Soündless Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 As I have already said, time is not real, and therefore there is no before and no after. Because of the same reason "God", or whatever you want to call the Ultimate Reality, always existed. To be more precise, It always exists. thats not possible, how would that work? everything starts somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 thats not possible, how would that work? everything starts somewhere. No, it doesn't really, the passage of time is only the perception of something that we see, much like our perception of reality (colors, how objects appear, etc.) there are more colors than we can see (the light spectrum (ultraviolet, infrared)) Time is another one of those things we perceive, the 4th dimension if you will. It can be bended and manipulated like light (black holes). There are many more dimensions to time that we do not understand, so to say that everything started from somewhere is a little naive to say. Frankly we really dont know, maybe something started from somewhere, maybe it's always existed, and maybe the question itself is irrelevant and doesn't follow the rules of the universe to ask, who knows? I'm just throwing some random thoughts out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 There is no reason to believe that the universe ever "started". Or will ever "end". It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the universe is continuous. Like a circle. One of the misconceptions about theories like the big bang is that the universe started at the big bang. When that does not follow at all. In fact, it's almost certainly incorrect. The compressed energy had to come from somewhere in order for it to explode. One of the ideas is that the universe goes through expansion and contraction phases. Poof, energy flows outwards, pools into matter, gravitates towards itself, eventually drawing all matter to it, heating up, turning into raw energy... poof. Again. Since energy/matter cannot spontaneously appear or disappear, there is a finite and inexhaustible energy supply that can continue the cycle forever. As much as forever has any meaning. Back to time. Time doesnt have any real meaning. Especially to any omnipotent being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxfan66 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I believe in God, because HE gives meaning in life. Without, life is meaningless. Also, without God, How could the universe be created? (Evolution can't explain it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 How could the theory of evolution explain the creation of the universe? The universe isnt a self-replicating machine like a person or a goldfish is... uh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I believe in God, because HE gives meaning in life. Without, life is meaningless. Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. My friends and family give me reason enough to get on with my day -- not to mention just "soaking it all in". Also, without God, How could the universe be created? (Evolution can't explain it) First, as gwprod12 points out, Evolution isn't about explaining the universe, or even our planet. It all about explaining the evolution of life on our planet. If we needed God to create the universe, then who created God? If God could have always existed, then why not the universe? If we're now back to "something can't come from nothing", then where did God come from? See how God just doesn't really answer the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 it is the causal argument for god's existence brought up by Thomas Aquinas The argument is as follows: 1.Everything has a cause 2.Nothing causes itself 3. So either A. There is an infinite series of causes or B. There is a first cause 4. There isn't an infinite series of causes 5. SO there is a first cause 6. SO God exists (god is the first cause) This might sound ok, but if you actually look at lines 6 and 7, they dont connect in ANY way like the previous lines, at the very best this argument says that there is a first cause. But number 5 and number 1 contradict eachother also number 5 and number 2 dont go together either (nothing causes itself but there is an uncaused first event) The argument for god's existence is a naive one. I challenge anybody to beef up on their biology, history, and philosophy knowledge (and spend a little less time on the bible) and then try to argue FOR the existence of a god. I think you will find that it's a very hard thing to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 It's also logically invalid. If everything is caused by something, then the first cause would have to be caused by something, therefore it is not first. There only need be a first cause in our conception of reality. An example might be a time paradox, where an event is caused by someone who caused the event because the event had been caused. (Grandfather paradox). There need not be a starting cause, as the two causes are interrelated (Causing oneself, as it were). God cannot be logically inferred in this way. It makes no sense. All of this implies creative effort, as opposed to purely physical processes. We know that energy cannot come from nothing (at least, not in our universe), so it must come from something. We also know that closed systems tend to have an overall degradation of order that is irreversible interally. Neither of these indicate in any way that our universe was manufactured by some sort of being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 not too related to what we are talking about, but i was thinking about life forms in general, and how complex they are. i dont believe a "god" could create any kind of thing as sophisticated as a single cell. I believe in God, because HE gives meaning in life. Without, life is meaningless.Also, without God, How could the universe be created? (Evolution can't explain it) i get enough meaning for life because of the people i encounter during it. the way i see it, if there was an afterlife, i would be spendin all my time figureing out how to live by the ruels of "heaven" so that i could get in. i like to live my life fuller (funner,illeagle-er) because i know once i'm dead, i'm dead, no second chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 One must assume that if natural forces could conspire to produce complicated organic machines, that an omnipotent God would be able to do so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Why waste your time and energy having this conversation? People have been having this conversation since the beginnings of civilization. If there was a definitive answer, we would have had it millennia ago, and it would be concluded. And it is incomplete to say that "the answer HAS been found, the other side of the argument just won't listen/understand it". There are converts on both sides of the fence throughout all of history. We can't be so arrogant to say that all of humanity in the past didn't get it, but we all of a sudden do. Unless someone wants to be that arrogant, sure. Christians believe in their religion, Atheists/Agnostics believe in their ideaology, everyone believes their own thing and won't change. Nothing to see here, move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 And it is incomplete to say that "the answer HAS been found, the other side of the argument just won't listen/understand it". This is why it keeps going. Only one "side" (the religious) claims to have the answer. The other only asks that one keep an open mind. Is it such a bad thing to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 This is why it keeps going. Only one "side" (the religious) claims to have the answer. The other only asks that one keep an open mind. Is it such a bad thing to ask? That is 100% absolutely dead wrong. That is 100% absolutely the reason the conversation continues. Because one side accuses the other side of not listening, and not having an open mind. There are innumerable atheists high in the media (scientists, authors) who do not allow there to at least be an "option" of God. It is 100% absolutely correct to ask everyone to keep an open mind, it's just that both sides need to acknowlege this. Yes, the people in the religious camp claim they have the answer, but likewise so does the other camp. And the conversation continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yes, the people in the religious camp claim they have the answer, but likewise so does the other camp. The people on the (we'll call it scientific side -- although this makes it more black and white than it should be) do not claim to have the answers. Science never claims 100% certainty. It only claims that "X" explanation fits the problem better than "Y". Find a "Z" that's better than "X", and there you go. The problem is that the "God" explanation, while it's flexible and tries to fit every problem, does not actually answer anything, while at the same time seeks to answer everything. It can't be used in science. There is nothing to test. My assertion that the "other side" (we'll call it religious, but again, way to black and white) "claims to have the answer" holds true. The religious side (again, we need some gray area) does not ask for an open mind. This is where the dispute is. Should you be open to the possibility of your religion having it all wrong or not? Blind faith does not allow for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The religious right is not asking for people to leave open the possibility of God. As in, teaching Science and not saying "God is proven not to exist". The religious right wants God to be taught actively in Science. As an "alternative". God isnt science, and teaching God is forbidden. Why isnt this clear? Scientists dont care if someone has a personal relationship with God. What they do care about is when people try to muddy the waters by bringing in God. The idea of saying "This is how we believe organic life evolved on our planet.... But jehova might have done it too!" is just silly. Most religionists assert that God is factual. Almost no non-religionists assert that no God is factual. So who's keeping the open mind again? I dont mind if people believe in what they believe in. But trying to somehow bend the laws of reality and language to prove something unprovable goes way over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 And 'round and 'round we go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 And 'round and 'round we go And where are we going round? On one issue: - Should we have an open mind or not? You cannot say science is closed minded. Some scientists do get a bit closed minded, but science itself is not. Please show me where science is closed minded, and don't say "because it wont take God into it's calculations" or "science is unwilling to use unproven and non-testable speculation as scientific evidence". Most faith based religion, by it's very nature, IS close minded. Anything that competes with that religious view is shut out or assimilated and twisted in a way the still maintains that faith's core beliefs. Show me how a faith based religion is OPEN minded when it comes to it's core faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I never said science is close-minded . Science, by it's very nature, is the opposite. I never said otherwise. I *did* say that many atheists are close-minded, and religious people are close-minded, but not science . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Atheism is a belief structure. Of course someone who believes there is no God is unwilling to believe that there is a God. As an Atheist, I am willing to entertain the possibility that a God does exist. The fact that a God does exist would not cause me to worship it, however. Are you, as a Christian willing to entertain the possibility that God doesnt exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Atheism is a belief structure. Of course someone who believes there is no God is unwilling to believe that there is a God. As an Atheist, I am willing to entertain the possibility that a God does exist. The fact that a God does exist would not cause me to worship it, however. Are you, as a Christian willing to entertain the possibility that God doesnt exist? I always entertain the idea that God does not exist . It's encouraging to hear that you're open-minded, because that is really what this is all about. I don't like to use the label "Christian," because of all the connotations associated with it. I think the best description of myself is an "agnostic believer" . According to your statement, I think a more accurate description of yourself would also be an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, is an A-Theist, opposite of a theist, leaves no room for God. Agnostics adopt the mentality "I cannot/do not know if there is a God." I am not one of those faith people that casts away their intellect. I use it to better understand things around me, and I spend it trying to understand things that are more important than my immediate circumstances. There are two types of agnostics. The ones that are genuinely interested, and the ones who aren't. The ones who aren't genuinely interested use the rhetoric "I go about my life, live as a good person, etc." and don't really take time to consider the question. I just take the time. But I certainly have the door open for my faith to not currently be valid, in which case I'll continue the exploration for truth. That's why it's so disheartening that both sides in both camps are so vehemently buried into their sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I am not an Agnostic. I am an Atheist. I feel confident that there is no God. Sure, there could be. But I see it as highly unlikely, and I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe it is not unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nargilem Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 - Some people believe in God ( Allah, .. ) to be ' accepted' by other people .. You're a satanic who's gonna burn if you don't - Others do believe because they want the best for themselves, if they believe they will go to heaven .. ( with free macs for everyone ) - Others believe because they're afraid that something bad might happen to them, when something bad happens to a believer it was a ' test or a punishment of God ' .. if the same thing happens to a non-believer it's an accident .. - Others just believe.. sigh I hope this isn't offending anyone, feel free to pm me and I'll edit my post Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 There ya go And 'round and 'round we go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I don't like to use the label "Christian," because of all the connotations associated with it. I think the best description of myself is an "agnostic believer" . My guess is that you likely fall into the "Deist" category... unless you believe in miracles performed by God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3nigma Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My guess is that you likely fall into the "Deist" category... unless you believe in miracles performed by God. I'm definitely not a Deist, just a straight-up, evangelical, reformed Christian. "Christian" just has all the connotations that makes this forum go into an uproar, and I definitely don't associate myself with all of those things that are normally associated with "Christian." -3nigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts