NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?
Nope s/he is just a figment of your imagination.

We already had a thread like this this week.

The question should not be 'Does God exist?'. It should be 'If God existed, would he be left or right handed?'

Nope. Or, if He does, He certainly isn't the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God we hear so much about.

Unless my personal theory that I am in fact God is true.

ALL HAIL ME!!!!

If god does exsist hes nothing more then a child with an ant farm

no.

The question should not be 'Does God exist?'. It should be 'If God existed, would he be left or right handed?'

There can't be a god, if there was then He wouldn't let threads like this happen.

*nods sagely*

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?Okay, seeing how you are really, really new here, just a little word so you don't feel too terrible:

Maybe just hanging around for a couple days would be a good idea to get the hang of things. Such as the abundance of threads posing your very question in infinitely more elaborate/eloquent/complicated ways.

Nobody will really answer your question in a serious way.

You seem nice enough, though, plus you didn't use a gun smiley in your first post, so welcome to General. :)

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?
Which god are you refering to?

My thoughts exactly.

We have what...5 of these a week on God? If you want do a search in the Generals forums about God (in title)....that'll blow your mind.

just what god are you talking about?

i have severe doubts about thor but im holding out a bit of hope for dionysus

God does not exist. nuff said.

It's like asking, "would you walk backwards blind-folded down the middle of Yonge Street during rush hour, holding a sign that says 'target practice'?"

I personally believe that God, or some equivilant being, does exist. Don't ask me why, I just do.

So cuz just came into the forum, with his first post ever he brings up the theism/atheism debate, then he splits without even responding to any of the replies. IMHO that's kind of rude.

I don't believe in God. I need some solid evidence, and there isn't any. In any case, if God does exist, he certainly doesn't want me to believe in him, because he's not exactly trying hard to prove himself. Any God worthy of me would go out of his way to let me know he's there.

It's like asking, "would you walk backwards blind-folded down the middle of Yonge Street during rush hour, holding a sign that says 'target practice'?"
Hell yeah! :p




I have faith that God exists.

Nope.
There is more evidence that i exist than god does.

The fork with which I am going to stab myself in the temple exists, if I see one more "does god exist" thread.

Nope.
There is more evidence that i exist than god does.
No there isn't, you could just be a computer program or something and only you claim that you exist there I know at least 5 people who I think exist who think God exists!

Mu.

If any God exists let him kill me in any way, before I post this reply.

*clicks*

Hmm....

I'm not dead. I guess that proves not a single God exists. Hurray for atheism :p

If any God exists let him kill me in any way, before I post this reply.

*clicks*
God resurrect him before he posts another reply or edit and make him forget being dead!:D

No there isn't, you could just be a computer program or something and only you claim that you exist there I know at least 5 people who I think exist who think God exists!

But a computer program would still exist, did i at any point claim i was human?

Yes God exists. If there wasn't a God, how would we exist?

What made God then?

Yes God exists. If there wasn't a God, how would we exist?
Big bang -> Abiogenesis -> evolution?

this is really a null thread. why do we bother? neither side can prove the other wrong. there's no proof either way.

i personally BELIEVE that there is no god, but thats just my faith. i'm not going to bash someone over their personal beliefs.

Wow he ressurected him while I was typing up that post, I guess that proves that God exists


But a computer program would still exist, did i at any point claim i was human?
Ok you win this round! But i'll never tell you the secret of...

Phew I almost told him what the secret was about.

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

I believe that you'll never be able to tell; unless God comes down and makes it undoubtably obvious to everyone that s/he does exist, we won't know, though there is more proof for God not existing than there is for his/her/(insert deity name here)'s existence.

What made God then?

That's the part I never could get; if God has existed for all eternity and always knew everything, why did he wait for the exact moment that he did to create everything else?

I don't know :confused:

That's the part I never could get; if God has existed for all eternity and always knew everything, why did he wait for the exact moment that he did to create everything else?
I don't know, but without God we have a similar question: why did the Big Bang happen that exact moment to (which started the process to) create everything else.

That depends on your definition of God.

If you define God as some being that has 'supernatural' power over the lives of humans. Then I'd say I half believe. I accept the possibility of some higher being that can toy with our lives if it feels like it. However, I don't believe in supernatural power. 'Supernatural' implies something that is not bound by fundamental laws of the universe. That I cannot accept.

If, on the other hand, you define God as some higher being worthy of worship, then no, I do not believe. As I said, I don't believe in supernatural power (that includes souls, free will and such). As such, whatever God may be out there is ultimately goverened by the same laws of causality as we are, and is therefore unworthy of worship.

I don't know, but without God we have a similar question: why did the Big Bang happen that exact moment to (which started the process to) create everything else.
Not if you believe that the big bang was the moment when time started.

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?I don't think about Him, unless asked. I do not count on him existing. I know of no way I could possibly know if he exists. I do not consider it relevant to believe he does exist, to live my life. I do not think that any God that does exist would be fooled by me going through the motions of pretending to believe. I do not think that any God that does exist will mind me living my life the way I do (surprisingly empty of personal acts of genocide or murder or anything like that) if he's ever called upon to judge me.

Did I forget anything?

Not if you believe that the big bang was the moment when time started.
Why did time choose that err... time to start then?

Why did time choose that err... time to start then?
The universe consists of time, space, matter, and energy. The big bang was the beginning of the universe, therefore it was also the beginning of time. Therefore asking why did time choose to start at that point (in time) is a meaningless question. It's akin to asking what kind of car did you have before you had a car.

The universe consists of time, space, matter, and energy. The big bang was the beginning of the universe, therefore it was also the beginning of time. Therefore asking why did time choose to start at that point (in time) is a meaningless question. It's akin to asking what kind of car did you have before you had a car.
The Big bang was the expansion of the universe from a singularity, the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. There was no time to measure it by but it existed.

If God existed, why do you think he's so focused on us? I mean... there's a whole universe of a lot more interesting things.

If God existed, why do you think he's so focused on us? I mean... there's a whole universe of a lot more interesting things.
I don't know, maybe he isn't. (if you ingnore omnipresence)

Of course he exists, and this (http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/God-_via_Monty_Python.gif) is what he looks like :D

The Big bang was the expansion of the universe from a singularity, the big bang was not the beginning of the universe. There was no time to measure it by but it existed.
True, but the singularity didn't exist inside time and space. Rather time and space formed in the singularity as it expanded.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Okay. so everyone who believes in the big bang, what caused the big bang and how did it happen if there wasn't anything to cause it until it happened?

True, but the singularity didn't exist inside time and space. Rather time and space formed in the singularity as it expanded.

I know, I made sure I was getting it right before I posted. (I was :) )


EDIT:Okay. so everyone who believes in the big bang, what caused the big bang and how did it happen if there wasn't anything to cause it until it happened?God. I know God has been lots of times when people didn't understand what happened(/is happening) but that's what I believe

Okay. so everyone who believes in the big bang, what caused the big bang and how did it happen if there wasn't anything to cause it until it happened?
You should read Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.

No

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

More importantly, does this guy's spell-check function exist?

More importantly, does this guy's spell-check function exist?
it's a typo get over it.

Okay. so everyone who believes in the big bang, what caused the big bang and how did it happen if there wasn't anything to cause it until it happened?
I don't know is an acceptable answer believe it or not. There are some theories, but we just don't know for sure. Not knowing how something happened doesn't imply that god must have done it.

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

pfft! no.

I don't know is an acceptable answer believe it or not. There are some theories, but we just don't know for sure. Not knowing how something happened doesn't imply that god must have done it.

This statement should be engraved on the moon in 1000 km high typeface.

This statement should be engraved on the moon in 1000 km high typeface.
Yeah, and if nobody knew how it got there people would say god put it there.

Yeah, and if nobody knew how it got there people would say god put it there.

You've depressed me and now I'll go drink alcohol.

This question is answered is sufficient detail and explanation at The Official God FAQ:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

You've depressed me and now I'll go drink alcohol.
Well at least you're doing something positive. I'll be drinking some tonight.

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg
lmfao, no but seriously, I am God.

Okay. so everyone who believes in the big bang, what caused the big bang and how did it happen if there wasn't anything to cause it until it happened?My favoured personal theory (in no way scientific... but more scientific than some theories I can mention, even if they happen to be [coincidentally or otherwise] right) is that the whole of the Universe is essentially represented by points on the surface of a hyper sphere, the several-dimensions-worth of longitude represents position in space, the latitude represents time.

'Above' the North Pole there is no time, 'Below' the South Pole there is no time, and there's also relatively little space 'around' the poles (edge-less, as lines of latitude are endless, but finitely sized) when compared with around the equator, which has parallels with the a single cycle of "Big Bang, Big Crunch".

This whole construct sits in timeless space (for time passing for the Universe is merely a measurement of the distance between the poles that the given point in space-time is, and nothing above/below the surface of the sphere has any relevance to this measurement).

This construct is 'eternal' insofar as it was never created, will never be de-created, because... well... there's no time outside of the time dimension (represented by latitude) of the sphere itself. But that's a bad way of describing it in the presence of a pedant.


That's just an idea I have. I'll happily modify it to be a parabolic cone (whatever you want to call an open-ended bell-shape) with whatever twists and turns are necessary to fit actual observations (expansion of early universe, non-closure at end of universe with heat-death, even the 'rapid expansion' that sends every point over the event horizon for every other point.


But back to proper scientific thinking, the collision of 11-dimensional 'branes' to create a 10-dimensional inteface, within which the 'observable' three space dimensions and one time dimension are derived (the others rolling up into sub Planck-scale sizes that only matter when it comes to String Theory and the like) seems to me one of the best theories. And explains certain otherwise difficult-to-explain details about observer supersymmetry, and the like.

(But I'm sure that someone will (or has) come up with simpler ways to testably explain given observations of both the cosmos and atomic theory, I'm not as in touch with current thinking as I'd like to be...)

1: I think, therefore, I am.
2: I think I am a sentient creature, that is, a creature with a soul, therefore I have a soul.
3: I have a soul, which had to come from somewhere, therefore, it came from somewhere.
4: Nothing in the Natural world explains my soul, thus it must come from the supernatural.
5: A supernatural force which creates sentient souls, would logically be sentient itself.
6: The best name for a sentient supernatural being which creates souls is God.


That is how Charles Descartes explained his faith in God, as do I.

1: I think, therefore, I am.
2: I think I am a sentient creature, that is, a creature with a soul, therefore I have a soul.
3: I have a soul, which had to come from somewhere, therefore, it came from somewhere.
4: Nothing in the Natural world explains my soul, thus it must come from the supernatural.
5: A supernatural force which creates sentient souls, would logically be sentient itself.
6: The best name for a sentient supernatural being which creates souls is God.


That is how Charles Descartes explained his faith in God, as do I.
So if I think Im superman, that means I am right?

So if I think Im superman, that means I am right?

And that is the best summary for a good deal of Descartes's arguments.

"I think, therefore I am right."

And that is the best summary for a good deal of Descartes's arguments.

"I think, therefore I am right."
sweet, Im freakin superman. Now to go fly off my roof...

1: I think, therefore, I am.
2: I think I am a sentient creature, that is, a creature with a soul, therefore I have a soul.
3: I have a soul, which had to come from somewhere, therefore, it came from somewhere.
4: Nothing in the Natural world explains my soul, thus it must come from the supernatural.
5: A supernatural force which creates sentient souls, would logically be sentient itself.
6: The best name for a sentient supernatural being which creates souls is God.


That is how Charles Descartes explained his faith in God, as do I.Personally, ad nothing agaisnt you or Descartes on this matter, I don't rate my own consciousness as 'special' as you do... You could be right, but emergent behaviour often appears, externally, to be much, much more than the sum of its parts, so why not from the inside too?

1: I think, therefore, I am.

No. At best, you may be able to declare that thinking exists, but you cannot assume a subject ("I") before proving it.

2: I think I am a sentient creature, that is, a creature with a soul, therefore I have a soul.

Sentience and having a soul are very different things. You can be sentient without having a soul.

3: I have a soul, which had to come from somewhere, therefore, it came from somewhere.

No, it didn't have to come from anywhere, actually. It could have just manifested itself. If the soul is not material, as Descartes and his like prefer to maintain, then why should it follow material rules of cause and effect?

4: Nothing in the Natural world explains my soul, thus it must come from the supernatural.

Okay, maybe.

5: A supernatural force which creates sentient souls, would logically be sentient itself.

No, that is not necessarily so. Why must sentience be created by a sentient being?

6: The best name for a sentient supernatural being which creates souls is God.

Or we could say it was the souls of the parents, each giving part of itself to form the soul of the child.

That is how Charles Descartes explained his faith in God, as do I.

Rene Descartes.

I don't believe in God. I need some solid evidence, and there isn't any. In any case, if God does exist, he certainly doesn't want me to believe in him, because he's not exactly trying hard to prove himself. Any God worthy of me would go out of his way to let me know he's there.

There is evidence, in the form of logical absolutes. Absolute, trancenentnt facts cannot exist in a universe without a god

http://www.carm.org/dialogues/atheist_absolutes.htm

No. At best, you may be able to declare that thinking exists, but you cannot assume a subject ("I") before proving it.
What is doing the thinking if not an I?

It is not an assumption - it is a necessary condition.

So if I think Im superman, that means I am right?

You miss the point. A non sentient creature doesnt have the capacity to comprehend what it means to be sentient so if you can comprehend sentience you must logically be sentient yourself

What is doing the thinking if not an I?

It is not an assumption - it is a necessary condition.

No one. I thought we were playing with hyperbolic denial? When did you prove that thought requires a thinker? Maybe it just floats in space.

You miss the point. A non sentient creature doesnt have the capacity to comprehend what it means to be sentient so if you can comprehend sentience you must logically be sentient yourself
yeah, you lost me at 'non sentient creature'

No one. I thought we were playing with hyperbolic denial? When did you prove that thought requires a thinker? Maybe it just floats in space.
Thought does require a thinker...

But my Descartes days are years behind me and it's just turned midnight, so if I start trying to argue with you about it now I won't be able to switch my brain off again and sleep. :p

4: Nothing in the Natural world explains my soul, thus it must come from the supernatural.


This is a bit specious.

Not everything in the natural world has been discovered, so to say that nothing in the Natural world explains your soul is flawed.

There are many principals that remain unexplored in the natural world. There are things unexplained 100 years ago that are better explained today.

What would the world be like if, 100 years ago, all people had started ascribing supernatural origins to every principal not explained at that time?

Fortunately, there were and are many who keep looking for natural answers.

There is evidence, in the form of logical absolutes. Absolute, trancenentnt facts cannot exist in a universe without a god

Except they're not "transcendent" at all. They're material.

Thought does require a thinker...

So you think. But there could be an evil demon fooling you.

So you think. But there could be an evil demon fooling you.
But the evil demon would require a me to be fooled.

But the evil demon would require a me to be fooled.

Or it could just be playing around with thought floating randomly in space.

I don't care what all of you say. Of course God exists. Who the heck do you think I am?!

Except they're not "transcendent" at all. They're material.

No they arent. Logical aboslutes do not depend on matter or energy. They are purely conceptual but they are not concepts created by the human mind. They are concepts discovered by the human mind (logical absolutes being refered to here such as "something cannot bring itself into existance" and "something cannot exist and not exist simutaniously")

Or it could just be playing around with thought floating randomly in space.
But what is it playing with if not an I? A thought cannot be fooled; if it exists, then the very thought of its existence is enough to prove that existence.

Drop dead, blood-sucking atheists!!!:sniper: :mp5::gundge: :mad: If there wasn't a God, then why are you here?! Pure chance?! I don't think so!!!

Drop dead, blood-sucking atheists!!!:sniper: :mp5::gundge: :mad: If there wasn't a God, then why are you here?! Pure chance?! I don't think so!!!
Exactly my point. People are so ignorant and ungrateful when it comes to my Father's work.

No they arent. Logical aboslutes do not depend on matter or energy. They are purely conceptual but they are not concepts created by the human mind. They are concepts discovered by the human mind (logical absolutes being refered to here such as "something cannot bring itself into existance" and "something cannot exist and not exist simutaniously")

Concepts invented by the human mind because of their utility, rather.

They work. That is the source of their truth - they are manifest in the reality around us.

Drop dead, blood-sucking atheists!!!:sniper: :mp5::gundge: :mad: If there wasn't a God, then why are you here?! Pure chance?! I don't think so!!!
An excellent way to follow the Commandments of our Lord! I'm sure when God said 'thou shall not kill' he meant 'tell people to drop dead.'

But what is it playing with if not an I? A thought cannot be fooled; if it exists, then the very thought of its existence is enough to prove that existence.

The thought doesn't need to be fooled, though. The thought just needs to be wrong.

A thinker needs to be fooled.

Drop dead, blood-sucking atheists!!!:sniper: :mp5::gundge: :mad: If there wasn't a God, then why are you here?! Pure chance?! I don't think so!!!

Yes, pure chance. There is no inherent meaning to life, no higher destiny, no fate, no purpose, no God.

You are free.

The thought doesn't need to be fooled, though. The thought just needs to be wrong.

A thinker needs to be fooled.
The thought cannot be fooled, nor can it be wrong. If it is questioning its existence then it must exist. If the thought is wrong then it exists; to be wrong there must exist a right.

It's way too late for this...I really have to be off. :p

The thought cannot be fooled, nor can it be wrong. If it is questioning its existence then it must exist. If the thought is wrong then it exists; to be wrong there must exist a right.

The thought may indeed exist, and I have never said it does not, but that does not mean there is a thinker, the "I" that Descartes is trying to prove.

No. Religion and the bible is all a bunch of historical myths passed down from generation to generation. A way to threaten anyone that "sins" and makes them fear their destiny upon death if you will.

But I still like this quote regardless...

"If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon man, he would kill himself." -Alexander Dumas-

it's a typo get over it.

I am, don't worry! Anyway he did misspell exist twice.

Really it's an impossible question, as there is no way the existance - or lack of - can be proven before death.

The Big Bang theory could also have merely been the method used to create the World, the Creationist theory doesn't rule science out.

You know most people who believe in God do not come on these threads cause they know all thats gonna happen is people are gonna say they are inferrior because they believe in a Supreme being. On the atheists of America website it says that Athiests are truely intelligent people, because theres no logical way God can exist, so therefore he doesnt exist, and that people who believe in God are idiots. Well to me this just seems like ignorance. Atheism among teens has become a trend. People think they're cool cause they dont believe in God. And procede to take every oppurtunity to disrupt believers. I wish people would just let people believe what they believe with out having to make fun of them for their beliefs. What ever happened to tolerance.

Now as for your arguments.

Time started when universe began. My question to u is this: What is time? My science book defines time as the distance between to events. So that would imply that time existed before then. If it didnt it would mean that some God existed. Ill explain. The Big Bang theory states that all the matter in the universe, was in one super dense ball. And that one atom struck another atom causing a massive chain reaction which made this ball explode. Now if time began at this point, that means no events occured before hand. Thus nothing could be moving, thus no atom could hit another atom. Now i believe the that time was there before hand. But also the theory states this. That the ball of matter was Super densely packed. All the atoms were so squished together that the chain reaction occured. Well then how did the atom move with enough force to start a chain reaction of this magnitude. How did a single atom contain enough force to start a massive chain reaction of a magnitude large enough to seperate all the matter in the universe. Something had to have made it so. This i believe, is was the work of God.

Now also in the thread some one mentioned why did God wait till now to create life. Well using that as a reason to not believe is just stupid. If it was gonna happen it had to occur at somepoint. Like u wanna build a model. Y did u wait till then to build it. Y didnt u start it earlier. God chose when to make the universe. If you wanna know y i suggest you ask him when you die. Now also another thing that pertains to this, that the bible says God created the world in Six Days, and yet science says that the world took Billions of years to create. Well the answer is, god being a Supernatural being, which created our laws of time and matter, isnt bound by those laws. My point is that most likely God moves on a different plane. He isnt bound by the laws of linear time. And now the bible says Six Days. We view a "Day" as one rotation of the earth. Well, if "let there be light" means the creating of the universe. Well he wouldnt be working on our time scale now would he. Cause our time scale wouldnt exist. A day to God, is most likely Millions of years. Or since he probably isnt bound by linear time, a Day is however long he wants it to be.

Now comes the creation of life. The Bible says, God took Clay and shaped it into a man and blew on it and it came alive. It then says he took a rib from Adam and used it to make eve. Now science says we theoretically, cause evolution still is just a theory in humans, that we were created from unicellular organisms. Well couldnt the "clay" symbolize making man from nothing, and couldnt that mean he built us up over the period of millions of years, (since this was all on the 6th day) from little organisms into Man. just a thought. Though i cant think of something to relate the taking of the rib to in science, but Men have one less rib then Women. That seems a little coincidental doesnt it.

Now my point really is, that the reason of Logically God cant exist, is just an excuse. They havnt stopped to think that how God can exist, is not something us mortals can comprehend. We have grown comfertable in our knowlege that we are the most inteligent species on this earth. But If something created us, what makes you think youd be as smart as it. The very fact that you cant wrap your mind around his existence is the reason why he is called God. Cause we cant think of anything else to describe him as. This now seems as an easy excuse to some people to explain why i dont understand. Well sometimes the easist explanation, is the right one. We cannot grasp how God can Logically exist in out universe. BUT that doesnt mean he doesnt exist. And as some people have said, "Any god worthy of my attention would have made himself known to me" This is just ignorance. For if God Created you, what makes you think he has to prove himself to you. The question should not be "is god worthy of my attention" it should be " are you worth of his attention."

Time started when universe began. My question to u is this: What is time? My science book defines time as the distance between to events. So that would imply that time existed before then. If it didnt it would mean that some God existed. Ill explain. The Big Bang theory states that all the matter in the universe, was in one super dense ball. And that one atom struck another atom causing a massive chain reaction which made this ball explode. Now if time began at this point, that means no events occured before hand. Thus nothing could be moving, thus no atom could hit another atom. Now i believe the that time was there before hand. But also the theory states this. That the ball of matter was Super densely packed. All the atoms were so squished together that the chain reaction occured. Well then how did the atom move with enough force to start a chain reaction of this magnitude. How did a single atom contain enough force to start a massive chain reaction of a magnitude large enough to seperate all the matter in the universe.
"

It would help a lot of if you could cite your sources for your interpretation of Big Bang Theory. Also, if you could give the publisher and author of the science book that defines time as "the distance between to events".

It just seems possible that you may not be presenting an entirely cogent description of the actual Big Bang model, but I could be wrong. If I could examine your sources, maybe I could better understand your position.

Eh my scources are years of classes. Every science teacher ive had, and everything ive read on it, basically told me this: All the matter of the Universe existed in a supercondensed ball of matter. One atom of that matter struck another atom which started a chain reaction. The result was the formation of the universe.

And The definition of time being the distance between two events, is how it is officially defined by science. Because the Standard unit of measurement of Time in science, is Secconds, and thats what their meassuring with time, the distance between events in history.

Eh my scources are years of classes. Every science teacher ive had, and everything ive read on it, basically told me this: All the matter of the Universe existed in a supercondensed ball of matter. One atom of that matter struck another atom which started a chain reaction. The result was the formation of the universe.

And The definition of time being the distance between two events, is how it is officially defined by science. Because the Standard unit of measurement of Time in science, is Secconds, and thats what their meassuring with time, the distance between events in history.

And with this large body of work that you've spent years studying, it should be a simple matter to provide a title, publisher, or author of a scientific piece that provides support for your interpretation.

Let me ask you this. If I go over to the physics department on Monday and present your rendition of Big Bang Theory to any 3 physicists, do you think they will ratify your view as consistent with the Theory? Or is it possible you may be wrong on a few critical points?

When you type in 'define time' on google, you get this...

# an instance or single occasion for some event; "this time he succeeded"; "he called four times"; "he could do ten at a clip"
# an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or activities); "he waited a long time"; "the time of year for planting"; "he was a great actor is his time"
# a period of time considered as a resource under your control and sufficient to accomplish something; "take time to smell the roses"; "I didn't have time to finish"; "it took more than half my time"
# a suitable moment; "it is time to go"
# the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past
# clock time: the time as given by a clock; "do you know what time it is?"; "the time is 10 o'clock"
# clock: measure the time or duration of an event or action or the person who performs an action in a certain period of time; "he clocked the runners"
# fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event
# assign a time for an activity or event; "The candidate carefully timed his appearance at the disaster scene"
# a person's experience on a particular occasion; "he had a time holding back the tears"; "they had a good time together"
# set the speed, duration, or execution of; "we time the process to manufacture our cars very precisely"
# meter: rhythm as given by division into parts of equal duration
# regulate or set the time of; "time the clock"
# prison term: the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned; "he served a prison term of 15 months"; "his sentence was 5 to 10 years"; "he is doing time in the county jail"
# adjust so that a force is applied and an action occurs at the desired time; "The good player times his swing so as to hit the ball squarely"

Now, that isn't so far off from what The Sons of Tarsonis said. What gets me is he said "my science book defines time as..." but suddenly can't tell you what the book is called.

In any case, the definition of time as being the movement of matter through space, or events through space, etc. isn't that uncommon.

When you type in 'define time' on google, you get this...



Now, that isn't so far off from what The Sons of Tarsonis said. What gets me is he said "my science book defines time as..." but suddenly can't tell you what the book is called.

In any case, the definition of time as being the movement of matter through space, or events through space, etc. isn't that uncommon.

Its precisely the relation between time and space, and their place in Big Bang Theory that I want to hear his views on.

As far as the highlighted passage, I think the "continuum of experience" description is pragmatic for the human context, but that definition becomes problematic when applied to primal cosmology.

Sons of Tarsonis is trying to present "official" definitions of science based on his claimed "years" of classes, but I'm suggesting that perhaps his paraphrasing may be less than sound.

I wouldnt say i studied it, i would say i just accumulated infermation on it and nvr forgot it. Sources, are just an article here or there, and from my teachers, i really cant give u exact references. Mainly cause i dont have them.

As for Key points, that depends on who the physicists are. Because though the overal theory of The big bang is accepted, but the finer points are still under debate. The majority of Scientists accept the version ive told you, but ive also heard some theorys of an atom splitting, which would explain the energy, but i find this hard to believe, because where would the energy from needed for an atom to split come from if not from god. And another theory states, that there were no atoms, that the matter exploded to fill a vacum. But i dont accept this one either, there would have always been a universe, and the matter wouldnt have existed before it exploded, because right when it was created it would have existed and this would defy the laws of the conservation of matter. The only way this works is to say God created the matter. Actually now i just had an epiphany. All the big bang theories require god. Because the law of conservation of matter states that Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This means that the matter nvr could have been created in the first place, so how without the work of a being not bound by the laws of physics would we be here...

Concepts invented by the human mind because of their utility, rather.

They work. That is the source of their truth - they are manifest in the reality around us.

But the fact remains. Why do they work

They do not work because of anything in nature since we have established that they are not material.


http://www.carm.org/demo/God/proof.htm

See the second argument here

Its precisely the relation between time and space, and their place in Big Bang Theory that I want to hear his views on.

As far as the highlighted passage, I think the "continuum of experience" description is pragmatic for the human context, but that definition becomes problematic when applied to primal cosmology.

Sons of Tarsonis is trying to present "official" definitions of science based on his claimed "years" of classes, but I'm suggesting that perhaps his paraphrasing may be less than sound.

The book is a Highschool Chemistry book. Its CAlled Chemistry: Matter and Change. Published by Glencoe science, id give u the list of refrences but its pretty long.

"If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which he has inflicted upon man, he would kill himself." -Alexander Dumas-

God did live the life he asked man to live. And he did die. See the Gospels for the account of his life.

God did live the life he asked man to live. And he did die. See the Gospels for the account of his life.

amen brother..........amen

and technically he did kill himself, he could have stopped us from killing him, but he didnt, because he was sacrificing himself for us.

God did live the life he asked man to live. And he did die. See the Gospels for the account of his life.
Yeah, but when I turn water into wine my mom scolds me.. :(

thats cause u shouldnt be drinking at your age.

The book is a Highschool Chemistry book. Its CAlled Chemistry: Matter and Change. Published by Glencoe science, id give u the list of refrences but its pretty long.

So you went from not having references to having too many references to list.

I'll track down the Glencoe book, and see if its descriptions of time and Big Bang Theory are in support of your descriptions here.

Fortunately, your own elaborations above have left me satisfied that most people will be able to easily assess your understanding of cosmology.

Sons of Tarsonis, I have no problem with you presenting your own opinions, ideas, and speculations, but I truly suspect that you've mischaracterized the Big Bang Theory.

well u wont find the big bang stuff in the book.
i only meant the stuff about time.


When i said i didnt have references i meant about the Big Bang Theory. And the Chemistry book when it talks about time talks about what it is and how its measured.

you do your religion a tremendous disservice by attempting to use logic and argument of any form, human or otherwise, to prove that God exists. Only faith can reveal God to man. I do understand that your intentions are good so I mean no offense. May all be well with you.

well u wont find the big bang stuff in the book.
i only meant the stuff about time.


When i said i didnt have references i meant about the Big Bang Theory. And the Chemistry book when it talks about time talks about what it is and how its measured.

Is it possible that might be a somewhat rudimentary definition that doesn't reflect the aspects of time as it applies to astrophysics?

You may find that as your studies progress, many of the practical definitions you're given in high school later yield to more complex models.

Bear in mind, I'm not stating that any aspect of Big Bang Theory necessarily precludes God or Zeus or Xenu or any other religious belief, but you've asserted that cosmology necessitates a God based on your version of Big Bang. So, I'm simply exploring whether or not your understanding of Big Bang really reflects the theory.

What fields of mathematics and physics do you feel a person would need to be conversant in to thoroughly grasp the Big Bang Theory? I certainly wouldn't claim to know them all, but I'm wondering what tools you feel are necessary to address this kind of science.

Proof denies faith... So therefore you people who need proof don't have minds fit for believeing in "God" but then... neither do I :D

Proof denies faith... So therefore you people who need proof don't have minds fit for believeing in "God" but then... neither do I :D

I don't personally believe science provides proof or disproof of God. I'm just exploring another poster's "epiphany", wherein they stated that a God is somehow logically necessary.

I believe in Eut.

Is it possible that might be a somewhat rudimentary definition that doesn't reflect the aspects of time as it applies to astrophysics?

You may find that as your studies progress, many of the practical definitions you're given in high school later yield to more complex models.

Bear in mind, I'm not stating that any aspect of Big Bang Theory necessarily precludes God or Zeus or Xenu or any other religious belief, but you've asserted that cosmology necessitates a God based on your version of Big Bang. So, I'm simply exploring whether or not your understanding of Big Bang really reflects the theory.

What fields of mathematics and physics do you feel a person would need to be conversant in to thoroughly grasp the Big Bang Theory? I certainly wouldn't claim to know them all, but I'm wondering what tools you feel are necessary to address this kind of science.

i think a person has to have a basic understanding of forces to grasp the overall theory, as for all the intricate details, i have no clue as to what math skills you need. Just from my understanding, of the laws of conservation of matter, the matter had to be created somehow, which defys this law. the only thing that could defy this law, would be something thats not bound by that law, hence a supreme being.

i think a person has to have a basic understanding of forces to grasp the overall theory, as for all the intricate details, i have no clue.

When you say forces, are you referring to force in the classical newtonian sense, or the gravitational, strong, and electroweak forces?

What kinds of mathematics do you feel are best for describing these forces?

As to the intricate details, could some of them be relevant to the extent that the tautologies you've previously constructed may not withstand them?

edit: What is your view on current research antimatter (and past research on relativity) as it effects a strict interpretation of the conservation of matter?

Just from my understanding, of the laws of conservation of matter, the matter had to be created somehow, which defys this law. the only thing that could defy this law, would be something thats not bound by that law, hence a supreme being.

Why can matter, energy, spacetime, natural principals, or any necessary precursors not themselves be as ontologically primal as any God could be theorized to be?

That is to say, if some God or Gods can be assessed as having the property of being eternal and uncreated, why is it impossible to consider that property belonging to fundamental principals?

i meant forces in the newton sense, an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. if all the matter was condensed in one place. what forces would make the atom move or split.

and again, the matter had to be created somehow. this defies the laws of the conservation of mass. the only thing that could do that would be something not bound by the law.

Why can matter, energy, spacetime, natural principals, or any necessary precursors not themselves be as ontologically primal as any God could be theorized to be?

That is to say, if some God or Gods can be assessed as having the property of being eternal and uncreated, why is it impossible to consider that property belonging to fundamental principals?


well thats the million dollar question isnt it, cause if youll believe that the matter was just there, that could give evidence that god was just their as well, its an endless paradox

i meant forces in the newton sense, an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. if all the matter was condensed in one place. what forces would make the atom move or split.

and again, the matter had to be created somehow. this defies the laws of the conservation of mass. the only thing that could do that would be something not bound by the law.

So, what if I were to suggest to you that, at very small levels, newtonian physics ceases to be an effective model? What if other models, such as quantum mechanics, have been found to be more accurate?

As to your second paragraph, I refer you to my previous post.

So, what if I were to suggest to you that, at very small levels, newtonian physics ceases to be an effective model? What if other models, such as quantum mechanics, have been found to be more accurate?

As to your second paragraph, I refer you to my previous post.

as for quantom physics im no where near an expert so i cant accuratly say.

well thats the million dollar question isnt it, cause if youll believe that the matter was just there, that could give evidence that god was just their as well, its an endless paradox

Why would evidence of primal matter necessarily give any kind of implication of a primal God?

What paradox?

Why would both matter and God existing primally be a paradox? Or matter by itself?

I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but honestly, you answer such a small percentage of these questions that I must cast my net wide.

Maybe you people forget that science is a philosophy, not unlike a religion. It just has no "God" how can you prove one faith with another? I understand that some religions accept jesus as a minor prophet or an enlightened person but really what does the big bang theory have to do with "God"?

as for quantom physics im no where near an expert so i cant accuratly say.

So is it possible, then, that some of your "epiphanies" and statements about the Big Bang Theory may not really be accurate renderings of the theory?

I stress again, I don't believe BBT precludes the existence of God, Shiva, body thetans, or any other religious belief. I just feel your use of the theory to support the idea of a god may be based on a misunderstanding of the theory.

Maybe you people forget that science is a philosophy, not unlike a religion. It just has no "God" how can you prove one faith with another? I understand that some religions accept jesus as a minor prophet or an enlightened person but really what does the big bang theory have to do with "God"?


I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe the Big Bang Theory (or any other expression of science) proves or disproves any kind of God.

I don't entirely agree that science is like a religion, although it is sometimes treated as one, unfortunately.

A religion frequently renders some axioms or ideas as unquestionable, whereas science, when practiced diligently, allows for the revision or dismissal of any idea that can be experimentally verfied as unsound.

I know many who both devoutly practice a religion and effectively engage in science, they just keep their religious precepts out of the lab and their scientific methodology out of their religion.

well see. If by saying their could be primal matter that would apply that there could be a prexisting god, if saying that there couldnt be a prexisting god, you wouldnt be able to support thre being prexisting matter with out giving the possibility of there being a god.

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

Good for you, what else you got?

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?
I believe religion was originally thought up as a control measure. Doesn't it reek of control?

cept wouldnt a god want to exhibit some control over his creations, so naturally it would have control in it. Plus with out control, imagine the chaos.

well see. If by saying their could be primal matter that would apply that there could be a prexisting god, if saying that there couldnt be a prexisting god, you wouldnt be able to support thre being prexisting matter with out giving the possibility of there being a god.

As I've repeatedly said, no aspect of the theory intends to preclude the possibility of a god, or other-dimensional space aliens or leprechauns or anything else.

But you suggested that it somehow necessitated a god, which is completely different.

You're only repeating your position, you aren't providing any support for it. My question, again, is why would the primal existence of matter necessitate a god, as you claimed it did?

What, in your opinion, is the difference between proving something necessary, and precluding something as possible? They really aren't the same thing.

cept wouldnt a god want to exhibit some control over his creations, so naturally it would have control in it. Plus with out control, imagine the chaos.

I think they may be referring to humans controlling other humans.

As for the chaos that would result from a deity who doesn't excercise control, what are your thoughts on free agency?

free agency....you mean like anarchism, with out laws with out control, we could do what ever we want. but is that so good, i mean, i could kill anyone i wanted to and no one could tell me i was wrong. unlike animals who are completely ruled by instinct, human beings can reason, and with that ability, we can defy our own instincts, and we can choose our actions. but with out anything requiring us to control our actions the result would be chaotic.

free agency....you mean like anarchism, with out laws with out control, we could do what ever we want. but is that so good, i mean, i could kill anyone i wanted to and no one could tell me i was wrong. unlike animals who are completely ruled by instinct, human beings can reason, and with that ability, we can defy our own instincts, and we can choose our actions. but with out anything requiring us to control our actions the result would be chaotic.



So, lets look at your very first supposition. You equate anarchism with free agency? Allow me to disagree with your terminology. Free agency is not the ability to do anything without consequence or social judgement.

What if I were suggest to you that free agency is essentially the same thing (and, in fact, just another phrase for) free will? Meaning, we have choices, and our decisions are not necessarily forced on us? The part that I bolded, thats what free agency is.

If you can follow that a person can choose to follow laws, embrace social contract, or restrain themselves voluntarily, maybe you can see where this is a little bit different from anarchy.

So, do you still feel that free agency is like anarchy?

And what about the previous questions?

Nope s/he is just a figment of your imagination.

Uhh, ditto. :D

free agency....you mean like anarchism, with out laws with out control, we could do what ever we want. but is that so good, i mean, i could kill anyone i wanted to and no one could tell me i was wrong. unlike animals who are completely ruled by instinct, human beings can reason, and with that ability, we can defy our own instincts, and we can choose our actions. but with out anything requiring us to control our actions the result would be chaotic.

Actually, society could still punish you, your killer would likely be rewarded and people probably wouldn't do business with you, see, the system works.

Uhh, ditto. :D

according to Hume (?), we're all figments of God's imagination. For some reason, I have trouble believing that.

I bileve god exsists myself, I'm catholic

No, I don't think god exists. Just doesn't make sense to me.

i believe that something exists about which no one knows anything. i believe that many things may exist about which no one knows anything and probably do. i believe that one or more of them may be orders of magnatude greater then ourselves, love us, and wish us well.

beyond this i see little pertinance to any concern as to whether what cannot be known, bears however close or distant a resemblence to what any one or any belief claims to require of a god.

what is unknown is unknown, and will remain as it alone sees fit, and not as dictated by any humanly presumed belief.

=^^=
.../\...

This thread reminds me of something a close friend once asked me.

Our conversation went something like this:

Friend: What's the difference between God and a thumbtack?

Me: I dunno. What?

Friend: The thumbtack is REAL.

God exists. He's a sadistic son-of-a-bitch, but he exists.

No one else want to talk about logical absolutes being trancendent and thus proving God. See previous links for more detail

No one else want to talk about logical absolutes being trancendent and thus proving God. See previous links for more detail

Explain your argument in your own words and I'll have a go at a rebuttal.

No one else want to talk about logical absolutes being trancendent and thus proving God. See previous links for more detail
Yeah I read that whole logic thing and how it proves god and stuff. The arguement seems to go like this:
1)Logic is trancendant and conceptual and absolute.
2)Trancendant and conceptual realities require a mind and since this reality reflects the mind thinking them then the mind thinks logic is conceptual, trancendant and absolute.
3)Therefore, the is an absolute trancendant mind in existance.

Or put another way:
1)Logic is right.
2)God created logic.
3)Therefore, God exists.

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

It's depend what you mens with the term: God

A man looking person good or evil, creation of life (powersource) or somthing different.

For me, God means = power to create, evolutution ect. But not a person.:)

Yeah I read that whole logic thing and how it proves god and stuff. The arguement seems to go like this:
1)Logic is trancendant and conceptual and absolute.
2)Trancendant and conceptual realities require a mind and since this reality reflects the mind thinking them then the mind thinks logic is conceptual, trancendant and absolute.
3)Therefore, the is an absolute trancendant mind in existance.

Or put another way:
1)Logic is right.
2)God created logic.
3)Therefore, God exists.

I'm going to wait for Adriatica to set out the argument in his own words before I do anything else but I agree that it's a fairly feeble argument on several grounds.

If God did not exist, we would have to invent something else.:)

There's no such thing as God. But it's not your fault...there's a part of our brain that's made to believe in things like that.

I'm going to wait for Adriatica to set out the argument in his own words before I do anything else but I agree that it's a fairly feeble argument on several grounds.
Maybe it wouldn't be so feeble if it actually substantiated the claims it makes.

There's no such thing as God. But it's not your fault...there's a part of our brain that's made to believe in things like that.
Ooh! ..there's a horrific thought.

Yeah I read that whole logic thing and how it proves god and stuff. The arguement seems to go like this:
1)Logic is trancendant and conceptual and absolute.
2)Trancendant and conceptual realities require a mind and since this reality reflects the mind thinking them then the mind thinks logic is conceptual, trancendant and absolute.
3)Therefore, the is an absolute trancendant mind in existance.

Or put another way:
1)Logic is right.
2)God created logic.
3)Therefore, God exists.

Not quite.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

- These logical absolutes are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind

- Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence

Not quite.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

- These logical absolutes are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind

-
They are identified by the human mind as a part of the world, but they do not exist apart from our recognition of them. So we do create them, just as we create the labels (words) for things around us.

Not quite.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

- These logical absolutes are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind

-
Indeed, but it's a huge leap to go from saying that logic is not man-made to stamping "Made by God" all over it. What does absolute logic prove? That we live in an ordered universe? What does that prove?

if by 'God' you mean 'big slab of chocolate in the kitchen', then yes, I do believe in God, and I'm off to eat him now.

Not quite.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here because those aren't logical absolutes, indeed IIRC there are certain particles in high level quantum mechanics which exist and don't exist at the same time.

- These logical absolutes are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

It's huge leap to go from 'they are not physical' to 'they are conceptual'. Atheism is not materialistic by necessity and there is no reason why we cannot simply regard logical absolutes as meta-physical, much like Plato's Form of Mathematics.

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

We don't know that for sure, we merely assume that through induction.

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind

See earlier objection.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here because those aren't logical absolutes, indeed IIRC there are certain particles in high level quantum mechanics which exist and don't exist at the same time.



It's huge leap to go from 'they are not physical' to 'they are conceptual'. Atheism is not materialistic by necessity and there is no reason why we cannot simply regard logical absolutes as meta-physical, much like Plato's Form of Mathematics.



We don't know that for sure, we merely assume that through induction.



See earlier objection.
Yes. Where does Schrodinger's cat fit into absolute logiv?

Yes. Where does Schrodinger's cat fit into absolute logiv?

Nice example, I forgot about that.

Bump.

Bump.
Ow! Watch yourself there!

I do think there is a god. mostly becuase people have this kinda instinct to worship things. Put a a few people on an island long enough, theyl start to worship something.

I do think there is a god. mostly becuase people have this kinda instinct to worship things. Put a a few people on an island long enough, theyl start to worship something.
That's because most people need an easy explanation for everything. I don't know is not an exceptable answer for them.

Bump?

Bump?
AHH THE PAIN THE PAIN! WHY!?*rolls in agony*

AHH THE PAIN THE PAIN! WHY!?*rolls in agony*

Because several times in the past Adriatica has simply posted links to rhetoric filled apologist websites in rebuttal of one of my arguments, and, after I spend much time and effort arguing against the stuff on that webpage, vanishes without addressing any of my responses. I'm prepared to give him the benifit of the doubt and assume he simply forgot but as this time he specifically asked for rebuttal I'd like to see what he says, he posted on the forum earlier so I thought I'd bump the thread up in case he's still around.

It's huge leap to go from 'they are not physical' to 'they are conceptual'. Atheism is not materialistic by necessity and there is no reason why we cannot simply regard logical absolutes as meta-physical, much like Plato's Form of Mathematics.
Why is that such a leap?

Why is that such a leap?

Because even if we disregard logical conventalism logic still isn't necessarily conceptual in the way that the argument runs (i.e. contained in a mind), it could simply be metaphysical which would require no mind to conceive of it.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here because those aren't logical absolutes, indeed IIRC there are certain particles in high level quantum mechanics which exist and don't exist at the same time.
I think either that you are mistaken, or someone has altered the definition of existence to accommodate an explanation of a phenomenon they couldn't account for with our current language. By definition, a thing cannot both exist and not exist at once (nonexistence being "nothing", i.e. there is no thing to exist).

I think either that you are mistaken, or someone has altered the definition of existence to accommodate an explanation of a phenomenon they couldn't account for with our current language. By definition, a thing cannot both exist and not exist at once (nonexistence being "nothing", i.e. there is no thing to exist).

I won't pretend to understand how it works, I'll try and find a link.

What counts as a 'god'? Cosmically, humans are probably just gum on the shoeheel of the universe. Plenty of whats out there will be powerfull enough to count as a god, but none of it would probably care about our puny species. They would probably also have other species whom they revere as gods. So, no, for all practical purposes there is no god.

Nope. Or, if He does, He certainly isn't the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God we hear so much about.

Unless my personal theory that I am in fact God is true.

ALL HAIL ME!!!!

Don't see how he could be all those religions at tha same time - firstly because the bible says nothing about him creating any of those religions (though it apparently says he was or/and is jewish) as christians like to believe (christianity and it's doctrines were invented by MAN, it is just BASED on what Jesus is believed to have done and said).... and secondly, because islam contradicts its self http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm (also take a glance at http://bibleprobe.com/ and read the bits about about Jesus and about mohammed)

Don't see how he could be all those religions at tha same time
It's as likely that the muslim God and the Christian God are simultaneously true as it is that any two Christians' ideas of God are simultaneously true. Each individual attributes to God various aspects of their own experience and understanding of thought; no two individuals' Gods are exactly the same. So how can the "Christian" God be true at the definite exclusion of the "Muslim" one? Both concepts are simply the conglomerate union of ideas anyway.

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)
There is no such word as "trancentent", but if you mean "transcendent" then your definition "true all across the universe" is way off. That definition might apply to "universal". "Transcendent" means "going beyond."

I am still trying to puzzle this out, but my brain isn't working today.

Don't see how he could be all those religions at tha same time - firstly because the bible says nothing about him creating any of those religions (though it apparently says he was or/and is jewish) as christians like to believe (christianity and it's doctrines were invented by MAN, it is just BASED on what Jesus is believed to have done and said).... and secondly, because islam contradicts its self http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm (also take a glance at http://bibleprobe.com/ and read the bits about about Jesus and about mohammed)

What a bigotted and innaccurate site.

No they arent. Logical aboslutes do not depend on matter or energy. They are purely conceptual but they are not concepts created by the human mind. They are concepts discovered by the human mind (logical absolutes being refered to here such as "something cannot bring itself into existance" and "something cannot exist and not exist simutaniously")
I believe what you mean by "logical absolutes" is "truth".

All concepts (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Concepts.html) are created by the human mind. We create them by recognizing them; sticking a label on them, so to speak. We recognize physical things (matter, energy/heat, form, substance, force, etc.) and we recognize things *about* physical things --these latter are concepts. We can also recognize things about ideas and other concepts--these make more concepts.

Logic is a method of argument that moves a conclusion towards truth. The conclusion "something cannot exist and not exist simultaneously" is a truthful concept, but it is only a logical concept when it is backed up by and based upon arguments that "prove" it. People supply those arguments; therefore, we create logic. We do not create truth --truth is the absolute upon which we compare our arguments to determine their correctness.
We do not create this concept because truth is a deflationary (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/#History) concept, which means that the truth stated *about* a thing is equivalent to that thing. We no more create truth of a thing than we create the thing itself.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes {truths} (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

- These logical absolutes {truths} are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

- The logcial absolutes {truths} are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind
I assume that "true across the universe" means universally true. I admit I haven't thoroughly thought this through, but I see no reason why truth cannot exist without god. All it takes for truth to exist is the idea that physical reality does.

What a bigotted and innaccurate site.

If you say so. They have the sura numbers from the parts of the koran they refer to. Check them out, there's a few online korans if you don't have your own (you can check em against each other for accuracy). It seems to me that, if you believe the evidence, Jesus performed miracles, mohammed didn't. Don't wanna believe that, fine. Don't wanna believe anything about that site, even when you can check what they've written, then maybe you're muslim and worried that your own religion is not quite as peaceful and honest as it claims to be, thus refuse to check up on any of the stuff the website says, instead preferring to brush it off.

I'm sure most people who's religions were refuted in some way would visit any websites linked to and argue against the website's claims, based on whatever evidence they can provide, as they want to prove to people that their's is the "true" religion. And I personally believe those who refuse to do that are too scared of discovering the truth, or/and have nothing they can use to argue, as the information given on said website is accurate.

I don't believe in God. I need some solid evidence, and there isn't any. In any case, if God does exist, he certainly doesn't want me to believe in him, because he's not exactly trying hard to prove himself. Any God worthy of me would go out of his way to let me know he's there.

But have you asked for evidence? Next time you really need something (I mean need serious help, like in an emergency - not material matters like needing a bit of extra cash for a playstation), pray, and see what happens. The first time I finally believed in God permanently, I was going to be arrested. I prayed, and, as mad as this sounds, was led along some kinda path (there was no route marked out - it was as if someone or something was guiding me). I ended up outside a church. I was saved from being arrested. Since then, I have always believed in God, and when I have really needed help, I have got it (maybe occassionally I haven't, but I personally reckon this is because God, or whoever God has put in charge (Angels for example), can't get there in time, or/and is busy dealing with someone else. http://www.biblegateway.com P.S. SHAMELESS PLUG: For polls on religious stuff (eg. are dolphins angels? :) ), my blog may be a good place to visit: http://www.ketchupandcurry.blogspot.com

I don't believe in God. I need some solid evidence, and there isn't any. In any case, if God does exist, he certainly doesn't want me to believe in him, because he's not exactly trying hard to prove himself. Any God worthy of me would go out of his way to let me know he's there.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

..."If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words."

..Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma, Chapter 30 (shortened and slightly modified for brevity)

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

..."If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words."

..Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma, Chapter 30 (shortened and slightly modified for brevity)
So, all existence is a sign of God? We are the makers of signs; we (individuals) are the ones who put one thing (existence) and another (God) together and give it meaning. Without that meaning, there is just co-incidence of things.

Drop dead, blood-sucking atheists!!!:sniper: :mp5::gundge: :mad: If there wasn't a God, then why are you here?! Pure chance?! I don't think so!!!
Wow, such a brilliant argument. All the smileys only strengthen the point.

Wow, such a brilliant argument. All the smileys only strengthen the point.

I was amused by the "smileys". *laugh*

What counts as a 'god'? Cosmically, humans are probably just gum on the shoeheel of the universe. Plenty of whats out there will be powerfull enough to count as a god, but none of it would probably care about our puny species. They would probably also have other species whom they revere as gods. So, no, for all practical purposes there is no god.
I think only one things counts as god: the supernatural. So your last line is correct.

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true?

..."If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words."

..Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

Alma, Chapter 30 (shortened and slightly modified for brevity)
If I do not believe in the Christian God, I sure will not believe anything coming out of the bible. You cannot use the bible to prove that God exists. It would be like pointing at Star Trek episodes to proove that space travel is easy and that teleportation is possible right now.

I wouldnt say i studied it, i would say i just accumulated infermation on it and nvr forgot it. Sources, are just an article here or there, and from my teachers, i really cant give u exact references. Mainly cause i dont have them.

As for Key points, that depends on who the physicists are. Because though the overal theory of The big bang is accepted, but the finer points are still under debate. The majority of Scientists accept the version ive told you, but ive also heard some theorys of an atom splitting, which would explain the energy, but i find this hard to believe, because where would the energy from needed for an atom to split come from if not from god. And another theory states, that there were no atoms, that the matter exploded to fill a vacum. But i dont accept this one either, there would have always been a universe, and the matter wouldnt have existed before it exploded, because right when it was created it would have existed and this would defy the laws of the conservation of matter. The only way this works is to say God created the matter. Actually now i just had an epiphany. All the big bang theories require god. Because the law of conservation of matter states that Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This means that the matter nvr could have been created in the first place, so how without the work of a being not bound by the laws of physics would we be here...
Dude, are you sure you actually spent years in physics classes? What you've posted on the subject of the Big Bang theory doesn't sound right compared to what I've read.

i meant forces in the newton sense, an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. if all the matter was condensed in one place. what forces would make the atom move or split.

and again, the matter had to be created somehow. this defies the laws of the conservation of mass. the only thing that could do that would be something not bound by the law.
Natural law don't apply until there is a universe for them to apply to. The universe (time, space, matter and energy) started at the moment of the big bang. Therefore, conservation of mass and the need for an outside force to act upon something don't apply.

Also we know that particle/antiparticle pairs spontaneously pop into existence from quantum fluctuations. What if the universe is one of those on a massive scale? What if the universe is one of those things that just happen on occasion?

Disclaimer; not a physicist, just an interested layman.

I am god, and i say bow before me or i'll throw you into the firey pit of hell!!!

The question should not be 'Does God exist?'. It should be 'If God existed, would he be left or right handed?'
I can just assume God if he did exist would most certainly be Right handed, it's common sense.

Not quite.

It works like this:-

- There are logical absolutes (Nothing can bring itself into existance, something cannot both exist and not exist simultaniously)

- These logical absolutes are not caused by or made of anything material. IE they are not physcial but conceptual in nature

- The logcial absolutes are trancentent (IE true all across the universe)

- They are conceptual in nature but not created by a human mind

-
The logical absolutes are idea-models of what we observe around us.
They're made of thought.
We don't know for a fact that they exist all across the universe.
They're created by the human mind to describe the rules the universe around us appears to adhere to.

That doesn't have anything to do with god.

Not if you believe that the big bang was the moment when time started.
Riddle me this: If there was no time before the Big Bang, how could there have been a moment of "beginning" (which is a measure in time)?

I do think there is a god. mostly becuase people have this kinda instinct to worship things. Put a a few people on an island long enough, theyl start to worship something.
All that proves is that the human brain is wired in such a way as to assume that something greater than us guides the universe. It's quite likely a glitch in the mental software that recognizes patterns. Recognizing a pattern like "The herring run up this river at a certain time each year" is beneficial. Noticing a false pattern like "Hunting is usually more productive if I spill some water outside my hut before I hunt" leads to superstition and possibly religion. (The gods of the hunt might need an offering of water spilled on the ground before they'll bring the prey)

If everyone ended up worshiping the same way independently, then it would IMHO be some evidence for a god or gods.

If you say so. They have the sura numbers from the parts of the koran they refer to. Check them out, there's a few online korans if you don't have your own (you can check em against each other for accuracy). It seems to me that, if you believe the evidence, Jesus performed miracles, mohammed didn't. Don't wanna believe that, fine. Don't wanna believe anything about that site, even when you can check what they've written, then maybe you're muslim and worried that your own religion is not quite as peaceful and honest as it claims to be, thus refuse to check up on any of the stuff the website says, instead preferring to brush it off.

I'm sure most people who's religions were refuted in some way would visit any websites linked to and argue against the website's claims, based on whatever evidence they can provide, as they want to prove to people that their's is the "true" religion. And I personally believe those who refuse to do that are too scared of discovering the truth, or/and have nothing they can use to argue, as the information given on said website is accurate.

Why do you assume I'm a Muslim? I simply pointed out that your site is bigotted and innaccurate, that most certainly doesn't denote Islamic tendencies. I have better things to do than refute whining little sites like that.

Riddle me this: If there was no time before the Big Bang, how could there have been a moment of "beginning" (which is a measure in time)?
That's like saying if a rope isn't infinitely long how can it have a beginning, isn't it?

Anyway, the moment of beginning is judged by the timeline that follows it since there is no timeline that preceeds it.

I am god, and i say bow before me or i'll throw you into the firey pit of hell!!!
Give the man a cookie; he gets it at last.

Yes. The truth is that you are God. The little universe you live in is something that your mind constructs piece by piece through a series of little pointers that we believe to be sensory perception. At any point, you can pull your entire universe down, change it or do anything you like in it.

You are potentially all powerful. You just have to learn how to persuade your mind to do it.

That's like saying if a rope isn't infinitely long how can it have a beginning, isn't it?

Anyway, the moment of beginning is judged by the timeline that follows it since there is no timeline that preceeds it.
That doesn't answer the question, though. The universe cannot have had a first moment of time without something to measure that against.

That doesn't answer the question, though. The universe cannot have had a first moment of time without something to measure that against.
Sure it does. You measure it against the subsequent moments of time. I don't see the problem there. You trace time back up to a certain point. If Big Bang theory is correct, at that point time began. It's like running your hands back along a railing until you come to the point where the railing begins and you cannot go "back along the railing" anymore.

If you need a detailed explanation of the big bang, there are plenty of websites. I dont' want to try to explain in detail because I'm not sure I'll get all the details right.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

As the world becomes multi-cultural we need to accept that some people believe in a God and some don't. If there was a God then he isn't doing a good job. Bush hasn't done anything to stop America screwing the planet for a start.............
What we believe is important and how we percieve life is important but I wouldn't go so far as saying we have to worship something.

Sure it does. You measure it against the subsequent moments of time. I don't see the problem there. You trace time back up to a certain point. If Big Bang theory is correct, at that point time began. It's like running your hands back along a railing until you come to the point where the railing begins and you cannot go "back along the railing" anymore.
Right, when we run our hands back along the railing, we can determine a beginning point for the railing because of what comes before that point, not after. The empty space before it is what we compare against to get a measure of "beginning".

Within the context of your linear analogy, a "first" moment can only be "first" compared to things coming before it, because if you are going back in time and you reach that "first" moment in time and go one step beyond it, everything ceases to be, including you, the measurer. If there's no measurer, and hence nothing to measure, we cannot call the next moment a "first". There is no "next moment."

Right, when we run our hands back along the railing, we can determine a beginning point for the railing because of what comes before that point, not after. The empty space before it is what we compare against to get a measure of "beginning".

Within the context of your linear analogy, a "first" moment can only be "first" compared to things coming before it, because if you are going back in time and you reach that "first" moment in time and go one step beyond it, everything ceases to be, including you, the measurer. If there's no measurer, and hence nothing to measure, we cannot call the next moment a "first".
You've lost me in the philosophy department. All I can say is that I've added a link to my previous post that states that time began within the singularity as it began to inflate. I'm neither a physicist or a philosopher, so I have to leave this discussion alone.

Yes!;)

You've lost me in the philosophy department. All I can say is that I've added a link to my previous post that states that time began within the singularity as it began to inflate. I'm neither a physicist or a philosopher, so I have to leave this discussion alone.
Well, I consider myself on an essentially even ground with you in these discussions. I'm neither a scientist nor a skilled philosopher myself. I was just talking common sense. ;)

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?

Belief in gods is just silly.

Belief in gods is just silly.

Why?

Why?
Please don't feed the troll.

Please don't feed the troll.

But if you don't feed him he may starve! Besides I agree with him. Being popular does not make a belief true. I could invent my own god and everyone would know it didnt really exist. Just because God is so popular doesnt make it any less obvious.

I think God probably does not exist.

And if s/he does, I don't think the odds are very high any individual religion has it completely right.

In other words, I think there's a chance there's a God and I genuinely hope there is, but if there is, I don't think it's possible for any mortal being to completely know his will, and I think it's really presumptuous for anybody to claim they are acting on his will.

Number of believers certainly doesn't prove anything. After all, no single religion accounts for the beliefs of a majority of the world, so the same argument would apply to all of them equally.

And..well, if you say 'God exists because a lot of people believe he does', you're implicitly defending N Sync.

But if you don't feed him he may starve! Besides I agree with him. Being popular does not make a belief true. I could invent my own god and everyone would know it didnt really exist. Just because God is so popular doesnt make it any less obvious.
See, the difference between you and a starved troll is that you have a reasoning behind you stance and you can actually discuss such reasoning instead of making wild claims with nothing to back them up.

This is why you'll get plenty of feeding while trolls everywhere are starving.

Please don't feed the troll.
Aw... then what am I going to do with this 10KG bag of Troll Kibble I just bought?

Aw... then what am I going to do with this 10KG bag of Troll Kibble I just bought?
either return it for refund or feed other types of animals like ogres, giants, elephants or bulls in china shops.

Or better yet, burn an offering to God. See if he likes it.

I believe many gods exist.

No, I can't prove it to you. No, I don't care if the weird shit you believe at all resembles the weird shit I believe. As long as we can both freely believe our respective weird shit in peace, all is well.

"Gods by the bushel, gods by the pound, gods for all occasions!! Have I ever told you you are very cute for a Minbari? And you are cute, too, in an annoying sort of way. Everybody's cute. Everybody's cute! Even me. But in purple, I'm stunning!"

Five cookies to anyone who can name the TV show and the character from which this quote came!

If I do not believe in the Christian God, I sure will not believe anything coming out of the bible. You cannot use the bible to prove that God exists. It would be like pointing at Star Trek episodes to proove that space travel is easy and that teleportation is possible right now.

FYI, that wasn't a quote from the Bible.

I believe many gods exist.

No, I can't prove it to you. No, I don't care if the weird shit you believe at all resembles the weird shit I believe. As long as we can both freely believe our respective weird shit in peace, all is well.

"Gods by the bushel, gods by the pound, gods for all occasions!! Have I ever told you you are very cute for a Minbari? And you are cute, too, in an annoying sort of way. Everybody's cute. Everybody's cute! Even me. But in purple, I'm stunning!"

Five cookies to anyone who can name the TV show and the character from which this quote came!
I'm enough of a nerd to know it's from Babylon 5 because of the "minbari", but not enough of a nerd to know who said it.

I'm enough of a nerd to know it's from Babylon 5 because of the "minbari", but not enough of a nerd to know who said it.

You get 2.4 cookies because I'm feeling stingy. :D

Anyone want to name the character and receive the grand prize of 2.6 cookies and the old boot I'm willing to throw in?

FYI, that wasn't a quote from the Bible.
where is it coming from?

(so I don't look like a fool the next time I come across it)

You get 2.4 cookies because I'm feeling stingy. :D

Anyone want to name the character and receive the grand prize of 2.6 cookies and the old boot I'm willing to throw in?
Capt. Pickerd?

You get 2.4 cookies because I'm feeling stingy. :D

Anyone want to name the character and receive the grand prize of 2.6 cookies and the old boot I'm willing to throw in?
I'm guessing only Londo would look good in purple.

God does not exsist, but, God Exists.

Yes, God exists.

Yes, God exists.
Care to explain that position?

Right, when we run our hands back along the railing, we can determine a beginning point for the railing because of what comes before that point, not after. The empty space before it is what we compare against to get a measure of "beginning".

Within the context of your linear analogy, a "first" moment can only be "first" compared to things coming before it, because if you are going back in time and you reach that "first" moment in time and go one step beyond it, everything ceases to be, including you, the measurer. If there's no measurer, and hence nothing to measure, we cannot call the next moment a "first". There is no "next moment."The analogy that I favour is partly given in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10280505&postcount=109) post of mine (response to point 3) and more recently here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10639401&postcount=61) in this very thread.

Anyway, that gives one solution to a limit to the value of time without an 'edge' to feel over (I do hope I've been consistent with my descriptions), but rather than rehash old ideas, feel free to read what I'd already written. And please feel free to comment here on it, 'cos I haven't had much response by anyone. (I was hoping that some theoretical cosmologists or mathematicians could indicate where holes could be poked in the concept, at the very least, given my specialisms don't cover those areas beyond scraping the sides of them at undergrad level on the way to other subjects...)

where is it coming from?

(so I don't look like a fool the next time I come across it)

A wonderful volume of scripture called "The Book of Mormon".

You should read it sometime.

A wonderful volume of scripture called "The Book of Mormon".

You should read it sometime.
Still the analogy is the same whether you talk about the bible, the qu'uran, the torah or any other religious scripture. You cannot expect me to take it at face value unless you have some corroborating evidence.

The analogy that I favour is partly given in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10280505&postcount=109) post of mine (response to point 3) and more recently here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10639401&postcount=61) in this very thread.

Anyway, that gives one solution to a limit to the value of time without an 'edge' to feel over (I do hope I've been consistent with my descriptions), but rather than rehash old ideas, feel free to read what I'd already written. And please feel free to comment here on it, 'cos I haven't had much response by anyone. (I was hoping that some theoretical cosmologists or mathematicians could indicate where holes could be poked in the concept, at the very least, given my specialisms don't cover those areas beyond scraping the sides of them at undergrad level on the way to other subjects...)
Sorry, I don't have any comment. Imagining things beyond three dimensions is quite beyond me. I understand how you are limited to trying to describe it in terms of 3 dimensional shapes (sphere, cone, longitude, latitude) but I don't think that helps either.

As a staunch Existentialist, I don't, butI don't mind what people care to believe about this.

I think you should live for today and be yourself, not pretending to be a good person so you can go to the special party in the sky after you've died.

You only live once, make the most of it whilst you can.

As a staunch Existentialist, I don't, butI don't mind what people care to believe about this.

I think you should live for today and be yourself, not pretending to be a good person so you can go to the special party in the sky after you've died.

You only live once, make the most of it whilst you can.

Some people aren't pretending. For many people, being good to others and helping others makes them happy, and IS part of making the most of their life.

I don;t know if god exists or not, but someone or something created humans...right?:confused:

I don't believe exsist exists.

The universe consists of time, space, matter, and energy. The big bang was the beginning of the universe, therefore it was also the beginning of time. Therefore asking why did time choose to start at that point (in time) is a meaningless question. It's akin to asking what kind of car did you have before you had a car.

not to mention, time is not sentient (though i s'pose thats just being fussy about choice of words)

I don;t know if god exists or not, but someone or something created humans...right?:confused:
No, humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

Please don't feed the troll.

I was being totally sincere.

@The sons of tarsonis

Your Understanding and interpretation of Scientific Theories is utterly laughable!:rolleyes:

Frankly I couldn't even bring myself to read that entire post you wrote about science being "wrong", but suffice to say it is some of the worst garbage I've ever heard.
Practically everything you seem to "understand" about these things is partly or totally incorrect (I suggest you go back to school).

And before you ask, Yes I am most Defiantly an Atheist, with little tolerance for Religious BS, and Proud of it!:upyours:

Just wanna point out to all those who think to believe in God means you're Christian, or taht you gotta be Christian to believe in God: bollocks. I don't use the bible to prove God exists, in fact I think a lot of the bible is just rubbish thrown in there by people being silly (though I do find some parts useful - like don't judge people, etc.). I believe in God, and have no need to prove God exists, as I have seen evidence myself. Feel free to refute that in your head, but I can't be bothered arguing about it. I believe in God ude to MY OWN personal experience, not due to what some religious person told me. I am not religious, and never will be. I believe in God. http://www.ketchupandcurry.blogspot.com

I believe that God exists.

Just wanna point out to all those who think to believe in God means you're Christian, or taht you gotta be Christian to believe in God: bollocks.

Um... strictly you do have to be a Christian to believe in God, anyone can believe in a god but only the Christians refer to theirs as 'God'.

It's always struck me as rather impersonal, a bit like calling your dog 'Dog' or your son 'Boy'. Ah well... [/random thought for the day]

I believe god exsists. What do you guys believe?
No

Um... strictly you do have to be a Christian to believe in God, anyone can believe in a god but only the Christians refer to theirs as 'God'.

NO, you don't. This is one "christianism" as I like to call it that seriously pisses me off. The dictionary defines God as a Supreme Being. I believe in a Supreme Being, whom I afford the title God, because during the time that I prayed to God that caused me to permanently believe in God after receiving help from God, I had used the title "God". I've heard Jews and Muslims refer to God as "God", except when using their native language.

You do NOT have to be christian to believe in God. I am not christian. I don't even believe in the main beliefs of christianity (I know christians disagree on a lot, but i don't even believe the main beliefs like that God actually said all those ten commandments or that Jesus is God AND God's son at the same time). Just like I don't believe the five pillars of islam. Or the main beliefs of ANY religion. I am not religious. I am not christian. I believe in God. Now why can't people (usually christians, in my experience) just accept that and accept that the world does not revolve around their religion?

It's always struck me as rather impersonal, a bit like calling your dog 'Dog' or your son 'Boy'. Ah well... [/random thought for the day]

To me, it's a special title, especially as I don't think I know God's name. A mark of respect, like calling your Martial Arts teacher "Sensei" or "Teacher".

We already had a thread like this this week.

We have a thread like this every week.

I am often told that arguments for the existence of God are logically inconsistent. One of the most common arguments I here is the existence of evil. They say that because there is evil God either does not exist or he must not be good. But one wonders without evil what is good? Another argument I often hear is an attack on the omnipotency of God. They ask, "Can God make a mountain he can't lift?" Unfortunately all logical arguments I have heard made one monumental error in logic. They premised a God that is omnipotent therefore not bound by rules or limitations and then contradicted their initial premises by applying logic, a system of rules and limitations, upon God. Then they proceed without any apparent realization of their flaw to say that when they applied logic to the concept of God it yielded inconsistencies. At this point I am very tempted to say, "No shit Sherlock, You make an argument that contradicts itself and then appear surprise and self-righteous when it yields inconsistencies."

Now I could go into a detailed rebuttal of the popular arguments against God, or even for God for that matter, but the simple fact is a God that exists outside of space and time, and has no limitations cannot be made logical, proved, or disproved. But evidence for such a being that can be seen, interpreted, and believed in. It frustrates me that so many people try to dispute faith, an emotional belief based on life experiences and personal observations, with logic and science which obviously cannot be applied to a being existing outside such man-made rules.

These very rules state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well assuming such a statement is true then our very existence in a material form and everything around us does not exist. So one can conclude that this law and others like it are either flaws or at some time in the distant past their was a point in which these rules did not apply, and if this is true why didn't they apply. Does it not make since that a Omnipotent being of some sort, existing outside these limitations created all of what we see. Is that really so hard to believe?

What made God then?

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html

Basically, God is outside logic, so he doesn't have to be created?

These very rules state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well assuming such a statement is true then our very existence in a material form and everything around us does not exist. So one can conclude that this law and others like it are either flaws or at some time in the distant past their was a point in which these rules did not apply, and if this is true why didn't they apply. Does it not make since that a Omnipotent being of some sort, existing outside these limitations created all of what we see. Is that really so hard to believe?

Just to clarify some, I think you may be thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can't be created or destroyed.

Also, I'm not sure how you conclude from this law that we don't exist. The energy that we're made up of could have always existed. There certainly aren't any implications of this law that would lead to the conclusion that we don't exist.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html

Alright, so I decided to read this link because it was short and written clearly. Usually I stay away from Christian apologetics because I find it to be a dishonest discipline. There are a few things I read that I would like to comment on.

Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always “been” than it is to say that matter has always “been”? As Carl Sagan has said, “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Cosmos, p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator.

In the very first sentence the author of this apologetic website seems to commit the fallacy of the strawman. While Carl Sagan stated its equally plausible to believe that the universe always existed, the author of this apologetic website stated that "matter" can not have always existed. There is a critical difference here.

Then, based on a misunderstanding of cosmology, the author of the apologetic website goes on to state that if the universe had existed eternally then all of the hydrogen would be burned up. I'm not sure what to say here except - WTF? Hydrogen hasn't existed eternally, nor has the matter in the universe. The elements and the matter in the universe are relatively new developments.

Then the author of the apologetics site goes on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how Carl Sagan would have you believe that matter is eternal. Well, Carl Sagan didn't say that in the citation there, its just a continued attack on the strawman rather than the real issue. I would also keep in mind that the First Law of Thermodynamics leaves open the possibility that energy is eternal (energy cannot be created or destroyed) while virtually closing the possibility of something that created all energy. The exception would be if you inserted some supernatural means, i.e. God. Once again, it looks like theology has fallen outside the realm of science.

Perhaps the author of this apologetic tract should rewrite it so that it isn't entirelly based upon a fallacy. Addressing what Carl Sagan said about the universe, rather than what Sagan didn't say about matter (the strawman), would be a start. Addressing the physical possibility of energy being eternal would be great, too.

Basically, God is outside logic, so he doesn't have to be created?
No; it is because God is supernatural that he doesn't have to have been created.

If he was created, he would be natural.

No; it is because God is supernatural that he doesn't have to have been created.

If he was created, he would be natural.

So arguements don't apply to God, because he's supernatural and doesn't have to follow the same rules, because he's outside them.

Why does god care whether we worship him or not? If he's so omnicient and powerful, why does he need us miniscule miserable humans to feed his ego? The bible states pride as a sin, and God has a *LOT* of pride, so doesn't that make god imperfect, and therefore, not worthy of worship?

Why does god care whether we worship him or not? If he's so omnicient and powerful, why does he need us miniscule miserable humans to feed his ego? The bible states pride as a sin, and God has a *LOT* of pride, so doesn't that make god imperfect, and therefore, not worthy of worship?

I dunno...The reason we have the free will that causes evil is because it makes him happy for us to love him of our own choice. Course, him being supernatural, doesn't have to follow natural laws, and could remove evil and give us free will at the same time if he wanted.

I dunno...The reason we have the free will that causes evil is because it makes him happy for us to love him of our own choice. Course, him being supernatural, doesn't have to follow natural laws, and could remove evil and give us free will at the same time if he wanted.
but in such a massive universe, how does *our* worship even make a difference? Wouldn't the true perfect being be free from patronization?

but in such a massive universe, how does *our* worship even make a difference? Wouldn't the true perfect being be free from patronization?

The true perfect being wouldn't have built us so crappily. What's up with our spines, eh?

You seek an answer to whether God exsists or not...well look around you...you think something as beautiful as the Earth or the Universe just happened?
As far as God being a kid with an ant farm...that's ridiculous perhaps he pays such close attention to each of us that he knows which trilas will help us grow. I've seen far too many coincedences in my life to deny the existance of a God.
Now the comment that said that God doesn't obey the laws of physics was arrogant, perhaps he is so intellegent that he knows the laws of physics far better than man, which , wouldn''t be hard because say what you want man has still just scraped the surface of science.

The true perfect being wouldn't have built us so crappily. What's up with our spines, eh?
That's why my theory is that if God actually *did* exist, he made us while he was drunk. There were actual passages in the bible ranting on about the river of wine in heaven. But if drinking is a sin, what's the river there for? The Old Testament was god being an angry drunk, and the New Testament was him going to AA and anger management classes and trying to make up for it all.

but in such a massive universe, how does *our* worship even make a difference? Wouldn't the true perfect being be free from patronization?

We are all God's spiritual childran...he knows us and loves us..our worshiping him makes a universe worth of differance.

You seek an answer to whether God exsists or not...well look around you...you think something as beautiful as the Earth or the Universe just happened?

Yes. And?

As far as God being a kid with an ant farm...that's ridiculous perhaps he pays such close attention to each of us that he knows which trilas will help us grow. I've seen far too many coincedences in my life to deny the existance of a God.

It'd be anecdotal evidence...If you'd actually given the anecdote.

Now the comment that said that God doesn't obey the laws of physics was arrogant, perhaps he is so intellegent that he knows the laws of physics far better than man, which , wouldn''t be hard because say what you want man has still just scraped the surface of science.

So, if you know physics well enough, you can have existed forever.

We are all God's spiritual childran...he knows us and loves us..our worshiping him makes a universe worth of differance.

*whispers to La Dame* Duuuude...God has billions of kids...What a pimp.

We are all God's spiritual childran...he knows us and loves us..our worshiping him makes a universe worth of differance.
So he's self-absorbed? He makes a whole universe just to worship him.