I will explain better, but you already gave the reply: "if there is that law, then God must have put it". But isn't it an addiction? We see the law acting, we can justify creation with that, and we add God?

Actually, there's no such theory, but it's not the point. Suppose that you could create mass from nothing (actually it's not nothing: it's a point where energy has accumulated, and which we are not sure if physics laws would work in, so no theory yet).
Question is: would you still need a God, if you see that matter/energy can handle a first creation?

But in your scenario, you created it in a lab. There was purpose and intervention. A Creator.

And there are no demonstrated instances of matter just popping into existence at random, so your lab-based creation would only prove that matter can be created when there is a creator involved, not that it is constantly popping into existence at random.

No, sorry, my bad, I'll explain.

Suppose that I can observe it in a lab to demonstrate that it can have happened at the beginning of the Big Bang.

Yes, I was there to observe and guide the pair production, but if there is a chance to start with, it's meaningless to ask how low are the chances for it to happen, since we have had all eternity before Big Bang to wait for that spontaneous production.

Is it clearer? Sorry, my english is what it is.

Spontaneous universe, which spontaneously creates life? And you are relying on the immense time frame of eternity, because if you wait long enough anything can happen?

Why is that simpler?

I return to my first statement in this thread: either way, it's a leap of faith. To believe in your random universe, or my purposeful one.

Well, I quite agree :D

"dipplayer2004 (546 )
04:14 PM
+1
And there are no demonstrated instances of matter just popping into existence at random, so your lab-based creation would only prove that matter can be created when there is a creator involved, not that it is constantly popping into existence at random."

Virtual particles pop into existance like this all the time, the vacumn is full of them - they also dissappear all the time, self-annihilating... Conservation of matter-energy only applies at large scales (ie above hiesenbergs uncertainty principle)

Okay, so they are not sustainable? They don't lead to universes, do they?

"I return to my first statement in this thread: either way, it's a leap of faith. To believe in your random universe, or my purposeful one."

No, there is no leap of faith to say 'i don't know if there is any purpose to the universe, but i'll believe it when i see it'

We see human made purpose all the time. Projecting the idea of a purposeful mind onto non-persons is a very easy thing to do, comes naturally to humans, but that doesn't mean it is logical.

Virtual particles don't lead to universes in this one.

How can you believe in a self creating god but not a self creating universe?

Is it just there IS information about the universe, so it is well-defined; and the is no information about God, so you can ascribe whatever features to God you require to fit the requirments?

I'd argue that we very specifically don't have a well defined 'big bang' time = 0, because we don't have a theory to explain the infinity density required. (in fact this is a specific and well known hole in the theory of general relativity.)

In answer to the original question: No, thank you.
As an oft-times atheist and assholistic aficionado, I find such threads to be boring. Too many people say the same old sh*t time after time after time.
Let's concentrate on WebDip. Yeah, it can be boring, but at least we can see an end in sight. Your discussion is going nowhere fast. Why bother?

God isn't easy to define, and I don't pretend to know how to describe Him.

I see it this way, and I went into this in another thread last night: I don't believe that existence is meaningless. I cannot fathom that. I see life having a purpose, and a Will to have given it purpose. I don't believe life exists for its own sake. I don't understand what the purpose is, but to believe that there is one is enough. Yes, this is an act of faith, but it's not an irrational, blind one.

Orathaic, that's why I ended mentioning singularity without going deeper.
If the answer is "if I see self-creation I think that it follows God's rules", it's pointless to go on. Even keeping in mind that I don't know any proof of existence but of non existence too.

I don't know how you can think about all the intracacies of the universe and decide to believe that it was all spawned out of nothing (an infinitesimally small singularity) and that it all occurred by mere chance. Atheism is not a valid lifestyle, it is just an excuse so that you millions of people don't have to deal with your actions by not considering that you will one day be held accountable for them.

'Blind Faith' were a crap super?-band.

Agreed with Timur. So crap that a couple members just kind of left in the middle of their only tour, being more fascinated with the folk group that opened for them.

Accountable by whom, may I ask, KA?

Timur, there is a "mute thread" for you, if you are - legitimately - bored.
Concentrate on WebDip, please. We're not in NEED of your opinion if you don't want to express it. Just concentrate on WebDip, as you say.
Me, I will concentrate on whatever I want without telling you what you should concentrate in today. Ok?

And how exactly will this accountability be executed?

No, it is entirely an irrational blind one, now that doesn't mean it is wrong. But it is certainly part of human nature to feel and see things like this.

Rationalizing it doesn't make it anymore or less correct. Equally those who claim there is no purpose beyond the human constructed ones do not have any evidence to back up their belief. But it is not a blind leap, it is again human to recognise patterns and apply categories and concepts to the patterns we see in the world; this may lead one to a different conclusion, and again it will be a conclusion come to by a flawed and limited human creature.

The existance of flawed creatures does not imply the existance of a perfect one.

But regardless if you believe in purpose which is uncertain to you, then you can find common ground with those who only find human created purpose, both seek the best purpose to follow. Fundamentally they are looking for the same thing, and i hope that common ground can help both sides come together. (it is only the fundamental theist who believes he knows gods will who can't find this common ground, i find such arrogance dangerous)

Oh my god, King Atom.
No, sorry.
Oh Your God, King Atom.
Internet is the lair of the devil. Resist the temptation to write! It's a sin! Repent!

I can't concentrate 'in' something. (Well, maybe a jacuzzi.)
It's just good to see that a substantial number of supposedly clever Americans (I guess here) are so mystified about the ways of the universe.
OMG! Don't say that. It'll have the sky crashing down on our heads. Suck the sky up, kiddos.
Over and out (unless you retort).

"(it is only the fundamental theist who believes he knows gods will who can't find this common ground, i find such arrogance dangerous)"
Well, Orathaic, I can't agree with that. I've met a lot of "fundamental atheist" asserting all believers must be mad/stupid/incoherent just because they chose a different path.

On that last point we agree, Orathaic. I can't stand those who think they know God's will and mind and presume to dictate to the rest of us. And I have many friends (and a wife!) who are agnostic or atheist, so I have no problem with our common humanity.

Asserting that God doesn't exist and that those who believe in it are crazy is one thing, asserting that you know how they should live is probably very similar. I hope you can find some common with those atheists on how to live even if they don't respect your beliefs... You no doubt don't respect theirs.

I hope at least common purpose can be found.

Was that last directed at me?

Oh, and that's my conclusion, it doesn't matter because we can't answer this question sufficiently to determine how to act. As such it shouldn't be used to divide us.

If theists believe in a perfect God and purpose which is worth striving towards, then Atheists believe only in an imperfect good ~ a purpose still worth striving for.

No, sorry, directed at breath of vegas.

There are hardcore atheists who assert that they know how people should live. Really, just about any argument that can be turned on theists can be turned on atheists as well as to the "dangers" and such. History is rife with people who chose rather inhumane actions with the feeling that there was no reason not to because there was no higher power to punish them. And clearly, not all atheists feel this way because most acknowledge the rationality of a society where we can all be reasonably assured that no one is going to just walk down the street murdering us even if there isn't a divinely given punishment.

The reality is that only a small fraction of each group are truly dangerous enough to be impactful at all to anyone. The vast majority of each group are pretty decent people. But both sides want to focus on this lunatic fringe, and really, that's not representative. It's a loud lunatic fringe, but I think we'd be best served saying things like, "Hey Christians, there's this crazy subset of your belief system doing something I disagree with which I recognize is not indicative of your entire group since it's not being done at anything approaching a national level. What can we do to marginalize that subset together, which I'm sure you don't want representing you?" Instead of "Hey a subset of Christianity is doing this wacky thing lol all Christians are wacky."