Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Religious Question #1 [View all]
spin
(17,493 posts)97. This thread is based on the assumption that there is a Supreme Being or God. ...
The posed question was why does this deity allow evil in the world he created.
The existence of God is a separate topic. However in a post asking this question it would be reasonable to use "evil" as a reason to deny the existence of God. Perhaps the original poster was insinuating this but if so it was not clearly stated.
If you grant that there is a superior being that created the entire universe you would have to admit that the any human would not have the required intelligence to do the same. Can you design and create a sun, a tree or even a cat from nothing? Of course our species may at some time in the far future be able to accomplish these tasks. We may accumulate the knowledge to create life from nothing but currently this is impossible.
Imagine a void without energy or matter or even time. This void decides to set evolution into action. Consequently the universe is born and over billions of years becomes the vast conglomeration of energy and matter, galaxies and stars with planets some of which allow life for bacteria and even intelligent life. Explain how this could happen. How did absolutely nothing become something?
Scientists are now beginning to question what happened before the "Big Bang." Many theories abound.
The Atlantic Home
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology
By Ross Andersen
***snip***
Tweet Jan 19 2012, 11:49 AM ET
This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology, and there are a couple different lines of thought about it. One that's becoming more and more prevalent in the physics community is the idea that the big bang state itself arose out of some previous condition, and that therefore there might be an explanation of it in terms of the previously existing dynamics by which it came about. There are other ideas, for instance that maybe there might be special sorts of laws, or special sorts of explanatory principles, that would apply uniquely to the initial state of the universe.
One common strategy for thinking about this is to suggest that what we used to call the whole universe is just a small part of everything there is, and that we live in a kind of bubble universe, a small region of something much larger. And the beginning of this region, what we call the big bang, came about by some physical process, from something before it, and that we happen to find ourselves in this region because this is a region that can support life. The idea being that there are lots of these bubble universes, maybe an infinite number of bubble universes, all very different from one another. Part of the explanation of what's called the anthropic principle says, "Well now, if that's the case, we as living beings will certainly find ourselves in one of those bubbles that happens to support living beings." That gives you a kind of account for why the universe we see around us has certain properties.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/
(Note: this article is a worthwhile read.)
Still this question can be asked, "How did something come from nothing?" If we do indeed live in just a small segment of an infinite number of bubble universes, where did they come from?
Now I find myself engaging in an argument for a supreme being which was not my objective in the post that started this sub thread.
You state that I don't understand your objection to the use of the work "refuse" in this statement from a previous post.
I also personally know atheists who, while they refuse to believe in a God, try to do the same as I do.
Let me try once more to explain my use of the word.
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)...emphasis added
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
Perhaps you can explain exactly what you dislike about my using that word. I might learn something.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
146 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That is no different than asking you if you have any sceintific evidence that
Angry Dragon
Sep 2012
#74
I have never called anyone delusional or stupid, are in way over their collective heads
Angry Dragon
Sep 2012
#78
Number 10 was multiple choice and I have no idea what you meant by attachment
Angry Dragon
Sep 2012
#91
In my current opinion, evil does not exist outside of the perceiver's mind.
ZombieHorde
Sep 2012
#124
We can progress no further until you address this basic flaw in your entire position:
trotsky
Sep 2012
#94
I'm not questioning the logic of your assertion, because there's nothing to question.
trotsky
Sep 2012
#114
That definitely happens when one party refuses to justify their statements of fact. n/t
trotsky
Sep 2012
#123
I'm open to other interpretations, but it's in reference to some time, some place that was "ideal"
Tigress DEM
Sep 2012
#139
Good could not exist without evil. The definition of good would disappear without evil.
Lint Head
Sep 2012
#54
Or the original "spin" that boiled life down to talking points instead of taking it as a whole?
Tigress DEM
Sep 2012
#128
On 2nd glance. I call Original Sin, Original Spin. The Innate Desire for Knowledge is curative.
Tigress DEM
Sep 2012
#133
I think in simple terms. God created order out of chaos. Chaos still exists.
Tigress DEM
Sep 2012
#127