(for christians)do both scientic believe

okayy if a scintest a christian scients says we got created
by god the other one says

by, a big bang thorey , well which one;s do we know
is correct..

?? how do christian scientics have proof?

once again, people think that God and science are incompatible -.- it is not. at all

They don't. That's the thing. It's an opinion. There are more theories than those too.

Science has been unable to answer the really important and interesting questions for me. And neither Religion or Science can prove or disprove either position. So I choose to believe a deity had a hand in it until science can answer my questions otherwise.

We can't show and aren't sure how life began. There are theories that we began in a primordial soup of early earth. Others say the compounds here on earth were not enough and it took an asteroid bringing other elements to earth. Another theory has life beginning in the heat vents at the bottom of the ocean. One whacked theory, that is as provable as others that we came from alien trash. Bottom line, we don't know. I don't know either, but I've chosen to believe in a power greater than what I've seen on earth.

And many answers aren't answered by religion. If we have a heaven and hell, where are they? Different plane, different universe? I'm comfortable with my beliefs, just still don't have all the answers.

The important thing is to look at the evidence and then make up your own mind.

One thing that plays a part in my belief is Occams razor- the idea that the simplest explanation is often likely to be true.

Occams razor is just my point. The simplest explanation is often the most likely, thank you.

***I'm comfortable with my beliefs, just still don't have all the answers.***

Nobody does...

But in admission of this, you are showing your faith to be of a finer quality.

Apples and Oranges. The twain don't mix. Ockham's razor is inapplicable.

The Big Bang theory explains the expansion of the universe from singularity... This leaves a lot for theists to haggle with.

This is an impossible question.

Atheists think that they can apply Ockham's razor by virtue of a creator god being an extra step in a chain that can be answered by simply saying it happened. If you say it happened... why go a step further and suggest a creator god happened first? If you can say something just happens... a creator god can just happen as well... but it is an extra step... not the simplest. Atheists believe this is the logical use of Ockham's razor. It isn't. The question is changed. The question is no longer how the universe was created. The question becomes what gain is added by supposing a creator god into a universe capable of self creation. Atheists are applying unwritten and ungiven conditionals.

On the other hand theists say that everything in the universe has a cause... [one exception is electromagnetic radiation... it dumps all over causality]. They argue that nothing in this reality just happens. They suggest that a creator god could be the catalyst for the universe of our reality. Atheists argue that if nothing in this universe can be created without a cause... how can theists justify presupposing a creator god doesnt require a creator of its own? Theists argue that a creator god could be outside the bounds of time... like electromagnetic radiation. There is no way of proving this.

This is an impossible question.

Beyond the impossiblity of the question... both sides argue based on the other's conditionals it seems. Atheists argue for a self created universe and against a self created god whenever the opposing side counters. Theists argue for a created universe and against a creator god requiring a cause of its own.

Back to my point... however... if you are atheist and trying to insert Ockham's razor here... it doesn't wash. You confuse the philosophical question... Stick to requiring physical proof in order to believe in a god. In so doing you will never be burdened by hiccoughs in logic such as this.

Atheists believe this is the logical use of Ockham's razor. It isn't. The question is changed. The question is no longer how the universe was created.

The question is not changed - it's still discussing the exact mechanism of the creation of the universe. If a god supposedly created it, then that's part of how did the universe come into existence? Your claim is akin to saying that I can freely argue that gnomes turn milk sour because once I add gnomes to the chain of causality, I'm no longer talking about milk souring, so Occam's razor (somehow, magically) can't be applied.

On the other hand theists say that everything in the universe has a cause

No they don't, they give their god a 'get out of jail free' card on that count.

[one exception is electromagnetic radiation... it dumps all over causality]

What the? Electromagnetic radiation is _not_ exempt from causality. How would that even work?

Captainassassin, it is just my belief of many years of searching.

...nevertheless... its still a major hurdle that many many theists refuse to overcome. And it just makes their faith appear insincere.

Using Occam's razor, the simplest explaination has to be one that is based on things we know. We have absolutely no evidence of anything supernatural existing in the universe, so implying that something supernatural created the universe can not possibly be the simplest explanation.

That would be like saying the simplest way to explain evolutionary evidence is that the fossils were put there by god, and do not represent actual animals and plants that existed millions of years ago. If you allow the supernatural to be just as good an explanation as a natural one, then nothing we discover through science can ever be taken seriously. Which is something some of the more ignorant believers think.

Wow!!! So much talk of elves and sprites. It is like your rationale was forged while sitting in front of your primary school librarian at story time. Before you start crying slander... I've had my fill of your undertoned, snide correlations. Your reiterations of my points are always chock full of pejoratives intent to belittle the argument. Tactless... but what else can you argue? Lean times huh?

The question is not changed - it's still discussing the exact mechanism of the creation of the universe. If a god supposedly created it, then that's part of how did the universe come into existence? Your claim is akin to saying that I can freely argue that gnomes turn milk sour because once I add gnomes to the chain of causality, I'm no longer talking about milk souring, so Occam's razor (somehow, magically) can't be applied.

Why should I address this... arachnid? I explained in full how the question changed logically. Reread what I wrote. Ockham's razor needs your conditionals placed onto the statement. You are assigning variables not given. If both sides accept your conditionals... then your usage of ockham's razor curries your water. The problem is neither side accepts either conditionals.. they dont have to... arachnid... bad as you want that to be the case... it isnt. You jump the gun by presupposing a self created universe and expect no one to call you on it.

On the other hand theists say that everything in the universe has a cause

No they don't, they give their god a 'get out of jail free' card on that count.

No they dont... lol... this is ridiculous... they argue that God is outside the universe and the causality required in it.

What the? Electromagnetic radiation is _not_ exempt from causality. How would that even work?

One prerequisite for causality is time. Without the passage of time causation cannot happen at least not by our understanding of cause. Electromagnetic radiation is acausal... timeless... in a state of constant now... no past no future. Subjectively we can measure the passage of time light should take to reach us or from us... but objectively the time never happened.

I am amused by your inflections arachnid... as if they prove anything... it is so you.

Why should I address this... arachnid? I explained in full how the question changed logically. Reread what I wrote. Ockham's razor needs your conditionals placed onto the statement. Your are assigning variables not given. If both sides accept your conditionals... then your usage of ockham's razor curries your water. The problem is neither side accepts either conditionals.. they dont have to...

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a single paragraph with so many ill-defined important sounding terms. Do you want to explain why you don't think Occam's razor applies without trying to obfuscate your answer? As far as I can tell, you think any change between the two scenarios somehow invalidates its use, but that's the whole reason for having it in the first place: To evaluate the likelihood of two different explanations of the same phenomenon.

No they dont... lol... this is ridiculous... they argue that God is outside the universe and the causality required in it.

Same effect, since they never define what outside the universe means, or how something outside the universe can affect what happens _in_ the universe without interacting with it.

One prerequisite for causality is time. Without the passage of time causation cannot happen at least not by our understanding of cause. Electromagnetic radiation is acausal... timeless... in a state of constant now... no past no future.

I think you're confusing the fact that from the point of view of a particle travelling at the speed of light, time is infinitely slow, with causality itself. Perhaps you could provide a concrete example of how electromagnetic radiation violates causality in any measurable sense?

Before you start crying slander... I've had my fill of your undertoned, snide correlations. Your reiterations of my points are always chock full of pejoratives intent to belittle the argument.
...
I am amused by your inflections arachnid... as if they prove anything... it is so you.

I seem to recall some sort of saying about pots and kettles...

Mindless words arachnid... expedited by you... hastily given... you didn't have time to read my argument again. You accuse me of sophistry. I wasn't trying to obfuscate my answer...I don't need to... only to keep from a verbose explanation that to me is more confusing... but perhaps a primer is warranted. I didn't think I needed to condescend... I'm learning that isnt the case. I will spell it out for you as simply as I can.

The original Question: How was the universe created. Implied arguments: By a god/Not by a god. This is the question as best I can interpret. Ockhams razor is being used by atheists... but when it is used this conditional is placed[the universe can be self-created] You change the question. The new question is How was a universe that can be self-created... created?. This conditional that the universe can be self created is not accepted by theists. It wasn't and isn't given. You use Ockham's razor to argue that it is simpler than adding a self-created god... you have jumped the gun by imposing your interpretation.

Did I want to do that again?... No...

As far as I can tell, you think any change between the two scenarios somehow invalidates its use, but that's the whole reason for having it in the first place: To evaluate the likelihood of two different explanations of the same phenomenon.

Your mistake is that you don't understand that you are not comparing scenarios. You are fundamentally changing the question. The phenomenon changes by the addition of the conditional not agreed upon by both explanations. A universe becomes a universe capable of self-creation. The entire theist argument is based upon not placing that conditional on the question. It is an unsubstantiated conditional. Theists don't have to accept it.

No they dont... lol... this is ridiculous... they argue that God is outside the universe and the causality required in it.

Same effect, since they never define what outside the universe means...

Outside the universe means outside the universe. It is its own definition... I had trouble with that too... ok... I didn't.

...how something outside the universe can affect what happens _in_ the universe without interacting with it.

What does this have to do with the price of guavas in Sao Paolo?

I think you're confusing the fact that from the point of view of a particle travelling at the speed of light, time is infinitely slow, with causality itself. Perhaps you could provide a concrete example of how electromagnetic radiation violates causality in any measurable sense?

I don't think so. Time is a prerequisite for cause. Something timeless is acausal. Electromagnetic radiation is timeless therefore it is acausal.

I seem to recall some sort of saying about pots and kettles...

And? Your passive dismissals are no better. Get used to it.

I'm done. I'm not interested in arguing with someone whose idea of the opposite of obfuscate is condescend, and spends at least as much time avoiding answering difficult questions as injecting ad-homs into his responses.

You're done because you are done.

Furthermore, If we assume that god doesn't have a cause, then why couldn't nature. If we assume that god has it's own cause then why couldn't the universe have it's own cause?

This point was stated in my first post.

On a side note, I'd expect a universe with an existence of a personal god to be eminently different.

At least this shows a little imagination. Your expectations are your own... I'd imagine they differ as greatly between a personal gods as they do my own.

I wonder what happens to literal nothing if it sits around for a googolyottaplex. Maybe some of it remains the same, maybe small things happen. Maybe a form of space eventually might be produced by it. partical and energy reactions might take place, and maybe established an order. Or maybe something like the Big Bang follows, from a compressed nonillion degree point, or points.

This is the basis of the problem. It is hard to contemplate nothing literally. I'd be given to reason that nothing literally could have no mechanism of transmogrification... because this ability would connote a something. Nothing would be absent of time... else we would simply call it time. 0+1=1... Nothing+time=time. How did the time get there? It is a manipulation of space[in our neighborhood] or at least a subjectively observed manipulation. Whether you consider time a priori or a posteriori... it is still dependent upon something to manipulate.

Anything and everything is a maybe.

This is an impossible question. Ockham's razor is being misapplied. Either you have acausal existence that can be argued across the board... or you have the question of the causation across the board. It is a stalemate. You prefer the logic to be on your side... but it simply isn't.

The point that is incessantly being missed... and this is critical to understand... is for your usage of Ockham's razor to hold water you either have to alter the givens of the question... or you offer your explanation of spontaneous uncaused creation... which isn't an explanation... but a write off... you cease to explain.

Ockham's razor weighs explanations. Yes... an explanation should make the fewest assumptions... this cannot preclude answering the question. You cannot use Ockham's razor to determine your non explanation is the simplest because it makes the fewest assumptions.

Think about this - homicide investigations would become vastly easier to solve. All cases would be attributed to natural causes because anything further would complicate the explanation. [and... yes... even this taken to its extreme end is the exact argument we are in... because I would have to provide how everything that factored into the investigation came to be... it is infinitely more complicated than assuming that the victim died of natural causes... explaining the existence of the victim is another problem entirely.]

[Incidentally... this is the argument for solipsism... I exist... all other things are impossible to prove and the fact that they require explanation complicates what I know by its own merit I.e. my own mind... so it is simpler to assume they don't]

If we speculated that an alien civilization from a pre-existing universe started our own, that'd be adding unnecessary assumptions. It's unnecessary because something previously must have been spontaneous, likewise our own universe can be.

You are not saying anything that I haven't already said... can you not see this? I disagree that there necessarily must have been spontaneous creation. This appears to be impossible in our universe of cause and effect... but it is an assumption. This is the best argument theists give. We cannot expect spontaneity in our universe... why should we drop those expectations at the chasm of universal genesis? There could be an infinite number of creators... this is not impossible... hard to imagine. This is a convoluted explanation... but it puts no conditionals on the question... and still explains.

I don't think all things are possible and god just happening is one of them.

I wonder what happens to literal nothing if it sits around for a googolyottaplex. Maybe some of it remains the same, maybe small things happen. Maybe a form of space eventually might be produced by it. partical and energy reactions might take place, and maybe established an order. Or maybe something like the Big Bang follows, from a compressed nonillion degree point, or points.

You choose the impossible? Are we all subject to your dictations of what is possible?

Atheists don't think that a god happened first because they don't believe in it and there's no reason to

Fine. If this satisfies your burden of proof... this is your prerogative. This isn't an answer to the logically impossible question.

...but I'd say the logic of Occam's razor is on their[atheists] side.

Say it all you like.

Maybe I am missing something, but if the question is; was the universe created, or did it always exist? To me Ockham's razor would point to it always existed, because to say it was created is now adding more complexity to the question.

If you are making an assumption it was created, and the question is how did that happen, then I agree, Ockham's razor provides no clear choice for the means of creation. Since nothing is known about the nature of the creation process, nor the creator itself, a natual or a supernatural reason are just as likely.

Was the universe created, or did it always exist?...[assuming it could always exist] Ockham's razor would come down on the side of the the universe having always existed... because adding a creator would be superfluous.

This new question doesn't address the method of genesis... which I am calling impossible... it requires an assumption that is unsubstantiated and not accepted by all.

The universe having always existed is not accepted by theists. The reason theists have a problem with this assumption is that it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of this cause and effect reality. If we accept that this universe just happened... how can empirical evidence of anything in it be required? If the universe itself is without cause... why should anything therein be held to that standard? This adds the precedent of spontaneity into this reality... nothing requires a cause... without cause.. effects could be random... and evidence for a cause no longer credited to a particular effect... necessarily.

The problem with the question of genesis is that it is a zero-sum game. One side must argue for both acausal and caused reality in order to refute the others argument of both acausal and caused reality. The arguments offset one another.

The universe having always existed is not accepted by theists.

I am not approaching this from a theist nor atheist POV, I am merely contemplating the question of infinately perpetual existence or a starting point? A belief system has nothing to do with it. It is just my opinion that ockham points to always existed.

If the universe itself is without cause... why should anything therein be held to that standard?

This is tough to answer since the deifnition of the universe is subjective. Is it the physical universe we can observe? Or is it more metaphysical or philosophical?

You can not move beyond the discussion of a creator or not, until you solve the problem of always existed? or had a definitive starting point? To me ockham says always existed, but of couse. it is ultimately unkowable. Given that, any discussion of a creator has to start with an assumption there was a starting point.