|
|
|
|
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/12/2008 5:04:09 PM |
If you are really interested in knowing the "evidence" pick up the bestseller by Lee Strobel, "A Case for Christ"
I read it. Putting quotes around the word evidence pretty much sums up the whole book.
The guy is a reporter of the Chicago Tribune and set out to disprove God and religion in general and was surprised what he found
This is what he'd have people believe but it isn't quite true. Whether he was ever an Atheist I cannot say, but the reason why he converted was because of a woman, not because of any evidence, certainly not because of anything he presents in his book.
His "evidence" is simply him asking fundamentalist Christians questions that he thinks that we're going to think are hard hitting, accepting what they say as true, saying he's going to double check what he's been told, and then never following up. If this is how he did journalism then he was a crappy investigator. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/12/2008 5:15:33 PM | | I believe there is a God. I also believe you don't need to look very far to find him. Becuase I believe we have God within us. Allot of time the noise of the city, all the bickering, vanity, anger, spite, materialism gets in the way. But if get the City out of you, and listen to the things that really matter, it will be there. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/12/2008 5:20:03 PM | Hey Chris...
If you are really interested in knowing the "evidence" pick up the bestseller by Lee Strobel, "A Case for Christ"
The guy is a reporter of the Chicago Tribune and set out to disprove God and religion in general and was surprised what he found | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/12/2008 11:37:57 PM | E.Kyro SAID:
If no god is needed to create something as complex as the universe then why does it require creative intelligence to build a house, a car, a computer etc, etc. These things are much less complex and yet they required human creativity to bring them into existence. Logic and evidence tells me that there had to be a creative force to bring the universe into existence also.
AND
His answer is that as the "I AM" He ALWAYS WAS, IS and ALWAYS will BE
So you're saying in these two statements that something as "complex" as a house had to have a creator, but that CREATOR, something much more complex than a house didn't need one. Does this REALLY make sense to you??? Did you even THINK about what you are saying or just regurgitate what you've been told?
How can you think something like 'life' had to be created but in the same breath say that life's creator has always existed??? The obvious nature of this irony makes the mind spin.
James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 8:47:07 AM |
How can you think something like 'life' had to be created but in the same breath say that life's creator has always existed??? The obvious nature of this irony makes the mind spin.
It's only an irony when one envisions a 3 dimensional being creating a 3 dimensional being which it sounds like you are doing. For a god to be a god he would need to exist outside of time or eternally and eternity doesn't have a beginning or end. It is our finite minds that have a problem imagining something being uncreated but existence requires it because nothing produces nothing. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:32:17 AM | It's only an irony when one envisions a 3 dimensional being creating a 3 dimensional being which it sounds like you are doing.
So human procreation is ironic?? Cloning is ironic??
For a god to be a god he would need to exist outside of time or eternally and eternity doesn't have a beginning or end.
So you are making up the rules as to what a god should be? Why should a god have to exist outside of time (the universe) to be a god? Please explain. Let me ask you this, how can a god existing outside of time have created time? How can a god existing outside of a logical universe be subject to logic? Can god be and not be at once? Within a logical universe, this is a contradiction, and therefore self-refuting. But then again, if a god that exists outside time, and a logical universe, can it be and not be? Existing outside a logical universe god should not be subject, therefore allowing a contradiction, and again, self-refutes.
It is our finite minds that have a problem imagining something being uncreated
Speak for yourself, it isn't too hard to think of the concept of eternity, or endless regression. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:52:44 AM |
If no god is needed to create something as complex as the universe then why does it require creative intelligence to build a house, a car, a computer etc, etc. These things are much less complex and yet they required human creativity to bring them into existence. Logic and evidence tells me that there had to be a creative force to bring the universe into existence also.
If you're going to play that angle I would point out all the inefficiencies of life.
Our frontal lobes are too small, our adrenaline glands are too big, our intestines could be a bit less redundant, there's so much wasted space in the universe that it's incalculable and in a few million years our sun is going to boil us all alive.
Some design. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 12:55:31 PM |
So you are making up the rules as to what a god should be? Why should a god have to exist outside of time (the universe) to be a god? Please explain.
A God who has created the Universe and time is not subject to his creation unless he chooses to be.
How can a god existing outside of a logical universe be subject to logic? Can god be and not be at once? Within a logical universe, this is a contradiction, and therefore self-refuting. But then again, if a god that exists outside time, and a logical universe, can it be and not be? Existing outside a logical universe god should not be subject, therefore allowing a contradiction, and again, self-refutes.
If I understand you correctly, you are implying God is subject to time. Like He has a time machine that allows him to go from one now to a different now of His choosing. A being who isn't subject to time would exist in all "nows" at the same moment. That imo is what is inferred by the words "I AM"
Attempting to apply 3 dimensional logic to a being who transcends all dimensions is not going to work. Even if that being is exists in the 11th or 12th dimension, a higher logic is required as the string and m theories are pointing at. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 1:08:17 PM | If I understand you correctly, you are implying God is subject to time. Like He has a time machine that allows him to go from one now to a different now of His choosing. A being who isn't subject to time would exist in all "nows" at the same moment. That imo is what is inferred by the words "I AM"
Attempting to apply 3 dimensional logic to a being who transcends all dimensions is not going to work. Even if that being is exists in the 11th or 12th dimension, a higher logic is required as the string and m theories are pointing at.
No, that's not what I'm implying. Not much time at the moment, but I'll through this one question out for now. How do you know what you are positing is actually true?
One more; if a god can be infinite/eternal, why can't a universe?
BTW, what do you mean by "3 dimensional logic" ? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 1:23:29 PM |
One more; if a god can be infinite/eternal, why can't a universe?
God in the bible is spirit - not material. I have no doubt that God could have made a universe eternal and infinite - However, Paul asserts that the creation (universe) was subject to decay. Although creation here is probably meant to include those who are not yet the children of God, I feel it also applies to the universe.
Rom 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
the word creation in Romans means :-
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
a) the act of creating, creation
b) creation i.e. thing created
1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
a) anything created
b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
c) the sum or aggregate of things created
c) institution, ordinance | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 1:53:24 PM | God in the bible is spirit - not material.
Incorrect, jesus was supposed to be god AND flesh.
God in the bible is spirit - not material. I have no doubt that God could have made a universe eternal and infinite
You missed the point. I'll clarify. If god is supposed to be eternal, why can't the universe be eternal without a god? Why does the universe need to be created in the first place? Why can't the universe have always been around, as some claim that god has? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/13/2008 8:43:01 PM |
Hey Chris...
If you are really interested in knowing the "evidence" pick up the bestseller by Lee Strobel, "A Case for Christ"
The guy is a reporter of the Chicago Tribune and set out to disprove God and religion in general and was surprised what he found
This is the second time you posted the EXACT same thing. Third time, I will be happy to ask the mods to delete the lot of them as it is technically off-topic anyway and a "book testimonial" and not really contributing a damn thing to the discussion...
Never mind the fact that after wading through the ponderous mess of it in a few hours I discovered that like "Mere Christianity" it was one of the singularly most poorly researched and badly reasoned pieces of nonsense ever produced by the apologist machine out there. It has been reduced to ruin so many times by even the most poor of debunkers...
We're not discussing specifically Christ or the Judaeo-Christian God either and the "Case" is specifically an "apology" for Jesus.
Thank you, come again.
It's only an irony when one envisions a 3 dimensional being creating a 3 dimensional being which it sounds like you are doing. For a god to be a god he would need to exist outside of time or eternally and eternity doesn't have a beginning or end. It is our finite minds that have a problem imagining something being uncreated but existence requires it because nothing produces nothing.
For a being to exist outside of space or time, how do they then interact with a dimension that exists in space or time?
Magic?
It's a mystery?
"A wizard did it?"
When odd socks disappear in the dryer, that is the split second that God acts?
There is really no way around the problem of causality...either you accept the very nature of the common definition of a god as a being that has magical powers, or you redefine such an entity.
I think you have to backtrack here and settle on an acceptable definition of what makes a god a god.
God as defined by the Jewish or Christian Bible is an essentially incomprehensible being with magical/supernatural powers of infinite and transcendant scope...thus, a tad hard to swallow for some.
And also, such a being is a big fat question begger. Only those who can't imagine a universe without a God seem to need one...there are many that seem to get by just fine without one. | |
|
| Is there a God?
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:40:12 PM | themadfiddler wrote;
As a final point, however, science also says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god(s) as frankly, such questions are outside its purview...and frankly the interest of most people pursuing science as a field of knowledge.
 I believe that this possibly gives mention and reference to what has been considered by others as "scientific rationality." And to give mention and reference to this possible meaning,"developing better conceptions of rationality,trying to be not unduly biased,seeking evidence and looking for consistency and coherence in one's practices of communication,discussion, and argumentation" And I also believe that those that operate in this arena/playground try to avoid using fallacious arguments,especially argument to the future to kick off your argument like for example,"science cannot explain everything (yet) kind of thing. Therefore,while sharing in this open forum , if something not can not be verified by quantitative analysis.....something that can not not testable ,falsifiable,observable in order to meet this criteria,then I will continue to always try to state my position as opinion and/or spiritual belief/faith for that reason among other reasons of my own.
And although I am aware that imo,we use other methods for our conceptions of rationality,through moral experiences and other life experiences for example,and should someone also add intentionality /intent of notion/intends to come to an open forum and present their words as an assertion of something to be true or factual....these claims that also imo can sometimes result to libel and defamation of character of another,then I do believe that this one should also feel and understand the burden of rebuttal when asked to provide evidence to support these claims.
And to further those thoughts;
crazy lilting wrote
Hello casheyesblond,I addressed you as you are the one who is writing your words. Words are not impersonal but unique to the writer so i don't just address the words.
This quote I have highlighted has possibly served an opposite effect than it's intentions,for indeed I refocused on the part of the forum rules that statesYou can slam & bash the Topic or Subject under Discussion all you like, but you cannot insult, bash and slam other Posters.
also this quote is a good reminder for me as I do believe that thinking is often based on emotion and supposition but critical thinking sets emotions aside and addresses a problem from a position of facts.
crazy lilting wrote;
And yes i understood the quote on delusion. However it is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to whom? I ask this,because I believe this to be very relevant for those that demonstrate the comprehension of terminology,classification, origins/etiology, assessments,and treatments of the major disorders through both knowledge and application and yes indeed, I believe this to very relevant for those when identifying the criteria for determining one delusional and discussing the clinical uses of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders while also demonstrating an understanding of the five axis system of clinical assessment of functioning used in the DSM(abbreviated)
crazy lilting wrote;
I don't need to fully grasp an argument to cover up the inability to understand that the human mind is malleable.
First off,I don't think someone should be making claims/assertions of something to be true or factual especially while diagnosing others as delusional regardless of this one's personal judgment or method used if this one one can not fully grasp an argument/debate and/or solve word comprehension problems that give relevance and reflection to such a diagnosis in the first place. And yes,I will reflect ,give context and reference to the word,malleable within this post.
crazy lilting wrote;
That would be like enabling an alcoholic to continue behaving terribly.You mention that you have studied several psychology classes yet you can't grasp the above? I'd suggest you study a little more. Some of the most effective treatments involve reprogramming the mind.
I was married to someone and I had discovered that he was also crack cocaine addict....was...past tense.... Presently,I am single,,divorced,living alone with my two kids because I would not play the role of an enabler for him ,among other reasons including the safety and well being for myself and my kids.
And meanwhile I continue to take personal accountability for my own thoughts and actions and at no time does this personal accountability diminish or is relieved by another nor am I compromised through my spiritual belief/faith that would take away or relieve me from my personal accountability and consequences of my thoughts or actions. How's that for extra study ? And if that's not enough,then we can refer to my academic and chosen line of study while also applying your chosen word' malleable and your possible intent to define another as 'easily controlled or influenced' while applying it to research and studies such as the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment. oops, when you look at these studies one may find that is was done on everyday people notwithstanding belief in a/an deity/deities or not and because of this objectivity,this may possibly jeopardize imo,what appears to be words that only promote a biased,stereotyping,generalization of a diagnosis of delusion/delusional being attached to others.
crazy lilting wrote;
You ask for proof when you know that the mind is malleable and imprint able, any study of psychology would lead you to that understanding so i can only assume you either didn't study at all or you are choosing to believe what you want.
I only ask for you to provide proof to support your claims that you have made. And while you continue choose words that are directed to the poster/myself with your words that I believe to be libel and an attempt of defamation of character,it has only made me reflect on the part of studies/understanding that give reference to possiblysome that are isolated from objectivity because of their own private troubles and issues that present less rational maneuvers,these defense mechanisms if you will,that helps shield one from the anxiety of it all by extorting or denying what many may consider "objectivity of truth" and sometimes some will take their personal failures and disappointments and then project this into their personal judgments intended at others as well. And of course this is just one of the many different understandings and concepts that gives reflection and mention within the study of psychology.
crazy lilting wrote;
The irony in this is that There is no proof of god yet you want me to prove what you already know as truth. You could not believe in anything without your mind being malleable.
I present my personal spiritual belief/faith as just that...belief and faith. I am not the one making claims,assertions of something to be true or factual that is intended to be universally accepted by all. And yes,I believe in a lot of things. I believe that I am one that can rest in reason yet move in passion. I believe in sliding in home base knowing the scoreboard may not change even after I brush off my scraped body,and all this because of my passion for the game. I have many passions and beliefs in life...for life.In other words,Cooley's looking glass self ain't got nothin' on me for I really do not give a rat's a.s_ what anyone else may think of my passions and spiritual beliefs /faith that I accept in my personal life for me but should I ever present this as a claim instead of spiritual beliefs/faith while sharing in these open forums,please feel free,in debate terms,'to take me to the carpet.'
crazy lilting wrote;
The odd thing about your personal attack ie... stating that i'm being exclusive and covering it up with imo.
I think that one feels the burden of rebuttal when they are unable to back up their claims with evidence in an argument/debate and this one imo,can sometimes confuse this as a personal attack.
crazy lilting wrote;
Is that you set yourself up to be an expert or knowledgeable all the time on the forums yet i don't think any one is.
Notwithstanding any possible religious differences, I am one that takes on corrections with anticipation from another for I believe that a lot is gained in sharing as I can only thirst for wisdom and understanding and with a good doze of humility, I continue to be humbled while also gaining understanding and insight from others regardless of any religious differences that may or may not exist.
crazy lilting wrote;
All we have is our opinions so just because i didn't use 'imo' doesn't mean that its the ultimate truth.
and this quote from crazy lilting ;
And that is my opinion, judgement etc... etc... Choose what ever you want it to be
Isn't it quite convenient how some say "it's was just my opinion," when they have been unable to support their claims that present exclusivity of truth .
crazy lilting wrote;
What i'm saying is that if you think you are above being manipulated, imprinted or programmed your even more delusional then i could imagine.
First,let's consider the words,more delusional ....so is this possibly intended to define that I have already been diagnosed as delusional within these words and this one wishes to exceed with the 'more delusional' party should I not be in agreement with his theory of the mind??? Well here's a news flash. I have been taught by one of my academic peers that having a theory of the mind shows an understanding that people have mental states such as desires,beliefs and intentions and these mental states guide our behavior.But as I have already noted that my behavior is guide by my personal accountability of my thoughts and actions ...sorry to disappoint ya.
crazy lilting wrote;
Some of us don't see the human condition as a bad thing ie delusion or the reduction of spiritual experiences to human phenomena.I don't see it less exciting or wonderful that chemicals and mind states create what most consider something from god. In fact i find it more amazing and want to explore it more as it is a part of our humanity.
Who are these "some" that you are referring to? Did these 'some' assist you while you were doing your method of clinical assessment of those that have fostered/adopted a religion and/or belief in a deity and/or deities and as attached a diagnosis of delusion/delusional these ones I mention???I mean,how did you arrive at this overwhelming diagnosis?
Was it through the influence of the combination of possibly Wundt,James,Freud,Watson,Kohler, and Maslow(and yes,I am aware that Carl Rogers is the only one in this field that you mention)In other words,what psychological research and/or experiments did you reflect upon while making this diagnosis ....for example longitude studies,cross-section studies, laboratory observation and if experiments,can you give mention and reflection about the control group,experimental group,independent variable and dependent variable?????? And in regard to these chemicals and mind states,like for example,in all these many many many many many others,did you find excessive levels of dopamine or above normal reactivity to this particular neurotransmitter or was another major neurotransmitter/serotonin/norepinephrine that helped arrive with your words of such certainty??????
I had to ask because you have completely misdiagnosed me and although I don't have to write with crayons and I don't come with my own papers so to speak  but I do hope that after I complete my studies in my chosen field,that I will have a paper that hangs on a wall. So here's right back atcha' as I quote you by using your own words,"I'd suggest you study a little more " because the one's that actually already work in this professional chosen field already know the legal and ethical issues related to psychological assessment,diagnosis and psychological disorders,including the effects of labeling others,and issues of false positive and false negative diagnoses.
and with A Fortiori's quote;
Quite frankly, this generalization of atheists is quite offensive. So when was the last time you were inside the minds of all atheists to be able to make such exclusive truth statements??
This is my last post for this thread but I wanted to say,indeed,there is more than one side to this coin.... you toss it in the air ....and regardless of which side it lands own,while using my own objectivity,I must say that I agree with ya on this. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 11:34:19 AM |
Posted by A Fortiori
1)How do you know what you are positing is actually true?
2)One more; if a god can be infinite/eternal, why can't a universe?
3)BTW, what do you mean by "3 dimensional logic" ?
1) Best answer for me based on the available physical and spiritual evidence.
2) Scientists have proven that the Universe is not infinite/eternal based on the Second law of Dynamics. Several theories have been put forth but then rejected by mainstream scientists so there is no need to rely on any religious writings to refute the possibility.
3)3 dimensional logic is what is used to predict an outcome where time is a constant. Special relativity for example has counter intuitive results when considered from its perspective.
Posted by themadfiddler
God as defined by the Jewish or Christian Bible is an essentially incomprehensible being with magical/supernatural powers of infinite and transcendant scope...thus, a tad hard to swallow for some.
Why hard to swallow? The only reason they appear magical or supernatural properties is because the process or theory is not understood. A century ago, variable time would have been considered magical had someone gone through it. Today, through Relativity we know it is possible. Every day we do things and utilize appliances that a few hundred years ago would have been a reason to be burned at the stake as a witch or wizard for.
If history teaches us nothing else it should at least tell us that yesterday's magic is today's mundane. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 12:22:55 PM |
Why hard to swallow? The only reason they appear magical or supernatural properties is because the process or theory is not understood. A century ago, variable time would have been considered magical had someone gone through it. Today, through Relativity we know it is possible. Every day we do things and utilize appliances that a few hundred years ago would have been a reason to be burned at the stake as a witch or wizard for.
If history teaches us nothing else it should at least tell us that yesterday's magic is today's mundane.
Very well. If you wish you can imagine God, a la Arthur C. Clarke's definition of any sufficiently advanced technology appearing to be magic to a lower level of technology. I submit that the distance in this case is so vast that for all intents and purposes it may as well be magic as God according to the Bible - if believed in a literalist sense and I say that advisedly - routinely violates the laws of physics and causality, matter and energy. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
None of which negates the fact that the universe can get by without one, despite some people finding that hard to believe and arguments from incredulity notwithstanding. This is all really kind of "religious philosophy 101" ... Is there some new tack you want to put on this or do I have to go dig out my papers from over a decade ago... | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 1:25:37 PM |
1) Best answer for me based on the available physical and spiritual evidence.
What physical evidence is that?
2) Scientists have proven that the Universe is not infinite/eternal based on the Second law of Dynamics. Several theories have been put forth but then rejected by mainstream scientists so there is no need to rely on any religious writings to refute the possibility.
You mean second law of "THERMODYNAMICS".... if you're going to use jargon, at least get the big words right. So then where's the proof that the universe is a closed system?
3 dimensional logic is what is used to predict an outcome where time is a constant. Special relativity for example has counter intuitive results when considered from its perspective.
Provide an example of "3 dimensional logic", otherwise I'm calling "BS". | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 2:10:16 PM | Added to above post.
I should note that eternal is more an appropriate term than infinite in this context. As "infinite" meaning without boundaries as opposed to "eternal" in the sense of always is and always was. There is a theory that this universe is merely one cycle in a possible eternal cycle of big bangs (expansion) and crunches (retraction). This process could be repeated ad infinitum, or eternally, without the necessecity of a god. That is but one theory that does not require a god to "create". | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 5:57:23 PM |
None of which negates the fact that the universe can get by without one, despite some people finding that hard to believe and arguments from incredulity notwithstanding. This is all really kind of "religious philosophy 101" ... Is there some new tack you want to put on this or do I have to go dig out my papers from over a decade ago...
Strikes me that the arguments from incredulity originate from the camp having a hard time believing it would require an intelligent force to create the Universe in the first place. However at this point they are without a plausible explanation for that particular event. Whether or not the Universe can get by without the continuing maintenance of an intelligent force is debatable but the true crux is whether it can actually have come into existence without that designer. At best you can assert that God violates the known[ laws of physics, causality, matter and energy, implying at the same time that we already know all there is to know about them. But that is still easier to swallow then a self-created Universe.
Posted by A Fortiori
There is a theory that this universe is merely one cycle in a possible eternal cycle of big bangs (expansion) and crunches (retraction). This process could be repeated ad infinitum, or eternally, without the necessecity of a god. That is but one theory that does not require a god to "create".
If you had paid more attention to the content of my last post rather then how I spelled Thermodynamics, you might have noted that that particular theory went out with the the 1990's scientific trash. Although there are still some theorists having a problem letting go of the idea, the general scientific opinion is that there is insufficient mass in the Universe to stop the expansion. In fact with the theorized dark energy there are some postulating that the expansion is accelerating due to its potential anti-gravity properties.
No Big Crunches expected. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 7:42:36 PM | If you had paid more attention to the content of my last post rather then how I spelled Thermodynamics, you might have noted that that particular theory went out with the the 1990's scientific trash.
Kyro... I like you. Whenever I read a post from you, especially one where you seem pissed, especially at me, I have to laugh.. You make me laugh, and that's a good thing.
Your spelling of "Thermodynamics" wasn't a misspelling, it was entirely off. But that's a minor point. So how am I to deduce from your last post that a cyclical universe theory " went out with the the 1990's scientific trash" ? You never mentioned anything about it.
But here's the rub:
the general scientific opinion is that there is insufficient mass in the Universe to stop the expansion.
OK carl sagan, how can something keep expanding if it has INSUFFICIENT MASS?? Think about it....
In fact with the theorized dark energy there are some postulating that the expansion is accelerating due to its potential anti-gravity properties.
Care to explain "dark energy" in detail? Is it some kind of palpatine derived force of motion?? Do the dooku quasars still emit and use this "dark energy" or has the Christensen/Hayden effect allowed for further expansion of this dark energy into sith and sith-comparable systems??
If, as you contend, that the universe is expanding and can't be stopped, is that a closed or open system in relation to the second law of thermodynamics and the universe??
Oh, and by the way, a cyclical universe is still very much a theory that is being explored.
But you have failed to put GOD into any kind of functional role in this scenerio... why?? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 7:42:52 PM |
Strikes me that the arguments from incredulity originate from the camp having a hard time believing it would require an intelligent force to create the Universe in the first place. However at this point they are without a plausible explanation for that particular event. Whether or not the Universe can get by without the continuing maintenance of an intelligent force is debatable but the true crux is whether it can actually have come into existence without that designer. At best you can assert that God violates the known[ laws of physics, causality, matter and energy, implying at the same time that we already know all there is to know about them. But that is still easier to swallow then a self-created Universe.
Uh... only for the theist.
Everyone else manages just fine, thanks awfully.
Nice try attempting to shift the burden of proof though but I'm not buying and no one else will either.
I don't need to posit the existence of an intelligent designer to create or maintain a universe...I'm not making a claim for one and the world of science doesn't either - science operates on the basis of observable and replicable data and forms conclusions on that basis. There is no need to bandy about with extraordinary claims about invisible magic men farting out universes and tinkering with them after and there are plenty of theories about how the ball got rolling.
Whether you consider them plausible is hardly of interest...lack of scientific knowledge in this day and age is a bit shocking but Steven Hawking's books are for one available at any public library.
However, extraordinary claims, as Carl Sagan noted, require extraordinary proof. The entire history of religious philosophy has yet to develop a substantial argument for the existence of God, or for that matter the necessity of such. Now you think you have here on this web forum by trotting out these old canards?
Hubris anyone?
No one is - as far as I can see - making an attempt to deny any god's existence - however there seems to be no immediate necessity for any such being beyond the faith of the believers and after two millenia of debate on the subject by the most learned men in the field, that is about the best anyone has been able to manage...
With all due respect, do you expect to outdo Aquinas, Locke and Russell here in the next few posts? | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/14/2008 8:56:50 PM | Kyro said:
Scientists have proven that the Universe is not infinite/eternal
Then Kyro said:
there is insufficient mass in the Universe to stop the expansion.
Just caught this little gem...
So please reconcile these two differing views put forth by you..
the universe is NOT infinite... yet the universe cannot be stopped from expanding..
wow... | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/15/2008 4:17:48 AM |
OK carl sagan, how can something keep expanding if it has INSUFFICIENT MASS?? Think about it....
It is said that for the Universe to start contracting there needs to be enough gravity to stop the expansion and reverse direction. Since gravity is dependent on mass, there needs to be enough density to be able to do so. Current estimates of the mas and volume point to there being INSUFFICIENT MASS for gravity to slow the expansion down. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/15/2008 5:59:11 AM | Here we go again - great long posts purporting to present 'evidence' pro or con God. Atheists mocking believers.
Let's try this again:
To unbelievers: prove that ANY abstract concept exists. Give me a photo of 'thought'.
Send me a test tube of 'love'. Graph 'idea'. Bring me a box of 'decision' or a bag of 'belief'. For that matter, provide me a package of 'proof.' Show me 'life', please. I'd like a nice picture of it.
You cannot. And yet you insist that 'evidence' must be provided that there is God. It's hilarious.
Finally, you resort to theories like the 'Big Bang' which, you claim, are logical and reasonable and yet, even in my short lifetime, vast amounts of things I was taught were absolutely true and unassailable have been proven wrong. Now they're saying that the universe is contracting rather than expanding. Pretty soon, the 'Big Bang' will be disproved and the 'Pitiful Pop' or some other theory will replace it.
In short, our tiny brains are far too small to grasp all but the easiest of ideas. And yet some of us continue to think we can get our puddles of grey matter around something infinitely more complex than we can ever hope to be.
Bring me a sign that dimensions exist. Now bring me something from the fifth or sixth dimension.
Right. Not happening, is it?
Now tell me again why you (the general 'you') can claim to comprehend enough about anything to state categorically that there is no God or that there are no spirits. You can't. You lack the comprehension. We all do. It's a ridiculous conceit that people have that they understand much at all about the universe.
The truly intelligent person understands that humans understand pretty much nothing and therefore that these attempts to 'prove' God is or is not are utterly pointless. | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/15/2008 7:24:24 AM | Merrylass Said:
To unbelievers: prove that ANY abstract concept exists. Give me a photo of 'thought'. Send me a test tube of 'love'. Graph 'idea'. Bring me a box of 'decisionor a bag of 'belief'. For that matter, provide me a package of 'proof.' Show me 'life', please. I'd like a nice picture of it.
Thought, Emotions, Ideas and Decisions aren't exactly rocket science... there is plenty of evidence for all these things. This thread itself is evidence of them. If you need evidence for "LIFE", well then, I can't help you with that one and it tells me where you are coming from with your post.
You cannot. And yet you insist that 'evidence' must be provided that there is God. It's hilarious.
I'm glad you find humor in life. Yes, actually people have, can, and do have evidence of all the aforementioned abstract ideas. I don't think any non-believer in gods in this thread have demanded evidence. I believe some, as I do, simply say I've never seen any sort of evidence of any gods, let alone a specific god, so I don't believe gods exist... they are leftover myths that rank right up there with faeries, volcano gods, and sailing off the edge of the earth.
Now they're saying that the universe is contracting rather than expanding. Pretty soon, the 'Big Bang' will be disproved and the 'Pitiful Pop' or some other theory will replace it.
Science is a funny thing; it has the ability to test and examine and CHANGE ITS MIND about a posited theory. I haven't heard the universe is contracting though... who knew?
Now tell me again why you (the general 'you') can claim to comprehend enough about anything to state categorically that there is no God or that there are no spirits. You can't. You lack the comprehension. We all do. It's a ridiculous conceit that people have that they understand much at all about the universe.
I state CATEGORICALLY that the odds of the Christian god existing is IDENTICAL to Zeus, Mithras, Santa Claus, and all the 10's of thousands of other creatures existing. Nothing more, nothing less.
Answer me this: Why do you claim all the other gods do NOT exist?
James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth | |
|
| Is there a god?
Posted: 3/15/2008 9:06:12 AM | I can see the effects of thought, love, ideas, decisions and belief in my own life as well as that of reality at large.
Before the electron was discovered theory pointed to it's existance (as well as cells, and molecules and well..everything you need a telescope or microscope for.. or a particle accelerator). And before that someone had to be able to IMAGINE they existed (this is a very interesting point but I won't go any farther into it here as it goes into the nature of consciousness and reality and how they are connected) It was only last week that they actually were able to SEE an electron (yes folks the electron has finally been "photographed"!!!! very cool). Gravity is unseeable... but it's effects are not (gravity actually curves the space around it-pretty darn cool). You can't see ultraviolet light, but you can still get a sunburn and retina damage from it. Science considers these things "hypothesis" until enough replicable tests have been done to conclusively prove that they are there by their effects on other matter and energy. It doesn't say they DON'T exist but will try to come up with the mathematical probability for their existance... science can't EVER say something doesn't exist...whether that is dark energy, the quark, or god. That is not the way science works...science is the curiosity of the human species taking practical (physical-body) form, Philosophy is the curiosity of the human species taking ideological (mental-mind) form and religion is the curiosity of the human species taking emotional (astral-heart) form. Now if we as a species can get our bodies, minds and hearts working together we might actually get somewhere.
"life" is observable..does it reproduce? it's alive...whatever it is. Life isn't a thing, it's a process. All of these things you have set up as your "proof" are not "things".. they are processes... fluid byproducts of life and consciousness.
How could you perceive the fifth dimension from the fourth? It would have a dimension that we do not (and probably can not) exist in (maybe)... I think (not being a theoretical physicist I must speculate) that the "proof" of other dimensions would necessarily be ones that could only be percieved by it's affect on our own 3 dimensional matter and energy (plus the fourth dimension of time...). I could be wrong. I have a hard time shifting my cognition to extra dimensional theory... probably because I am a visual learner... although some science fiction novels have helped me to at least open my mind to the possibility. Maybe the "spiritual" realm is just higher dimensions? It's possible.
It's probably a good thing that the universe DOESN't have enough mass to stop expansion from the Ultra Nova that began it all... because... what happens to very high mass objects when they collapse upon themselves in our universe? They become black holes... a universe size black hole..yup, lovely. The whole thing inside out. A singularity...could still happen though.
We say the universe is infinite because we can not perceive any limit to it.. this could be because it IS infinite, or because we just can't see far enough (or back in time far enough actually) or because it is curved but since we are a part of it that perception is skewed... it's kind of like seeing oneself objectively, not very likely. We can see about..ohh...13 billion years ago... there is a small galaxy about 13 billion light years away...what that is in miles I have no idea.. but it's a LONG ways away.... and the big bang background radiation was estimated to be about 13.7 billion light years away... this could be an expanding bubble of our universe.. suggesting a "limit"... BUT is there anything beyond this background radiation? It is almost impossible for us to conceive of "nothing"... I ask...what is it expanding INTO? Or... is the entire universe a being? Expanding into it's own consciousness... a being this vast I would have to call "god"... just because of the sheer scale.
SOME non-christians, and athiests will say that because of science and "empirical" lack of evidence there is no god.. but honestly that is just as bad as those who say there is one based on subjective experience and belief. What it comes down to is that experience and belief are subjective... scientific theory is objective.... but humans are a little of both.... along a scale from subjective to objective.. there is no purity amongst these positions in humanity. Since we don't really understand how the mind works, or how real reality really is (say that 5 times fast! LOL) there is no way for anyone to ridicule someone's experience... because even in psychology it is a known fact that the mind can create reality for the person.. it goes into the nature of perception and all sorts of very complicated ideas..on the other hand no one can yet share his/her "experience" with another and convince them that that reality is truth...so criticism of those who can only accept things in an empirical sense is also untenable. EACH and EVERY ONE OF US sees the world and reality in an unique and subjective way.... and really the only thing that will alter that view is the inner experience of the individual. There are no words, books, or arguements that can "convince" anyone... ultimately that conviction is subjective and unique to each individual.
Back to the topic: Is there a god? This is an unanswerable question because it means different things to each person.. for some it means is there "Yahweh" or whatever personified deity they conceive of, for others it means is there a creative force that directs the universe as we know it.. for some it might mean, is the evolution of the human consciousness coming to a point where enlightenment is possible as a species... for others it could be the manifestation of nature or the planet itself, or it could mean - is cosmic consciousness the causal factor for reality.
On a side note, IMHO... when anyone purports to have "The TRUTH" (whether religious or scientific) they are not taking into account the myriad nature of perception and belief...the possibility of a universe that may have infinite facets and may be perceived differently by each person is a frightening concept to them... what it says to me is that that person NEEDS to have a static reality, psychologically, or they panic... the concept of a fluid reality... of "Truth" being a personal psychological construct not necessarily connected to reality is terrifying. Hence the search for an immutable truth and the insistance that there is one, and they have a corner on it, and anyone who disagrees or can not perceive that truth is wrong... there is a fear of the unknown and the changeable in a lot of people.. they need things to be PERMANENT, and by looking at the universe this just isn't the case, there is nothing we can see or observe that does not change, not in 13.7 billion years anyway...at least on any level we can perceive. I'm not saying there ISN'T a level somewhere that is static.. there could be, but observation does not attest to that. Life and reality ARE change.. without motion even time ceases to exist.
Everyone finds the things they need to support their inner experience.. some from scriptures, some from other ways.. wherever they find these things they will always be something that supports the inner self... things that do not support this self-image are filtered out or rejected.. so the concept of true objectivity is false. Respecting the fact that each person has their own inner experience that can not be reduced to a common experience is vital to tolerance and understanding... and compassion.
Peace | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 25
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 |
|
Home
login 
