Attention Atheists: How Was The Earth Created?

[KittenKoder]

Reposting for those who missed it, or were too damned lazy to read it.
* Main Entry: 'god'
* Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
* Date: before 12th century

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

1) How is that a 'scientific' definition?
2) Source please..

Nothing to do with laziness, more to do with 'please explain'..

As for your talk on religions helping out scientifically, I do not dispute that has not happened. I'm talking more in a mainstream instance...

Source: god - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Got it from the actual book on my computer though. Scientific definition is the generally accepted definition of a term by scientists, number 3 and 4 are such. When our species first appeared animals and the elements were our gods, because they had more power than us and we needed them. Now we only need them but we have more power than they do, so we had to look higher for gods. Animism was the first religion, others evolved from that. Since our science has become so advanced, if there is any god it would have to be beyond that, though any alien species capable of long distance travel to our planet would fit the definition and would be our gods at this point in time, it is not impossible that there are beings more than even them, and more, and more, and more ... as science states, the universe is infinite, and within infinity all possibilities are enacted.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Hmmmm...I find it strange that MS has started a thread that wants every little thing explained - ie, if a scientific-minded person believes that gases helped form stars, then he wants to know where the gases came from and how they drifted together. However, when a religious person is asked "where did God come from", they usually answer "He was always there"...

Scientists have an explanation for everything, I just want to hear the explanation for the creation of the universe. But every explanation I've read so far in this thread is an effect, not a cause. I'll keep asking for the cause until someone gives it to me.
I have one explanation for it all: God created it. Whether it was 4.5 billion years ago or 2000 years ago. God created it.
It's not a "cop out" either, it's a belief.
Non-believers have their own theories, I want them to state them here on this thread.
Instead I get attacked by people like this:

As an agnostic I don't know if "God" created the Universe. I'm sure of one thing though, more murders and henious acts have been done in the name of "God" then for any other reason.

In the name of Satan as well but that's not the point.
Go back and re read the rules of this thread. I didn't start it so you atheists could bash religion. Plenty of threads here at USMB where you can do that.
Post your theory of the formation of the universe please!

Again, my challenge to you and any other religious person - empirical and actual proof of a God please. Take your time...

Start your own thread please! Don't come in here and try to hijack mine!
(I'm not blaming you KK)

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I have one explanation for it all: God created it. Whether it was 4.5 billion years ago or 2000 years ago. God created it.

Hmmm... I LIKE IT!!! When there are a lot of ideas out there go with the one that makes you think the least.

 

[jillian]

What's the difference between Scientific Theory and Religious Theory? Seems to me that both can't be proven.

Scientific "theory" is not surmise in the sense that religious dogma is. Scuentific "theory" is derived by using the scientific method to test and re-test a hypothesis until an answer seems apparent. It is, however, modified, when BETTER or ADDITIONAL evidence comes to the fore.

Comparing the two is silly.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What's the difference between Scientific Theory and Religious Theory? Seems to me that both can't be proven.

Scientific "theory" is not surmise in the sense that religious dogma is. Scuentific "theory" is derived by using the scientific method to test and re-test a hypothesis until an answer seems apparent. It is, however, modified, when BETTER or ADDITIONAL evidence comes to the fore. Comparing the two is silly.

Well that's a good explanation, I'll accept that.

But that still doesn't explain how the Universe was created without God which by the way was the point of this thread.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

But that still doesn't explain how the Universe was created without God which by the way was the point of this thread.

At one point in human existence I am sure people were saying "but that still doesnt explain HOW RAIN FALLS FROM THE SKY without God."

 

[eagleseven]

But where would the lightning bolts come from, if Zeus wasn't throwing them at us?

 

[L.K.Eder]

why does my urine not hit the bowl?

 

[midcan5]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdzx7g50HvE]YouTube - How is it that Existence Exists?[/ame]



....existence is not derivative it just is....

 

[edthecynic]

What is The Prime Motivator?

Energy

Great. Now tell me how it was formed and where it came from.

Originally Posted by edthecynic
Matter IS Energy and the First Law of Thermodynamics, proven with a repeatable experiment by James Prescott Joule, says Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So Energy didn't "come from," it IS.

"It just IS!" I didn't accept that explanation from my kids and I won't accept it from you either.
Scientists have always been discovering new things that disprove the current theories of the time and will continue to do so as long as we exist I suppose. Better yet, that is my theory!
Matter, The Universe, Life itself had a beginning. I'll ask you again:
"What was the 'Prime Motivator' for our Universe and life as we know it now?"

The FLoT is NOT a theory! It is a proven Law.

The FLoT says that Energy/Matter has no beginning and no end.
Basically you are giving Energy a human personality and supernatural powers and calling Energy "God."

 

[Care4all]

if energy/matter has no beginning or end then what does "anti-matter" have or do?

 

[N4mddissent]

if energy/matter has no beginning or end then what does "anti-matter" have or do?

Anti-matter is matter with opposite charge to matter. It does not exists naturally that we know of. It was theoretical until produced in particle accelerators. When it contacts matter, both convert into energy. It is said that they annihilate each other, but in reality it is just a conversion from matter to energy- like when plutonium is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction. (Except matter-antimatter is far more efficient.)

 

[Care4all]

if energy/matter has no beginning or end then what does "anti-matter" have or do?

Anti-matter is matter with opposite charge to matter. It does not exists naturally that we know of. It was theoretical until produced in particle accelerators. When it contacts matter, both convert into energy. It is said that they annihilate each other, but in reality it is just a conversion from matter to energy- like when plutonium is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction. (Except matter-antimatter is far more efficient.)

it is so hard to grasp anti-matter...kind of scary to me, (as a layman at best, who loves this stuff), because it is unseen. A documentary i watched the other night said that for all matter in the universe there is equal anti-matter...at least that is the direction science is leaning now...?

care

 

[Care4all]

matter to energy...

but did you say that energy then turns back to matter? i am so lost...i apologize if my questions are too dumb to answer!

 

[N4mddissent]

matter to energy...

but did you say that energy then turns back to matter? i am so lost...i apologize if my questions are too dumb to answer!

At one point it was thought that matter and anti-matter had to exist equally in the early universe. But a universe like that would be self-destructive. So there is an asymmetry in the ammount of matter and anti-matter- more matter than antimatter. It is an unsolved problem in physics, although there are promising hypotheses which suggest solutions.

Matter is concentrated energy. Imagine if you could compact energy extremely dense, then it becomes matter. Certain reactions can release the energetic bonds of matter and convert it back into energy. Matter is potential energy in other words.

That's what E=MC^2 demonstrated. The amount of Energy in matter is equal to the Mass of the matter times the speed of light squared. Thus, it leads to nuclear weapons- if you convert matter back into energy, it is a hell of a lot of energy. A nuclear weapon converts less than 1% of its matter into energy. So imagine anti-matter which reacts by converting basically 100% into energy.

 

[eagleseven]

In short, a single atom in your body has enough energy to destroy the Earth. And the average human body has about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms.

This is why nuclear science will one day solve all our energy problems.

 

[N4mddissent]

In short, a single atom in your body has enough energy to destroy the Earth. This is why nuclear fusion will one day solve all our energy problems.

Not quite that much energy. Nuclear fusion could possibly solve energy problems if we can figure out a way to cause it to happen without using more energy that it produces. It's not very efficient either. Only antimatter is really efficient- but it also takes more energy to create than it produces.

 

[eagleseven]

In short, a single atom in your body has enough energy to destroy the Earth. This is why nuclear fusion will one day solve all our energy problems.

Not quite that much energy. Nuclear fusion could possibly solve energy problems if we can figure out a way to cause it to happen without using more energy that it produces. It's not very efficient either. Only antimatter is really efficient- but it also takes more energy to create than it produces.

Well, if you were to take a particularly large atom, say Bromine, and convert all of its protons and neutrons directly into energy, it'd be a BIG boom. Hypothetically speaking.

 

[N4mddissent]

In short, a single atom in your body has enough energy to destroy the Earth. This is why nuclear fusion will one day solve all our energy problems.

Not quite that much energy. Nuclear fusion could possibly solve energy problems if we can figure out a way to cause it to happen without using more energy that it produces. It's not very efficient either. Only antimatter is really efficient- but it also takes more energy to create than it produces.

Well, if you were to take a particularly large atom, say Bromine, and convert all of its protons and neutrons directly into energy, it'd be a BIG boom. Hypothetically speaking.

Big Boom.....sounds familiar...

I just came across the real answer to the origins of the universe.

[youtube]cWGJ3ydBQiE[/youtube]

 

[gcomeau]

We see quite a few threads from the Religion bashers about how ridiculous it is to believe that God created the Universe. "How can you believe a magical Man in the Sky?" they all ask.

OK then. Here's your chance to prove to me that God didn't create the Universe. Please post any argument you may have or like that proves your ideas.

First of all, proof is for math and alcohol. Science doesn't prove things, it reaches provisional conclusions based on the preponderance of available evidence.

Now, if you are asking to be educated in the evidential support for the current scientific understanding of the manner in which the earth was formed, I will be delighted to provide it to you in considerable detail. Is that what you're looking for? Or are you just here to play silly word games by insisting on standards of proof that are impossible to attain in the real world? I've encountered entirely too many people engaging in the latter in these discussions to start in wasting time with another one so if that's it just say so and I'll wander off somewhere else I can be marginally productive.