When you see a painting, do you believe it is the creation of a painter?
How come the Universe, in all it's vast complexity and size, can simply create itself, but a painting, so small and simple, was obviously the work of an intelligent being?
2009-03-11T14:33:55Z
The analogy is not a comparison of the painting and the Universe, it's an analogy for the creation, nor did I ever state that the painting and the Universe were the same or similar. I, mistakenly, thought people could understand that.
2009-03-11T14:35:21Z
To the idiots automatically assuming they know exactly what I believe: you make yourself look moronic and need no help from me nor anyone else.
2009-03-11T14:47:18Z
I merely implied that it is possible that the Universe has a creator or perhaps several and maybe there is another level of creation and so on and so forth.
I guess some people are too closed minded and refuse to examine logic outside their own "logic." In my opinion it's better to be completely agnostic about the whole issue, because no one really knows if there is a God or deity, well some people think they "know."
Why do people have a problem with a very intelligent question. Come on, if anyone suggested anything seen that had a design was not created, had no maker or builder, they would be laughed at. Someone tested this in regard to a model made of the solar system. When asked who made the wonderful detailed model, he received the answer, no one did, it just appeared. Then scientist asking the question felt he was being mocked and got angry, yet the scientist tell us this. Who made God? Does not the whole basis of no creator science, state before the universe, before the big bang came into being there was no time? Therefore existance outside of time is something we would not understand. It means what existed before time had no beginning and has no end. We know the Universe had a beginning and we know it will have an end. Funny that because ancient man in the Bible knew this too. I think God told them. But then God also revealed to Paul how the earth and planets ect were also made largely of water, and yet our dear scientists did not know this before early 90's. Does anyone know how many huge named scientists believe the Universe could not be a random mistake, how many believe it mathmatics alone are too advanced, too precise to not be defined? You want to interview a few. Fact, nothing comes out of nothing. A clock does not make itself. For half a century the so called wise wrote books stating David in the Bible never existed. Then they found proof he did, wonder what people did with those text books. Goliath's grave has been found. Put a group of the top scientists in a room, they will argue, and not agree with each other. All historians are, are people who sit in a place arguing with each other on how a certain historic person did something, or did not do it. They dont agree on many points either. Where the so called wise are there is so much blindness.
However, if someone doesn't believe in God already, it is unlikely and even unreasonable to think the Bible or open-ended questions like this would have any authority at all in their eyes. If you want to prove God's existence, do it.
This is the best I've heard thus far: Everyone can agree that every effect has a cause. The "effect" that exists would be space and matter. Now, those who study into scientific theories would know that Einstein's theory of relativity links time to these things. Therefore, the effect is now not only space and matter, but time as well. The "cause", therefore, would have to be something outside of all of these things. Now... there is the Big Bang theory. However, the problem with that is, if the universe was ever an expanding object, it would STILL be expanding... and it's not. Or, if it had stopped growing, there would need to be a reason... yet another cause outside of the universe itself.
The universe did not "create itself". There is no evidence of a "creator". Where is it? Where did it go? Why can't we see it?
Painting, on the other hand, DO have creators. They often carry the signature of the painter. You can look this painter up. You can meet them (if they still live). You can find other paintings by this person...
"Gods" - not so much.
And honestly, that is a big difference between a painting and the universe. I don't accept the impossible. And the concept of a "creator" - that cannot be seen or known, is impossible.
WHOA CROCKODUCK JUST NOTHIN LIKE IT LOOK AT MA BANANA N PEANUT BUTTA!
The reason why is that we understand the origins of the painting because we already knew they were made by people.
We don't know where the universe came from.
To pick one or a couple things that you know are designed and then try to turn around and say, "therefore all the rest of these are designed," is ludicrous.
What about people? People aren't designed, but they're REALLY complex. If people can arise as complex as they are with no designer, why can't the universe?
Of course it's possible that the universe was created by a deity. However, that deity hasn't made itself obvious, so many people decide not to believe in it.
That aside, this is an argument almost exclusively used by creationists who, generally speaking, have almost no knowledge of science, and don't care to. It's kind of irrational of you to behave like they do (i.e., your original question) and expect people to think you're any different (though you've since shown that you are).