[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
LOL
Well, you have kind of twisted and exaggerated that just a tad. It’s not what I say, but the bible. It is true that the true message of Christianity has been “blurred” at times, but there have been the true ones throughout history who stuck up for what is right.
If I carried on with that prophesy of Jesus, he says that there would come a time when a separating work would happen, when the “fake” Christians would be filtered out (Matthew 13:41)[/quote]
…can you say anything on which christians you believe are “fake”?[/quote]
I can. The ones who’ll show up to church from time to time, those who say they are Christians but only out of convenience. They do what they want and do not hold to the basic tenets, which are love God and love your neighbor and act like it. This does not mean people who “sin”, but people who just don’t try.
What’s in their hearts? I don’t know. But they act in a manner that does not respect people or God.
No, that doesn’t mean they are going to hell, it just means they don’t value their faith at the time.[/quote]
…are they the majority or minority in religion you think?
[/quote]
You know, I do not know. Because I can tell when I see them, but I cannot tell just by looking into a crowd. If I had to guess, I would bell curve it. I.E. the people that go through the motions but it doesn’t mean a thing to them (like in the movie The Godfather)are on one side, the very faithful Mother Teresa types on another. Most of us care in varying degrees.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
LOL
Well, you have kind of twisted and exaggerated that just a tad. It’s not what I say, but the bible. It is true that the true message of Christianity has been “blurred” at times, but there have been the true ones throughout history who stuck up for what is right.
If I carried on with that prophesy of Jesus, he says that there would come a time when a separating work would happen, when the “fake” Christians would be filtered out (Matthew 13:41)[/quote]
…can you say anything on which christians you believe are “fake”?[/quote]
I can. The ones who’ll show up to church from time to time, those who say they are Christians but only out of convenience. They do what they want and do not hold to the basic tenets, which are love God and love your neighbor and act like it. This does not mean people who “sin”, but people who just don’t try.
What’s in their hearts? I don’t know. But they act in a manner that does not respect people or God.
No, that doesn’t mean they are going to hell, it just means they don’t value their faith at the time.[/quote]
…are they the majority or minority in religion you think?
[/quote]
Well, Jesus actually hints that the “fake ones” would be many in comparison to the “real ones”:
He says that there would be fake ones; one’s claiming to be followers, but he refers to them as strangers and bad people (Matthew 7:21-23).
Luke 13:23, 24 says:
“Someone asked him, ‘Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?’ Jesus answered: Do all you can to go in by the narrow door (the true way)! A lot of people will try to get in, but will not be able to.”
He then goes on to explain that people (claiming to be on the side of Jesus) would ask why they can’t “get in”, and he (Jesus) would reply that they are bad people…
\\ Thread killed ///
…i’m sorry for the pause in responding to you and pat. I have a week off work and i’m enjoying the first tentative signs of spring outdoors, so i’ll be back…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m sorry for the pause in responding to you and pat. I have a week off work and i’m enjoying the first tentative signs of spring outdoors, so i’ll be back…[/quote]
Lucky you, we still got snow 
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m sorry for the pause in responding to you and pat. I have a week off work and i’m enjoying the first tentative signs of spring outdoors, so i’ll be back…[/quote]
Enjoy your vacation…Hit a “coffee” shop for me!
‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss
…a fantastic lecture about why the universe came from nothing. Please ignore the oversized and horribly greasy dinner jacket of the guy, he is a scientist after all. It’s about an hour long, but it’s absolutely worth it. Pat, i can’t give you a 30 second break-down, just watch it…
…to get back to the ‘wolves’ in religion, this is from last week: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/05/2010-03-05_gay_prostitution_scandal_rocks_the_vatican.html
…what bugs me the most about institutionalized religion, beit Islam, Christianity or Judaism, is hypocrisy. We are being told, and expected, to behave in a certain way by people with a lot of power and influence, who themselves act in an opposite manner. What reason do i have to assume that their holy books weren’t written or assembled as a means to manage and maintain the large number of followers, when the people at the top of the religious foodchain enjoy the good life?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss
…a fantastic lecture about why the universe came from nothing. Please ignore the oversized and horribly greasy dinner jacket of the guy, he is a scientist after all. It’s about an hour long, but it’s absolutely worth it. Pat, i can’t give you a 30 second break-down, just watch it…
You could have given me a 5 second version, called “String Theory”.
It’s first largest flaw is that is it incomplete. So any new mathematical discovery can instantly invalidate it. Second problem I personally have with it is a phenomenally complicated theory whose only purpose in life was to reconcile the two opposing scientific theories Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Never the less it is interesting and that big fat Hadron collider in Switzerland was created to test not only string theory but anything else that may arise to explain what gives matter mass, why it causes gravity and what gravity is.
Interestingly enough a philosopher by the name of Gottfried Leibniz postulated a theory of Monadology which has similarities to String theory. There is no empty space, all space is occupied with monads string theory has something similar called Neveu-Schwarz-5-branes. Further he stated that matter can be subdivided infinitely and what ties them together is adhesion to spirit or what he really said is that at core of all matter is God. No this is not another “God did it” theory. It’s actually quite elegant. He is after all the co-founder of Calculus. He’s no dummy.
When he came up this people thought he was off his rocker, as time goes, his theories become more correct. He came up with all this in the 18th Centrury and he is presumably why physicists called the mass giving property of matter, the “God particle”
Anyhow, no theory explains where it comes from and causalities role. You cannot thing of causality in strictly physical terms. For instance, string theory came from general relativity and quantum mechanics, they came from something else and so on it goes. Theories aren’t physical.
To invalidate causal theory you have to prove causation does not exist. If you cannot do that it will remain a thorn in side of atheists.
I have lots more.
For the record, I more interested in your thoughts that the thoughts of a bunch of lofty self absorbed know it all atheists.
[quote]pat wrote:
You could have given me a 5 second version, called “String Theory”.
It’s first largest flaw is that is it incomplete. So any new mathematical discovery can instantly invalidate it. Second problem I personally have with it is a phenomenally complicated theory whose only purpose in life was to reconcile the two opposing scientific theories Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Never the less it is interesting and that big fat Hadron collider in Switzerland was created to test not only string theory but anything else that may arise to explain what gives matter mass, why it causes gravity and what gravity is.
Interestingly enough a philosopher by the name of Gottfried Leibniz postulated a theory of Monadology which has similarities to String theory. There is no empty space, all space is occupied with monads string theory has something similar called Neveu-Schwarz-5-branes. Further he stated that matter can be subdivided infinitely and what ties them together is adhesion to spirit or what he really said is that at core of all matter is God. No this is not another “God did it” theory. It’s actually quite elegant. He is after all the co-founder of Calculus. He’s no dummy.
When he came up this people thought he was off his rocker, as time goes, his theories become more correct. He came up with all this in the 18th Centrury and he is presumably why physicists called the mass giving property of matter, the “God particle”
Anyhow, no theory explains where it comes from and causalities role. You cannot thing of causality in strictly physical terms. For instance, string theory came from general relativity and quantum mechanics, they came from something else and so on it goes. Theories aren’t physical.
To invalidate causal theory you have to prove causation does not exist. If you cannot do that it will remain a thorn in side of atheists.
I have lots more.
For the record, I more interested in your thoughts that the thoughts of a bunch of lofty self absorbed know it all atheists.[/quote]
…he only mentions string theory once as an aside, and it basically has nothing to do with the lecture. Why did you single string theory out like that, pat?
…your train of thought is based on the idea that the lecture was somehow about string theory, but i’ll nevertheless read through the wiki page. I’m cool like that. The rest of your post is familiar territory…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You could have given me a 5 second version, called “String Theory”.
It’s first largest flaw is that is it incomplete. So any new mathematical discovery can instantly invalidate it. Second problem I personally have with it is a phenomenally complicated theory whose only purpose in life was to reconcile the two opposing scientific theories Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.
Never the less it is interesting and that big fat Hadron collider in Switzerland was created to test not only string theory but anything else that may arise to explain what gives matter mass, why it causes gravity and what gravity is.
Interestingly enough a philosopher by the name of Gottfried Leibniz postulated a theory of Monadology which has similarities to String theory. There is no empty space, all space is occupied with monads string theory has something similar called Neveu-Schwarz-5-branes.
Further he stated that matter can be subdivided infinitely and what ties them together is adhesion to spirit or what he really said is that at core of all matter is God. No this is not another “God did it” theory. It’s actually quite elegant. He is after all the co-founder of Calculus. He’s no dummy.
When he came up this people thought he was off his rocker, as time goes, his theories become more correct. He came up with all this in the 18th Centrury and he is presumably why physicists called the mass giving property of matter, the “God particle”
Anyhow, no theory explains where it comes from and causalities role.
You cannot thing of causality in strictly physical terms. For instance, string theory came from general relativity and quantum mechanics, they came from something else and so on it goes. Theories aren’t physical.
To invalidate causal theory you have to prove causation does not exist. If you cannot do that it will remain a thorn in side of atheists.
I have lots more.
For the record, I more interested in your thoughts that the thoughts of a bunch of lofty self absorbed know it all atheists.[/quote]
…he only mentions string theory once as an aside, and it basically has nothing to do with the lecture. Why did you single string theory out like that, pat?
…your train of thought is based on the idea that the lecture was somehow about string theory, but i’ll nevertheless read through the wiki page. I’m cool like that. The rest of your post is familiar territory…[/quote]
Because I skipped through most of it. You have to understand, I work and have a family, getting an hour to myself is rare, and usually I am not going to spend it watching someone’s argument to prove somebody Else’s point.
You may find it fascinating and all that jazz, but I received formal education in the matter, Philosophy was my minor and had I stuck out one more quarter, I could have gotten a double major.
What I am saying is I have heard just about every counter argument there is and all remain unconvincing as none of them refute causality. I don’t want to watch a long video to hear something I have already heard.
Skipping around, it seemed that they were leading to using string theory, with all it’s parallel universes and 11 dimensions of space-time to attempt to refute the existence of God because they discovered something new.
Everytime science discovers something they try to prove that God doesn’t exist with. Evolution fails to do it, General relativity fails to do it (Einstein was a theist, btw), quantum theory fails to do it, and string theory fails to do it. You’d think by now people would learn, that a new scientific discovery doesn’t automatically refute God’s existence.
My argument for the existence of God revolves around causality. You have to refute that, for me to even consider an argument as valid. As long as cause and effect relationships remain in effect, then so does the argument from the cosmological style, especially from the point of contingency.
Have you ever studied or gave any thought to epistemology? If you run through a very simple exercise, you realize that you cannot prove the existence of physical matter.
It may sound illogical at first and it doesn’t mean that physical matter does not exist, it simply means you cannot prove it does. Only things you can prove are the objects of metaphysics. Seen through the eyes of naked logic, metaphysical world is more real than the physical.
Don’t believe me? Test me. Give me an argument proving something, anything physical exists, I will show you exactly how you cannot know it a prori, to be true.
Senses are fallible and foolable. Logic is not.
BTW, if you really want me to watch videos make sure they are 5 minutes or less.
[quote]pat wrote:
Because I skipped through most of it. You have to understand, I work and have a family, getting an hour to myself is rare, and usually I am not going to spend it watching someone’s argument to prove somebody Else’s point.
[/quote]
Definitely take the time (even if you have to break it up due to restraints) to check out that video. I just finished it and found it very interesting. It’s topics center around how the universe could and must have started from nothing. “In Quantum Physics, if you have nothing, somethings must occur.”
[quote]pat wrote:
Everytime science discovers something they try to prove that God doesn’t exist with. Evolution fails to do it, General relativity fails to do it (Einstein was a theist, btw), quantum theory fails to do it, and string theory fails to do it. You’d think by now people would learn, that a new scientific discovery doesn’t automatically refute God’s existence.
[/quote]
That’s not what science is all about. It’s about using the scientific method to find the truth. Those theories you mentioned don’t have the goal of proving God doesn’t exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
My argument for the existence of God revolves around causality. You have to refute that, for me to even consider an argument as valid.
[/quote]
So the “event” in your case is existence and, by default, the “cause” must be God. As a person with an interest in Philosophy and logic, how can you convincingly believe that the “cause” must be a god? For example, I’m sitting under a tree and a banana falls on my head. The “event” is the banana hitting my head. I don’t know how the banana came to fall on my head (could have fallen off branch, animal could have thrown it, etc). How can I use causality when I don’t have all the evidence to completely prove my case? Wouldn’t it make sense to continually gather evidence in support of my theory, without resorting to a method that resolves around assumptions based on nothing but causality?
Just because something appears to have happened one way, it could have easily happen another.
[quote]pat wrote:
BTW, if you really want me to watch videos make sure they are 5 minutes or less.
[/quote]
What is wrong with you? First you claim to want proof, but you want the cliffs notes. Hate to break it to you, but those hour long videos? They are the shortened form.
Instead of acting like a fucking tool and wanting everything handed to you on a plate like some 500lb obese woman, fucking man up and listen.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
BTW, if you really want me to watch videos make sure they are 5 minutes or less.
[/quote]
What is wrong with you? First you claim to want proof, but you want the cliffs notes. Hate to break it to you, but those hour long videos? They are the shortened form.
Instead of acting like a fucking tool and wanting everything handed to you on a plate like some 500lb obese woman, fucking man up and listen.[/quote]
Why don’t you kindly go fuck your self. You cannot make any arguments, you cannot refute anything I have ever said, logic is completely unfamiliar to you, reason escapes you, intelligent thought just wafts past you you have nothing to add to any conversation. All you do is insult people who you don’t agree with cause that is the only thing you are apparently capable of. Since you are actually to stupid to participate in these arguments, you should go fuck off.
Why don’t you spank your dick to this video for an hour. I don’t have an hour to spend on things I have already heard. Now run along and let adults talk.
You guys are funny. But seriously, that video was pretty cool and funny.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Because I skipped through most of it. You have to understand, I work and have a family, getting an hour to myself is rare, and usually I am not going to spend it watching someone’s argument to prove somebody Else’s point.
[/quote]
Definitely take the time (even if you have to break it up due to restraints) to check out that video. I just finished it and found it very interesting. It’s topics center around how the universe could and must have started from nothing. “In Quantum Physics, if you have nothing, somethings must occur.”
[quote]pat wrote:
Everytime science discovers something they try to prove that God doesn’t exist with. Evolution fails to do it, General relativity fails to do it (Einstein was a theist, btw), quantum theory fails to do it, and string theory fails to do it. You’d think by now people would learn, that a new scientific discovery doesn’t automatically refute God’s existence.
[/quote]
That’s not what science is all about. It’s about using the scientific method to find the truth. Those theories you mentioned don’t have the goal of proving God doesn’t exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
My argument for the existence of God revolves around causality. You have to refute that, for me to even consider an argument as valid.
[/quote]
So the “event” in your case is existence and, by default, the “cause” must be God. As a person with an interest in Philosophy and logic, how can you convincingly believe that the “cause” must be a god? For example, I’m sitting under a tree and a banana falls on my head. The “event” is the banana hitting my head. I don’t know how the banana came to fall on my head (could have fallen off branch, animal could have thrown it, etc). How can I use causality when I don’t have all the evidence to completely prove my case? Wouldn’t it make sense to continually gather evidence in support of my theory, without resorting to a method that resolves around assumptions based on nothing but causality?
Just because something appears to have happened one way, it could have easily happen another.[/quote]
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Because I skipped through most of it. You have to understand, I work and have a family, getting an hour to myself is rare, and usually I am not going to spend it watching someone’s argument to prove somebody Else’s point.
[/quote]
[/quote]
So I put on my head phones and listened to most of this, and again, like I predicted, it was stuff I have heard before.
“In Quantum Physics, if you have nothing, somethings must occur.” Is simply not true. He says this and then goes on to show energy exists in an empty spaceÃ??Ã?¢?Ã??Ã?¦Uh, energy isnÃ??Ã?¢??t a nothing and where the hell did it come from?. He and other atheists assert, you have energy density occurring in empty space, sub atomic particles (quarks) floating in and out of existence, (which isnÃ??Ã?¢??t true, they are just changing location), then you have String theory which calls these vibrations Ã??Ã?¢??branesÃ??Ã?¢??. So you have 4 things that exist right there. Quantum Physics is something, energy (dark energy) is something, quarks are something, and branes are all somethingsÃ??Ã?¢?Ã??Ã?¦So it begs the question, where is the nothing?
If you have nothing, and nothing happens to it, what occurs? Nothing… Lots of nonsensical somethings coming to together to create something else, is NOT something from nothing, period.
http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html
Lastly, you cannot have nothingness if energy exists at the very least because energy is a something. That�?�¢??s where their argument fall apart.
[quote]pat wrote:
Everytime science discovers something they try to prove that God doesn’t exist with. Evolution fails to do it, General relativity fails to do it (Einstein was a theist, btw), quantum theory fails to do it, and string theory fails to do it. You’d think by now people would learn, that a new scientific discovery doesn’t automatically refute God’s existence.
That’s not what science is all about. It’s about using the scientific method to find the truth. Those theories you mentioned don’t have the goal of proving God doesn’t exist.
pat wrote:
My argument for the existence of God revolves around causality. You have to refute that, for me to even consider an argument as valid.
[/quote]
[quote]
So the “event” in your case is existence and, by default, the “cause” must be God. As a person with an interest in Philosophy and logic, how can you convincingly believe that the “cause” must be a god? For example, I’m sitting under a tree and a banana falls on my head. The “event” is the banana hitting my head. I don’t know how the banana came to fall on my head (could have fallen off branch, animal could have thrown it, etc). How can I use causality when I don’t have all the evidence to completely prove my case? Wouldn’t it make sense to continually gather evidence in support of my theory, without resorting to a method that resolves around assumptions based on nothing but causality?
Just because something appears to have happened one way, it could have easily happen another.[/quote]
That’s not what science is about, but that is what many scientists use it for, including the ones in the video. Sadly, they had a friendly crowd, who would not ask the tough questions. Where does the ‘dark energy’ come from, where are the ‘quarks’ from, what brought the ‘branes’ into existence.
Well, you are divulging into the nature of causality. So ask your self this, can the banana hit your head for no reason? Not knowing a cause is not the same not having a cause. Sure the cause can be a myriad of reasons. The problem with out right refuting causal relationships, all science and math falls apart. However, it has been tried and failed. Causality stands very strong as a logical argument.
The cosmological argument, asserts basically that all things are caused by other things and other things, etc. The argument asserts that this cannot continue infinitely because infinity begs the question, which is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. What solves the problem? Something that causes that it self cannot be caused.
http://beyondthecave.blogspot.com/2005/05/contingency-cosmological-argument.html
This is not necessarily a good version of it as it only discusses physical matter. But it gives the general point.
[quote]pat wrote:
The cosmological argument, asserts basically that all things are caused by other things and other things, etc. The argument asserts that this cannot continue infinitely because infinity begs the question, which is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. What solves the problem? Something that causes that it self cannot be caused.
[/quote]
Interesting. I see where you are coming from and I definitely don’t have the credentials to defend points in the video. Just thought they were interesting discoveries.
Now, I have to ask about that “something that causes that it self cannot be caused”. Does this have to be a god? (white robes, beard, clouds, etc) From our explorations and observations in the universe, we have seen no evidence of the genesis in the Bible (at least in the way it was described). So why do you believe our universe was caused by something religiously oriented rather than some cosmological event which we currently study? Perhaps “God” is nothing more or less than a cosmic event.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The cosmological argument, asserts basically that all things are caused by other things and other things, etc. The argument asserts that this cannot continue infinitely because infinity begs the question, which is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. What solves the problem? Something that causes that it self cannot be caused.
[/quote]
Interesting. I see where you are coming from and I definitely don’t have the credentials to defend points in the video. Just thought they were interesting discoveries.
Now, I have to ask about that “something that causes that it self cannot be caused”. Does this have to be a god? (white robes, beard, clouds, etc) From our explorations and observations in the universe, we have seen no evidence of the genesis in the Bible (at least in the way it was described). So why do you believe our universe was caused by something religiously oriented rather than some cosmological event which we currently study? Perhaps “God” is nothing more or less than a cosmic event.
[/quote]
Last time I checked God isn’t religious.
The point of this video was to establish that something came from nothing, but in saying that in empty space exists an energy, or subatomic matter or anything of the like invalidates the nothing theory, in the same sentence. There’s either nothing or there’s something, there cannot be both nothing and something, it’s logically and mathematically impossible. You don’t need a bunch of letters behind your name to figure that out. It’s not that the dude was not intelligent or that he doesn’t know a hell of a lot more about physics that I do, but he did not establish the something from nothing theory.
As far as an uncaused-cause being God. Here’s how it breaks down, I can deduce with pure logic that an uncaused-cause exists. But I can only induce that the uncaused-cause is God. That being the case however, let’s examine what we can actually know about the Uncaused-cause. What does an uncaused-cause necessarily have to be to be an uncaused-cause. First, obviously, it could not be begotten by anything, otherwise it would be caused. Second, because of first premise it must sit outside the causal chain because if it is uncaused it also cannot be effected by it; or it would cease to be uncaused. Third, ‘it’ had to ‘decide’ to cause. Nothing outside of itself could have done it, or it would fail to be an uncaused-cause. This establishes something like a freewill.
So just by definition was what an uncaused-cause has to be we see it does have the properties being able to caused with freedom from being effected by it and it had to “will” the first cause to take place. This sounds like God the creator to me, but your right that it doesn’t necessarily have to be. This doesn’t mean the Uncaused-cause is the God of Abraham and Issac, or Allah, or Vishnu, or any of that. But, that God claims to be the creator if the universe. If you give credence to the creator of the universe, or the many universes that exist in parallel or the trillions of universes that existed before ours, you give it to God the creator.
I believe Him to be one in the same, but I cannot prove that, so you got me there.
Congratulations! You are the only one who has ever found (here that is) the one weakness in the cosmological argument. We can infer with fair confidence that the uncaused-cause and God are the same, but we cannot prove it. I have had this argument so many times it would make your head swim, I knew of this loop-hole, but I wasn’t about to help anyone out. Everybody assumed the uncaused-cause was God, nobody questioned it. They tried, as you can see by our friend on the video, to go to extraordinary measures to prove causality to be false, or that something can come from nothing only to run into the basic problems that each inherently cause. And it is especially difficult in that there is not a single example of either precept anywhere in the universe, the physical or metaphysical world. Everything has origin.
Good job!
[quote]pat wrote:
As far as an uncaused-cause being God. Here’s how it breaks down, I can deduce with pure logic that an uncaused-cause exists. But I can only induce that the uncaused-cause is God. That being the case however, let’s examine what we can actually know about the Uncaused-cause. What does an uncaused-cause necessarily have to be to be an uncaused-cause. First, obviously, it could not be begotten by anything, otherwise it would be caused. Second, because of first premise it must sit outside the causal chain because if it is uncaused it also cannot be effected by it; or it would cease to be uncaused. Third, ‘it’ had to ‘decide’ to cause. Nothing outside of itself could have done it, or it would fail to be an uncaused-cause. This establishes something like a freewill.
So just by definition was what an uncaused-cause has to be we see it does have the properties being able to caused with freedom from being effected by it and it had to “will” the first cause to take place. This sounds like God the creator to me, but your right that it doesn’t necessarily have to be. This doesn’t mean the Uncaused-cause is the God of Abraham and Issac, or Allah, or Vishnu, or any of that. But, that God claims to be the creator if the universe. If you give credence to the creator of the universe, or the many universes that exist in parallel or the trillions of universes that existed before ours, you give it to God the creator.
I believe Him to be one in the same, but I cannot prove that, so you got me there.
[/quote]
Very interesting logical argument. One area I disagree with though is that you say “it had to decide to cause”. Why does this have to be? Couldn’t it have been caused by a variance in itself (For example: a substance that becomes too pressurized explodes)? The biggest issue I have with a free-willed being creating the universe is that there’s no evidence of him/her/it. There is only evidence of a cosmological event, not necessarily a deity.
Also, random question, why do you feel this being should be revered or prayed to?