For So Many Reasons

Why should i acknowledge someone who creates all these laws and rules to humanity when in happenstance we evolved with absolutely no rules, creating our own rules as we evolved. Why should i believe in something that is interpreted from centuries back to the roman empire. The belief in god in general was to explain anomalies, keep order and balance in a society. Just look at the egyptian empire, roman empire, mesopotamia in its early stages, and any other kingdom/ city in the past. The stories were passed down generation to generation, we simply forgot the roots. Christmas wasnt the birth of christ, it was celebration of the son god on the solstice(winter). The christian cults of the roman empire would lie about such a thing, to keep the stories of jesus alive, who wasnt born on christmas, nor "0 c.e.", he was born in the general area of spring to summer of 4 B.C.E, condemned to crucifixion in 30 c.e. by the roman empire. Its his fault for spreading the influence across the roman empire, and his followers must've seriously exaggerated his career and existence. Jesus was human, born by a human, so in no way could he have been a powerful healer as he was portrayed. His followers would want you to believe so, to keep stories of him alive. Polytheism and monotheism were beliefs and nothing more. The nile flooded each year at the same time because of natural causation, not prayers or anything of the sort. You do not find happiness in god, you find happiness in love, affection and belonging, as stated by Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, which in my opinion should be psychological law, even though it doesnt apply to many. Miracles aren't miracles, just unexplained phenomena that should be explained, like love, a car starting up out of nowhere or "miraculously" surviving two strokes. Nothing about the christian god, or rather any other god is nothing more than myths and tales re interpreted to have people of other languages understand, passed down from generation to generation, changed over time. Its just the figment of people's imagination, fearing and cowering from death and natural causes when one should just accept them as an inevitable fate. If god controls what i think and do, and he's the end all to all science and physics, i'd rather not live knowing we are constantly being watched and judged. I dont feel security or love in following rules for someone to love you. No, i will have sex if i want, steal if justified, and kill under the right circumstance if someone was in trouble. Reality isnt fixed in a four dimmensional plane as followers of religion would like you to think. There is so much beyond what we think and see, not a white/ islamic/egyptian guy or girl judging human actions, deciding whether or not to wipe us all out.
loverOfScience loverOfScience
18-21, M
6 Responses Jan 7, 2013

Every phenomenon has a reason. For example we see that the leaves of a tree are shaking, we search for the reason and we understand that the wind is the reason………or someone dies (it is a phenomenon or better to say an event) we search for the reason and we understand that a sickness or something else is the reason. It is the same for everything, I mean everything has a reason

Now the question is this: What’s the reason of this whole world?

It's God,isn't it?

Have you ever looked at a simple pen? It has some different parts that someone or something has made and connected them together in a specific order so it works.Look at yourself and its order!Look at the world and its order! They are much complex than a pen, aren’t they?

There should be someone who has created and put them in a special order.Who could have created them except God?
Some people say Bing Bang or evolution or…..
Maybe they are right but who has created that core which has exploded or better to say who has created the explosion or the place of it? Planets has really placed in an exact place Have they really done that by themselves? Or maybe everything has completed in an evolution but who has created the first thing? Has the evolution happened by itself? Everything has really a specific rule. Has the evolution put the specific rule in the creation by itself? I don’t think so……

That is what the creation of an asymptote would do, and that is my dream of all dreams, to be the captain of my own creation to conduct an in depth study of this galaxy, and the universe. What you speak of is faith, and also that everything leads to one thing. That ruins my motivation. That we were created by a being. I would have no purpose in life if everything had one thing behind it. At my age, such a being isn't perceivable. Perhaps I'm too young to perceive this fourth dimension, so i will cross that bridge when I get to it.

I'm having difficulty following your reasoning. For instance, does CERN’s Large Hadron Collider lose it's purpose because it was engineered? What about the International Space Station? Does it lack purpose because it was designed?

We are talking about the creation of humans here, that and all the other workings in the universe. We are talking about all things leading to one. What i can't stand is that someone created the universe, because THATS when all human made designs to better our knowledge and believe that an end to discovery is impossible (at least to me), thats when everything we've designed solely for that purpose loses its meaning. If all things lead to one, i don't see what the point is.

Let's think this through a little further. Do you know how to operate CERN’s Large Hadron Collider?


Naturally. Now, let's say you're interested in learning how to operate it properly. Who would you think is best suited to teach you?

2 More Responses

Next, given your love for science, I'd like to suggest you conduct a more profound study of nature and the universe.

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

–Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science).

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born, who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

–Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it.

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”

–Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton.

Happy Saturday!

To answer your first question, first we need to recognize that It is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it. Now, God is a maximally great being. So we don’t praise God for doing His duty. Rather He is to be adored for His moral character because He is essentially loving, just, kind, etc. It is because God is that way that these qualities count as virtues in the first place. Essentially, God is good the same way water is wet, diamonds are hard, a photon moves at the speed of light and stars are hot. So if we think of God’s goodness in terms of His possessing certain virtues rather than fulfilling certain duties, we have a more exalted and more adequate concept of God.

Or look at it another way. Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to shirk, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. As such, if god is evil then there must necessarily exist a supreme God who is all powerful, all good and all loving; One who is the very paradigm of good.

Well, can something come from nothing?

Well so far we believe that the higgs boson particle, which basically gives somethings mass and somethings nothing, can actually come from nothing. So yes.

Thing is, if something can in fact come from nothing, why doesn't everything or anything? Why aren't dinosaurs, for instance, popping out of thin air, devouring everyone in sight? Why aren't we afraid of elephants suddenly popping into existence in the sky and crushing us as we walked down the street? If nothing can in fact produce something why would it discriminate?

All things considered, how is your claim anything but special pleading?

There is something in this universe that you have to realize, and that is the fact that not everything composed of matter will obey the same laws. There are things that obey the laws of physics, evolution, etc, and there are somethings that don't, like on the atomic and sub atomic level. Things on the quantum level are never set in stone, quite the contrary everything is of probability. The quantum world is and is not the world we live in. Yes, anything can happen at any given moment for no reason, but we cannot assume it was the cause of a higher power. We must accept that things happen without causation and reason, and the same goes the opposite way around. We are here because the earth formed by chance. No one forced it to form, no one forced the milky way to form, it happened by chance. We happened for a number of reasons, changes in our world that affected the natural order of things, where as the higgs particle is there, just to be there. It is a cause that causes other things to happen or not happen, and that in itself will cause other things to happen, or not happen.

Again, we as humans must accept this as reality, that something could indeed come from nothing as we have observed, and that somethings that happen on a different level other than what happens visually and physically, does not or does effect us at all. Dinosaurs, elephants, any mammal or animal is comprised of cells, which are comprised of molecules set in different algorithms allowing that said animal or mammal to be in existence. Molecules are comprised of atoms, and anything beyond the atomic level is able to be observed, but not without difficulty. We do know that under no circumstance would any particle start a chain reaction so fast as to make animals appear over our heads.

To put it shortly, somethings obey physical and visual laws, while others don't

That's just but one interpretation. Bohmian Mechanics, on the other hand, is fully deterministic and states that any indeterminacy is merely conceptual. Decidedly, the laws of Bohmian Mechanics coincide with all experimental results.

Were you aware of this?

I've never even heard of Bohmian Mechanics. I'm not aware of everything and neither is anyone else.

But now that i see it, i have heard of the names. What do you mean that any indeterminacy is merely conceptual? I don't understand.

Good to see you're still open minded my friend.

Now, that indeterminacy in Quantum Mechanics is merely conceptual means that it only appears like a random event but, in truth, it's anything but.

It's the same way with how it appears the Sun revolves around the Earth when the reality is the opposite is true. Such geocentricity is merely conceptual.


Putting what you're saying in my own words, you're saying that the random event is only a random event in the way we're perceiving it, but it is really obeying some sort of quantum law?

Precisely! This is what Bohmian Mechanics reveals. Did I mention all experimental evidence coincides with the predictions it makes?

yes you did.

So you see, Science certainly has no experience of things popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. “Being does not arise from nonbeing”; “something cannot come from nothing”. These are putative metaphysical principles, like cause and effect, unrestricted in their application. Accordingly, we have very good grounds, both conceptually and scientifically, for believing that whatever begins to exist has a cause.


(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
(3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

(4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.
(5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.
(6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

Now, let’s take a closer look at this. First and foremost, this cause must itself be uncaused. Why? Because an infinite regress of causes is impossible; it can’t be turtles all the way down. (Lookup “Hilbert's Grand Hotel” if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis:

Second, this uncaused cause must transcend space-time because it itself created space-time. It is therefore, spaceless.

Third, since this uncaused cause exists beyond space and time it is must be a non-physical or immaterial cause. Why? Because physical things exist only in space – they have dimensions.

Fourth, this uncaused cause must necessarily also be timeless for the simple fact that it itself doesn't exist in space-time.

Fifth, it must also be changeless. As I'm sure you're well aware, all matter exists in a state of constant flux. This is especially apparent at the atomic level. Since this uncaused cause is immaterial it is not subject to the same forces that affect matter, therefore, it is unchanging.

Sixth, this uncaused cause is obviously unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, for it brought matter, energy, space and time into existence completely on its own.

So, to sum up, whatever it is that caused the universe to come into existence 13.70 billion years ago it must be beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging and omnipotent.

But we're not done for there are two more properties of this uncaused cause that we can deduce from what we know of the universe. For this we have to take a closer look at cause and effect. Here's what I mean: if a cause is sufficient to produce it's effect then the effect must also be present. The two are joined at the hip, so to speak. You can't have one without the other.

Let me borrow from an illustration to make this clearer. “Suppose that the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0°C. If the temperature were below 0°C from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. Once the cause is given, the effect must be given as well.” (

The issue is, if we have in fact a timeless, transcendent cause why isn't the effect permanent as well? In other words, if this timeless, transcendent cause actually caused the universe, why hasn't the universe always been around? How can a cause be eternal but its effect commence a finite time ago? We know the universe is about 13.70 billion years old but we've also deduced that whatever caused the universe must be transcendent and timeless.

The only way this is possible is if this timeless, transcendent, uncaused cause were also a free agent – a being with free will who can act of its own volition. As we all know, free will is the hallmark of personhood.

Last but not least, this beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent being must also be unimaginably good. Why? Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that he’s evil. Since this being is evil, that implies he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil being have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil being and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to shirk, a being which is absolute goodness himself. As such, there must necessarily exist a supreme being who is all powerful, all good and all loving; One who is the very paradigm of good.

So here we arrive at this uncaused cause of the universe 13.70 billion years ago that is beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being who is all good and all loving.

This is the very definition - of God :)

But how can something or someone made of immaterial know the difference between right or wrong? And also, being all-loving and all good is a feeling, but how can something omnipotent, composed of immaterial and unchanged by anything because it is beyond space time comprehend feeling. If everything is a cause and effect in the universe, then something that is all good and all knowing would have a profound effect on the universe's many life forms, multi cellular, single cellular, and those not composed of cells at all, but the amino acids, elements and compounds that make up the stars and the planets. Everything would have to have feeling, for why would he or she or it create something with the power to erase itself and others surrounding it from existence. How do we know that something of evil obligation did not create the universe, for animals and humans are able to kill without remorse, start wars, build weapons to exterminate planets, and have the mind to think of ways to destroy others in the worst ways we find possible. If something of any good created all the things that surround this milky way, this planet, why would he just leave it to sort out itself. Does this being want to be found, stared at, his or her or it's many algorithms of nature looked at, studied. Everything is merely conceptual, i'll agree with you on that. We've gone as far as the higgs boson particle, and it somehow is formed from nothing. This we can prove that not everything has a cause and effect to it, the particle clearly does or does not have an effect on something. There for there are infinite possibilities as to what is effected by it. But if everything is merely conceptual as you say, then we could merely be floating when we think we are sitting, flying, standing, affected by the many laws that we have comprised under observation. I do have a problem with this being, all knowing and all loving, able to create or destroy everything as we know it. I am baffled by one that takes attendance, and creates morals and obligations for us to fill, but leaves the other planets and star systems completely barren. We have no knowledge of beings that exist beyond this star system, and beyond this universe, so i am perfectly inclined (as believable as it sounds) to disagree with you're statements, but i will keep an open mind. I just have a problem with believing a end-to-all physics, and science. I would then be inclined to ask myself why would it create the universe, only for it to have causes and effects with in itself, causing us to be created. Would something all good and all knowing realize all the seemingly infinite causes and effects that the creation of the universe would have? How do we know that when praying is done, words are heard beyond the three dimensions? Talking is merely controlled sound, but how do we know sound is heard beyond the three dimensions? How do we know he cares, basing our question off of evidence that things of material are created and destroyed, some leaving a destructive influence (black holes, neutron stars, gamma ray bursts). We can easily be destroyed by ourselves, or by outside influence. We would either have to have faith in an all good and all knowing being that he would do the right thing, which would be a conceptual point of view, or we would have to rely on scientific inquiry, allowing us to prepare for destruction to ensure that the human race lives on.

10 More Responses