, it is like comparing an atom to a molecule: one is made up of the other.


That didn't make too much sense, but currently there is a theorised 'unmatter'... I won't explain it because noone[at the time I heard about it] knows what it would be like... even the guy who thought it up, other than the fact that it is really weird... But that isn't taken seriously afaik.


What kind of proof do you need? (it is a serious question).
There is sufficient proof that science is works (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but if you want a theoretical proof, think about it like this: science posits that we can see, interact with, and understand the universe, and that nothing in this universe is immaterial (remember, above I said that matter is just a given state of aggregation of energy, so pure energy counts).
What proof for there is this? do our senses provide sufficient information to look into science? kick a rock. I predict it will move (as long as it isn't too big or heavy). I predicted that based on previous encounters with rocks.

This is how science works.

What evidence is there for any of the 'God did it' reasons (they are not theories as they are not testable in any way whatsoever) for the existence of the universe?


pretty much correct, as I have said above, except for quantum fluctuations, which is basicly when 'nothing' (ie, pure energy) moves for no reason, it just moves. Sometimes matter will be created out of this. This is theorised to have been the cause of the BB.


Actually, the whole reason they exist theoretically is as a kind of algebraic sign for 'matter as yet unknown', though the DM/DE theories are starting to take shape in a decent way, such that we may be able to identify them in a short enough period of time.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, they could point oit to the limitless knowledge attainable in an infinite number of limited people...

All that is possible is necessary, and although theists of all shades like to say that 'abscence of proof does not equal proof of abscence', I have to disagree, yes it does.


Please do not be disrespectful. This is not a game to win, but a question of the very origins of the universe. Also, I thought this was meant to be a forum where people at least pretended to be serious...

Now, the thread title makes no sense... Science cannot 'create' anything... science is a method of understanding the universe... So the question should be: "Did the universe 'just happen' or was there a 'first cause'?" (apart from fundie fanatics, I doubt anyone would actually subscribe to the 6 days stuff...)

Well the statement " The absence of proof does not equal the proof of absence." is based on history more than anything else. There has been many examples in history where someone has came up with a theory about something but was unable to prove it or explain it ether do to a lack in of information or a lack of the right technology. It is because of this a lot of great thinkers was seen as crazy within their own lifetimes and only proven right sometime after their death. That saying is mostly a remember basically stating that we (as humans) still don't know much of anything and only time will time tell.

That is why I said, "Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just like proving something can exist doesn't mean it is real." All it means is that truth is sometimes different than what is expected, or in other words "fact is stranger than fiction".

For example what if I told you there is an animal with no brain, no heart, or other internal organs besides a stomach and no blood. And that in times of need it can stop and revers it own growth, turning from an adult back into a baby if need be to save energy. It can also reproduce both asexually and sexually. And that it is one of the of the oldest type of lifeforms on Earth. Going by everything to know about life and other animals you would call me crazy, right? But in fact this animal is real, it is the jellyfish.

I guess if you want you can think of it like that. But remember even with proof some people are still going to believe in what they want. And yes, this type of stuff still happens even now. Someone finds a new way of doing something or comes up with a new theory about something but do to the fact that the idea is so different or so hard to test most of, if no all of, the other theories and scientists think that this person is wrong, dumb, or just crazy. Sometimes it many take hundreds of years to before science and technology can prove them right, that is even if anyone still remembers them.