Come and attack Christian belief please.

[MacM]

icarl,

Yes, it is a problem. In your eyes there can be no way that my faith can be made valid. If it falls, it obviously isn't valid; yet it stands it's just the same. Why/How is that? I really want to know how this can be.

ANS: The answer seems very obvious. When you have a situation where the problem, no matter how you approach it, results in the same conclusion then there is but one answer.

"The concept of God is false. "

One can (as you do) make up all sorts of exclusions for your God from the physical world but then you are proposing Superman, Plasticman and Spiderman. All which are equally viable realities by the same standards which you use to create your Gods existance. All make believe not only without evidence or physical basis but in opposition to evidence and a physical basis.

So to make your God exist he must be unreal or merely a concept.

To begin, one cannot "accumulate" an infinite amount, lest it actually become finite. An infinite amount just is.

ANS: Correct and therefore you should understand that it is not possible to exist in physical reality and once again you assert your Gods existance via physically impossible standards.


Now as far as God is concerned, He is timeless. He is independent of time. Time, something that is indeed finite. does not affect Him. Same goes for space. Why is this? Simple: He isn't of this finite world.

As opposed to eternal w/ a beginning? Just a thought

ANS: Wholly contridictory terms. Another physically impossible attribute.

God isn't restrained to the limits of this world. As stated above.

ANS: More fairy tale qualities so as to exist. If I claimed time and/or space have been eternal and therefore were never created (eliminating your God) you would object that these or physical things and cannot be eternal.

Yet you choose to create your God using the same arguements you would luse against anything from physical reality from being. So for your God to exists he must be non-existant. Not a good foundation for one idea of existance.

Secondly, If He is nothing more than a concept, than what good is He?

ANS: On this point I think we agree.

If something is eternal, then it is impossible by definition for it to have a beginning.

ANS: That is precisely true but it is also why and how the concept of infinity is miss applied for the sole purpose of obscuring the truth.

If one starts with a distance of one mile and calculates the number of steps required to travel that mile. He will get an increasing number of steps as he shortens the length of the steps. But he has a calculable number of finite steps, however small he makes the steps and however large the number of steps becomes.

Until you actually claim a step of "Zero" length at which point you would get the result of "Infinite" number of steps. But what you fail to recognize in that process is that when you declare the step has zero length you infact declare that no step occurs. So you have created infinity out of nothing. Infinity doesn't actually exist in phyiscal reality. It in simply a mathematical consequence of dividing by zero a falicy since to have a step of zero length is to NOT STEP at all.

And by "created" I mean was never caused. Everything that needs that exists doesn't need a cause; everything that has a beginning does though.

ANS: Powerful arguement on the surface but totally invalid on inspection. It is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge of how nature achieves the N--->(+s)+(-s). A process which is mathematically sound and which matches the observation that the universe has "Zero" net energy.

Not necessarily for the aformentioned reasons.

ANS:You claims are without any scientific basis or evidence and as your God are created from whole cloth asserting attributes which are non-physical and makes your God non-physical. Hence your God is a concept and not physical reality.

To be timeless is to be infinite/eternal. Time has no effect on eternity b/c time is finite, while eternity is infinite. Something infinite cannot be grasped by finite things.

ANS: Not true. As stated above to become eternal one must accumulate an infinite amount of time intervals. Time intervals are physical. The finte cannot become infinite. Just as infinity is a physical falicy so is eternity.

The God theory provides an answer (God) that you obviously don't accept. Thy will be done.[/quot]


ANS: What advantage do you think creating a middleman with non physical attibutes gives the process. None. O'ccam's Razor would hold Creation ex nihilo as being the preferred conclusion.

Simple: he's timeless.

ANS: Your claim is make believe qualities, he is therefore nothing more than a fairy tale. My claim is he is non-existant and that is butressed by scientific evidence.

No, it's logically impossible for something to create itself. Something had to exist beforehand in order to create itself. It's like pulling your sock inside out and saying a sock was created.

ANS: I would agree with that premis. But creation ex nihilo is not "Something" creating itself. It is "Something" being created (as in coming into existance) from "Nothing". The distinction is in the term "Created". Coming into existance is not the same thing as "Being Created".

Being created would require a cause. Coming into existance does not. That is why it is called Creation ex nihilo. (SOmething from Nothing).

[

This doesn't describe my God because he wasn't created.

ANS: I can accept that. Since he was not created, not came into existance and as shown cannot have been eternal, simply means he is non-existant. On that point we most certainly agree.

Was this supposed to be a refutation of the following statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JCarlCaused by Another, in God's case, can be thrown out because you then create the aforementioned Infinite Regress.

ANS: Wrong again. Without causation does not imply or require eternal with no beginning or end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have no cause, then what else could there be if not eternal?

ANS: It is called Creation Ex nihilo and is observed in our universe. Our current lack of understanding how is not a sound basis for proposing a hypothetical God what violates all known laws of physics and observation, especially whn doing so jprovides no further understanding of the process.

Your God is superfluous.

Ok so we're created from nothing, but there's nothing to make something out of nothing? Is my interpretation correct?[/qote]


ANS: Only partially. When you look at the universe in its totality it balances to "Zero". That is to say it is non-existant except for being bifurcated into +/- temporary existances.

What I've done is show that God cannot exist within this finite world.

ANS: On that we agree. But creating this fairlyland for a fairy tale God is not required and serves no useful purpose.

Alright then. Help me out here.

What does infinite mean? w/ a reference would be nice.

ANS: I just grabbed this one. It seems aimed at a youthful audiance. I have to go and don't have time to locate another. Just wanted you to know I haven't posted this one with any intended enuendo.

http://www.c3.lanl.gov/mega-math/workbk/infinity/inbkgd.html

Wow I thought you'd say I'd be 100 cents in debt. Did I find that one cent between the seats?

ANS: This is a matter of being pragmadic and scientific. Just as you certainly have no proof of a God, my logic and the observational evidence do not prove there is no God. It merely shows God is not required and that to include a God serves no useful purpose.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by MacM


ANS: The answer seems very obvious. When you have a situation where the problem, no matter how you approach it, results in the same conclusion then there is but one answer.

But if a belief can undergo the most scrutiny possible and still be standing, how can that belief not be valid? In your eyes, if I lose I lose, and if I win, I still lose. It's not that I'm in a Catch-22; you're just presupposing that I'm in one.

One can (as you do) make up all sorts of exclusions for your God from the physical world but then you are proposing Superman, Plasticman and Spiderman. All which are equally viable realities by the same standards which you use to create your Gods existance. All make believe not only without evidence or physical basis but in opposition to evidence and a physical basis.

Not so. Whether or not you accept the proofs of God do not make or break their validity and truthfullness. Indeed there is no proof of Superman, et al, but there is evidence of God. You simply choose not to accept them.

Also, God exists within two realities(for lack of a better term). One is our reality(this is how we are able to know aspects of him). The other one is one that is beyond our comprehension(therein lies the mysteries of God talked about in 1st Cor. 2:7).

ANS: Correct and therefore you should understand that it is not possible to exist in physical reality and once again you assert your Gods existance via physically impossible standards.

If God can exist within two realities, then the "impossible standards" aren't applicable.

Now as far as God is concerned, He is timeless. He is independent of time. Time, something that is indeed finite. does not affect Him. Same goes for space. Why is this? Simple: He isn't of this finite world.

ANS: Wholly contridictory terms. Another physically impossible attribute.

One bad thing about writing posts is that it's hard to insert sarcasm when needed. To be eternal and have a beginning is indeed contradictory. But you said that my God cannot be eternal w/o a beginning. This is where my response's sarcasm was obviously overlooked.

ANS: More fairy tale qualities so as to exist. If I claimed time and/or space have been eternal and therefore were never created (eliminating your God) you would object that these or physical things and cannot be eternal.

Yet you choose to create your God using the same arguements you would use against anything from physical reality from being. So for your God to exists he must be non-existant. Not a good foundation for one idea of existance.

God can and does exist outside of this reality. If this weren't the case, then he would be finite and also we could understand every aspect of him.

ANS: That is precisely true but it is also why and how the concept of infinity is miss applied for the sole purpose of obscuring the truth.

If one starts with a distance of one mile and calculates the number of steps required to travel that mile. He will get an increasing number of steps as he shortens the length of the steps. But he has a calculable number of finite steps, however small he makes the steps and however large the number of steps becomes.

Until you actually claim a step of "Zero" length at which point you would get the result of "Infinite" number of steps. But what you fail to recognize in that process is that when you declare the step has zero length you infact declare that no step occurs. So you have created infinity out of nothing. Infinity doesn't actually exist in phyiscal reality. It in simply a mathematical consequence of dividing by zero a falicy since to have a step of zero length is to NOT STEP at all.

Okay....so where does this leave us?

ANS: Powerful arguement on the surface but totally invalid on inspection. It is an assumption based on a lack of knowledge of how nature achieves the N--->(+s)+(-s). A process which is mathematically sound and which matches the observation that the universe has "Zero" net energy.

Are you saying that something came out of nothing just by the nature of nothingness within the universe? Am I correct or did I miss the boat again?

ANS:You claims are without any scientific basis or evidence and as your God are created from whole cloth asserting attributes which are non-physical and makes your God non-physical. Hence your God is a concept and not physical reality.

See above.

ANS: Not true. As stated above to become eternal one must accumulate an infinite amount of time intervals.

You cannot accumulate anything infinite. Infinite just is.

Time intervals are physical. The finte cannot become infinite. Just as infinity is a physical falicy so is eternity.

In this reality--that is, within the capabilities of our mind--infinity and eternity are impossible. But there can be something beyond the scope of our minds. Infinity/eternity are a few of those things. We cannot fathom infinity because all that we know has a beginning and an end. Everything around us can be measured, unlike infinity. Therefore infinity is of another reality. However, if we didn't have some connection to that other reality, we would not know of the concepts that are within. This is where God existing in two realities comes into play. We can't go into that reality, but something from that reality can come down to us. Does that make sense.

ANS: I would agree with that premis. But creation ex nihilo is not "Something" creating itself.

Never said that it was. I'm simply saying that there are three theoretical ways in which things can come into being. Creation ex nihilo would fit under the Cause by another.

It is "Something" being created (as in coming into existance) from "Nothing". The distinction is in the term "Created". Coming into existance is not the same thing as "Being Created".

Hold on. You say that they are synonymous and then you say that they are distinct. Am I missing something?

Being created would require a cause. Coming into existance does not. That is why it is called Creation ex nihilo. (SOmething from Nothing).

This would be under Caused by another. Nothingness and somethingnessD) are two different things. This is why your theory is under the Cause by another.

ANS: It is called Creation Ex nihilo and is observed in our universe. Our current lack of understanding how is not a sound basis for proposing a hypothetical God what violates all known laws of physics and observation, especially whn doing so provides no further understanding of the process.

So to throw God into the equation and saying that He does it his way isn't satisfactory? Why?

ANS: On that we agree. But creating this fairlyland for a fairy tale God is not required and serves no useful purpose.

No useful purpose? You search for the mysteries of the universe, someone gives you an answer and you just say that it's not useful? Thy will be done.

ANS: This is a matter of being pragmadic and scientific. Just as you certainly have no proof of a God, my logic and the observational evidence do not prove there is no God. It merely shows God is not required and that to include a God serves no useful purpose.

All I can say to that is if you don't see Creation as proof of God, then I can't make you see otherwise.

 

[MacM]

jcarl,

(edited to correct posters name. Sorry I have been putting icarl)

But if a belief can undergo the most scrutiny possible and still be standing, how can that belief not be valid?

ANS: That is an easy question to answer. It is not being scrutinized. You and others of faith refuse to challenge the conclusion that there is and must be a God. Every point of logic you are given you reject or fabricate special waivers of reality to include your God.

Why is it that if you can envision something beyond space and time that has been eternal (which causes me to wonder why it took him so long to get around to creating us) but you reject sound mathematics which show it is unnecessary to explain our existance. He is not required. He is superflous to our existance.

In your eyes, if I lose I lose, and if I win, I still lose. It's not that I'm in a Catch-22; you're just presupposing that I'm in one.


ANS: Seems you are. You must violate every standard of physics and give your God attributes which are unknown and illogical simply to advocate his reality. Yet you claim it has been throughly scrutinized?????

Not so. Whether or not you accept the proofs of God do not make or break their validity and truthfullness. Indeed there is no proof of Superman, et al, but there is evidence of God. You simply choose not to accept them.


ANS: There is more evidence that your God is non-existant and attributes and purpose granted him are nonsensical, but you choose to ignore it.

Also, God exists within two realities(for lack of a better term). One is our reality(this is how we are able to know aspects of him). The other one is one that is beyond our comprehension(therein lies the mysteries of God talked about in 1st Cor. 2:7).

ANS: Now I understand. The Bible tells me so, therefore it must be true.

If God can exist within two realities, then the "impossible standards" aren't applicable.


ANS: If pigs could fly we would see flying pigs.

Now as far as God is concerned, He is timeless. He is independent of time. Time, something that is indeed finite. does not affect Him. Same goes for space. Why is this? Simple: He isn't of this finite world.

ANS: Sorry but LOL. Where is your tangiable evidence for such make believe voodo?

One bad thing about writing posts is that it's hard to insert sarcasm when needed. To be eternal and have a beginning is indeed contradictory. But you said that my God cannot be eternal w/o a beginning. This is where my response's sarcasm was obviously overlooked.

ANS: Trying providing direct responses vs being sarcastic. Being sarcastic doesn't prove your point.

God can and does exist outside of this reality. If this weren't the case, then he would be finite and also we could understand every aspect of him.

ANS: So your explaination for God to exist is that he does not exist in our reality? How bizzar must you make it to retain this concept that you have of a God.

Okay....so where does this leave us?

ANS: Where we were before you misapplied the term "Infinity". Infinity is non-existant. It is a concept only. Anything declared infinite is non-existant. You have thought it gave your God more power to be infinite but in reality you were making him nonexistant. He could not exist and be infinite or have existed eternally. That is within the definition of those terms. The lack of scientific understanding by those that use such terms when expressing a religious conviction merely shows their lack of actual understanding of the terms and there true meaning.

Are you saying that something came out of nothing just by the nature of nothingness within the universe? Am I correct or did I miss the boat again?

ANS: Indeed I am. And that view is butressed by the fact that calculations (to within our ability to observe) the universe consists of "Zero" net energy. The Universe if pushed together in one spot would cease to exist. It has a net value of "Nothing".

Matter and energy (+) is exactly matched by gravitational (-) energy.


You cannot accumulate anything infinite. Infinite just is.

ANS: You are at least half right on this one. To be eternal implies an infinite number of finite time intervals and cannot ever be physical reality. Saying it just is, is in the same vein as your proof of a God -" He just is". Not a very sound proof.

In this reality--that is, within the capabilities of our mind--infinity and eternity are impossible. But there can be something beyond the scope of our minds. Infinity/eternity are a few of those things. We cannot fathom infinity because all that we know has a beginning and an end. Everything around us can be measured, unlike infinity. Therefore infinity is of another reality. However, if we didn't have some connection to that other reality, we would not know of the concepts that are within. This is where God existing in two realities comes into play. We can't go into that reality, but something from that reality can come down to us. Does that make sense.


ANS: No it don't. The failure of infinity as an arguement has nothing to do with our inability to comprehend infinity. After all we invented and defined the concept. The problem is that you do not understand the origin and meaning of the concept. It is simply improper to try and apply the term to anything that exists.

Anything that exists is finite. And that would include your God.

You need a different term. You can't alter the meaning of infinity to include you God. Infinity is a mathematical term devoid of any meaning what-so-ever to defining physical reality.

Never said that it was. I'm simply saying that there are three theoretical ways in which things can come into being. Creation ex nihilo would fit under the Cause by another.

ANS: No it doesn't. It means what it means and that is "Something" coming into existance from "Nothing". It has to do with the "Uncertainty Principle".

Hold on. You say that they are synonymous and then you say that they are distinct. Am I missing something?

ANS: I don't think you are missing something. I think the term "Creation Ex nihilo" is throwing you off. When you see "Creation" you think "Creator". And in Ex nihilo there is no "Creator".

This would be under Caused by another.

ANS: No. That would be incorrect.


Nothingness and somethingness() are two different things.


ANS: We agree in part. As I has stated our presence, our existance is one half of the equation that equals nothing.

The fact is matter and energy (+) is a thing. (-) gravity negative energy is also a thing. But collectively they cancel and there is "Nothing" left.

This is why your theory is under the Cause by another.

ANS: This isn't MY theory. I do happen to agree with it and I did formulate the N------>(+s)+(-s) mathematical view of it. Should you choose to surf the web there is a lot about Creation Ex nihilo available, both pro and con so to be fair to yourself you need to read more than one source.

So to throw God into the equation and saying that He does it his way isn't satisfactory? Why?

ANS: Actually what I will tell you next may come as a surprise.

You do realize do you not that your description of God being absent or beyond "time and space" closely parallels my definition of "Nothingness". "Nothingness" may be defined as the absence of time and space.

The problem becomes when you go beyond that and begin to ascribe an intelligence, omnipotence and all knowing as well as assume the obvious egocentric view that it is all for man and that we are somehow special and that there is this elaborate plan and funny games of testing ones belief, etc that leads you from the ultimate truth.

Put simply the view put forth by religion (it matters not which one) are demeaning to any God that might exists that could have done what you claim a God has done by creating the universe and all that is in it.

You eem to think that you glorify God but your concept of such a God is demeaning to any true God that might exist. I personally reject such Gods as being reality.

No useful purpose? You search for the mysteries of the universe, someone gives you an answer and you just say that it's not useful? Thy will be done.

ANS" To state without evidence, proof or logic that "God did it", hardly has value. What possible value do you see in such simple unsupported and unsupportable view.


All I can say to that is if you don't see Creation as proof of God, then I can't make you see otherwise.


ANS: I agree with that. You will never cause me to see God as being real or having created anything.

Just as you will continue to claim your faith stood the test in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is false and based on make believe attributes of existance and in the end provides man with nothing useful.

You put forth the challenge and I have responded. I wish you well on your journey but I have no ambition to continue a debate where the opposition chooses to disregard the meaning of words and substituye make believe attributes in support of his position.

(I am not being derogatory, I am being factual).

Happy New Year.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The premise that Infinity doesn't exist is flawed and I see no reason to think that the finite is anything but a subjective construct in the first place.

Infinity does exist in so many ways and to deny it's existance is just as bad as denying that the finite exists.

The assumption that the universe is finite is not able to be proved.

In fact logic would suggest that it is infinite.

The only real question is how is the finite achieved with in the infinite and as suggested earlier this could all really come down to our need to see form and symetry.

When looking at a glass ashtray we see something that appears finite yet we know that it emmitts and that it's boundaries are only set by our inability to see it or measure it fully. (Where does the ashtray start and where does it finish...take it to the absolute)

The ashtray is just as much a part of this universe as everything else and therefore what we see is a piece of infinity that happens to stand out.

It is possible that some time in the past the universe was spontaneously created form nothing, so therefore time is not eternal (past wise) however it could very well be eternal future wise.

Creation of God and the universe could be considered simultaneous and whether you describe it as God or universe is irrelevant. It's the definition of God ( universe) that is the problem not the existance of such.

We can't define the universe so therefore we can't define God.

There is so much out there that we can't possibly measure or define properly and probably never will.

For instance we look at Em spectrums etc. Just because we can't detect it or measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same may apply to "God" etc.

If one tries to define a person, one knows the impossibility of the task, well the same applies for God.

We don't know what gravity is fully but we certainly can feel it and know it's effects. Well the same could be said for God in that we don't know what it is but we certainly can feel it.

 

[MacM]

QuantumQuack,

The premise that Infinity doesn't exist is flawed and I see no reason to think that the finite is anything but a subjective construct in the first place.

ANS: I would have to disagree in that I haven't said infinity doesn't exist. It does exist as a concept and is useful in mathematics. But by definiton physical reality "things" cannot become infinite in that the very definition of infinity is larger than anything finite number. Something cannot become larger than itself. Hence infinity is disallowed as a description of anything in physical reality.

With respect to the finite being subjective, I don't think we can afford to redefine everything in the universe and throw awqy all scientific discovery and understanding merely to accomadate a God. Especially since doing so doesn't bring us any closer to understanding of the universe or offer any advantag for having done so,

Infinity does exist in so many ways and to deny it's existance is just as bad as denying that the finite exists.


ANS: Then give us an example of somthing tangiable that is larger than itself so as to fit the definiton of being infinite.

The assumption that the universe is finite is not able to be proved.

ANS: I wouldn't call it a proof perse but logically the universe cannot extend dimensionally greater than the measure of the universe. Putting the problem into context assuming we measure the universe in ly. Its dimension must be larger than the total number of light years it measures. But because infinity is not a number but a concept it can't be applied to measurements. Since the universe is physical and space is physical which can be measured you can't simply declare it is larger than itself. Infinity by definition is larger than any finite number. That is a concept not a physically achievable reality.

In fact logic would suggest that it is infinite.

ANS: Based on the above I would say just the opposite.

The only real question is how is the finite achieved with in the infinite and as suggested earlier this could all really come down to our need to see form and symetry.

ANS: Again by definition the physical cannot become infinite.

When looking at a glass ashtray we see something that appears finite yet we know that it emmitts and that it's boundaries are only set by our inability to see it or measure it fully. (Where does the ashtray start and where does it finish...take it to the absolute)

ANS: I don't follow the logic here.

pb]The ashtray is just as much a part of this universe as everything else and therefore what we see is a piece of infinity that happens to stand out.[/b]

ANS: That is an unsupportable statement and is not a fact but is by definition erroneous.

It is possible that some time in the past the universe was spontaneously created form nothing, so therefore time is not eternal (past wise) however it could very well be eternal future wise.

ANS: By the definition of never ending, I would agree we can jproject the concept forward but realize that it can never reach eternity just as you cannot reach infinity. Based on most studies however, the assumption would appeqr to not be justified in that the universe would appear to be destioned to simply fall apart and all energy, matter and time cease.

Creation of God and the universe could be considered simultaneous and whether you describe it as God or universe is irrelevant. It's the definition of God ( universe) that is the problem not the existance of such.

ANS: We can almost agree here. The biggest problem is when attributes of intelligence, a plan, etc, etc, are arbitrarily applied to the event of coming into existance that is the problem. that is generally referred to as the religious view.

While I oppose saying so because the term God carries all the superflous garbage with it, I could accept claiming that Creation Ex nihilo is an act of God. But in such case God simply means the unknown and bears no resembalance to the God of religion.


We can't define the universe so therefore we can't define God.

ANS: We agree. I find it more sensible to seperate the term God altogether since it merely confuses the issues as to what one means.

[/b]There is so much out there that we can't possibly measure or define properly and probably never will.

For instance we look at Em spectrums etc. Just because we can't detect it or measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same may apply to "God" etc.[/b]

ANS: We agree at the most basic level. But start putting the Bibles God in the mix and we disagree entirely.

If one tries to define a person, one knows the impossibility of the task, well the same applies for God.

ANS: Actually one can define, if only in part, another human being as we understand them but we can make no assumptions or give any definitions for a God.

We don't know what gravity is fully but we certainly can feel it and know it's effects. Well the same could be said for God in that we don't know what it is but we certainly can feel it.

ANS: If you choose to call Creation Ex nihilo and act of God, I would have to say it is simply preferable to say it was an act of nature. What advantge does one get by adding a middleman and making up absurd attributes.?

 

[jcarl]

Alright , lets end this by going back to the original question(yours):

If number one is true{God is Creator of All things/Everything) then you must agree that God not only had to create himself but created time and space as well.Otherwise he would not be the creator of everything and some other creator or creators, etc., would be required.
If God was the creator of time and space just where and how did he create himself before he created time and space and how could he have created time and space before he created himself?

Statement: "God is eternal." He has no beginning and no end. You say that that can't happen in our reality. I agree, but I then go on to say that he exists in another reality. Therefore God can still exist.

All I'm doing is agreeing with you and taking it one step further to explain it. If you believe that to be a cop-out, I consider it an explanation.

Now let's take that statement as it is. If God exists in another reality, then that means that he wouldn't be limited to the limits of this reality. These limits include time and space.

Any scenario you propose results in Creation ex nihilo which doesn't require a God, so why add the middle man which still doesn't resolve the basic issue of origin of existance?

I find it hard to fathom that everything can pop into being just because of the nature of nothingness(nothing equals everything?). But wouldn't the energy be something as oppossed to nothing? I don't know seems hard to believe.

Bottom line: I somehow find your theory hard to believe, and you likewise somehow find my theory hard to believe. I guess thats just the way it is.

Heb 2:2-3 "now if the words of the angels is proved to be steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience given a just reward; how then shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?"

 

[MacM]

jcarl,


I do not want to seem curt but I have no interest debating hypothetical attributes of other realities. It simply boils down to this.

You have no evidence wht-so-ever of the existance of a God. He is not allowed by definition of anything physical in our universe.

It is utter nonsense and a waste of time to concock alternative realities to claim the existance of a God which gives us nothing of value.

(To you there is value because you want to claim a priviledged position in the universe. We have none. We are born via sex and die of injury, desease and old age like each and everyother living creature we know of.


We are not central to anything in the universe.

We are not special in that regard.

MAn's only advantage in this world is our brain. Our physical stature and our instincts are far inferior to other creatures.

Debates such as this make me question the advantage of our brain.

There is no such thing as eternal existance as has been carefully explained, hence I have said my piece and you can continued to make whatever absurd claims you choose since it is all make believe we can claim that God is an ass with three holes.

Just as provable as your claims but you would argue against it. What is the use. NONE.

The simple fact is I cringe everytime somebody quotes something from the Bible. I have no use what-so-ever for it.

Thank you. and carry on.

 

[wesmorris]

Advocating the Devil

MacM.

"It is utter nonsense and a waste of time to concock alternative realities to claim the existance of a God which gives us nothing of value."


That is obviously a relative truth. To you and I, a god is utter nonsense and a personal waste of time. However to other folks, it is not nonsense (even though it is irrational) nor is it at all a waste of time, but fills allows them to fill themselves with a sense of purpose?

Please note that the second half of that question is double edged.

The first half however, is a show stopper.

If you think 1 + 1 = A2938G, then it does until you can fathom the reality of the possibilty that it is not.

(related note: all humans must seek to satiate fundamental questions. minds don't function well with open ended questions of great importance unless you are seeking to answer them or somehow find a way to satiate that need. if you have 100 units time to commit to learning all you will ever learn and are really good at uhm... bowling, how much of your 100 units would you budget to bowling and how much to pursuit of answers? Which helps you survive more? I can take a "spiritual prescription" with 1 unit and spend the other 99 on winning bowling tournaments that buy me shelter, food and make me appealing to a mate. What if for instance, I'm really good at taking my prescription, like our friend jcarl? He's not interesting in logical/reasonable answers in the same way you or I might think of it: He's interested in what makes sense to him. He's interested in defending what he knows, affirming it (as your propensity to seek these answers (in intensity) increases, your propensity to behave this way increases if you take the prescription which is often handed to you when you are too young to make choices about what makes sense - you learn that from your parents/social interaction/stimulous (my three year old constantly asks "is that a good idea?")).

You probably know all that but I'm just (I've had it in mind for years but I'm still working out how to say it, the implications, etc.) now working it all out clearly. Pardon.

 

[Quantum Quack]

MacM, thank you for your words and thoughts.

I too, agree that in there is no purpose served by thinking of the universe as a single minded sentience. I think the concept of a decision making entity whether of this reality or other that has designed this universe is some what narrow in scope.

It is possible that also we agree on the infinite but differ on context.

The reason I stated what i did is that I am fighting two wars at the one time and both are about closemindedness.

One that states that the infinite doesn't exist when there are many theories about reality that require it.

Infinite what? is more the question. Infinite two dimensional space. Infinite distances. Infinite density ( singularities). Infinite vacumm: Absolute nothingness. etc. etc.


An infinite circle with no begining or end. Pi the mathematical necessity.

Infinitely small and infinitely big, All relative infinities.

If every square centimeter of space has infinite energy potential then?

Whilst infinity poses some problems for Maths it shouldn't.


The other is that religion places many limitations on the concept of "God" I suppose just as science seems to do on reality.

And it is the closemindednes of both groups that I am trying to lift a little.

A 2 dimensional gateway to the stars is impossible with current thinking.

Perpetual energy and use there of is also.

Understanding ex nihilo creation is also impossible with in the narrow framework of current religious and scientific thought.

The problem as I see it is that we seem to have lost our ability to explore a little and imagine a little, think out side the box and get out of this thinking prison we seem to have built for ourselves.

It is possible with the use of some lateral thinking that all arguements can be accomodated and that God and science will find compatability.

For instance if one thinks of the universe as a living organism that happens to be very big. Straight away we have a movement of thought that could allow for some interesting ideas and understandings. If one thinks of a star as a neuron of some massive brain and allows for a hidden neurology.....etc etc .....maybe off the planet but hey religious and some science is about the same.....why not go for broke and use a little imagination. Maybe the stars are part of some sort of giant light computer, and maybe one day pigs will fly.

science requires proof
religion tries to prove but can't
the universe is self evident.

hmmmm..... what does that tell you.
we have rationality and we have irrationality, and the universe is laughing at us on both counts.

I think that if we all just drop our sacred beliefs for just a minute and look at the whole issue with clear eyes we may be amazed at what we can discover.

Wes, Why do you think people like to live in boxes. Is it because they fear the unknown or what?

Is belief just a security blanket that keeps you warm at night?

It takes a lot of courage to let go of belief. Some people seem lacking in this regard.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A question maybe worth asking is how important is life to the existance of the universe as a whole? How does life fit into the scientific principles.

Life may not be all that important to science but it sure is important to the scientist.

How does science see life relative to it's pursuits?

 

[Hevene]

Can I just ask you first, how do you define life?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I agree, a good question for the physicist, me t'inks, as with definitions of God I think it is virtually impossible to define fully, thus making it an "infinitely" difficult task. Please excuse the weakness of the pun

 

[Quantum Quack]

While we are at it another doozy just for fun.

Say we assume for a moment that the universe is teeming with life ( big assumption maybe)

Because planets are spherical in nature, this means that at any given time half the universes life may very well be asleep as the planets are always half in darkness.

Does this observation have any significance to the nature of universal consciousness or for that matter science?
The universe is half asleep and half awake ( sounds like me... ha)

 

[Hevene]

Here is my input.

Life is everything that moves. We as human beings have life. But the so-called "non-living" things have life too. A rock, may seem to be non-moving, but it is made up of atom, and each atoms are vibrating. Atoms are made up of subatomical particles, again moving. After all, all things are made up of energy, again moving. All things are life. Everything that ever existed are life.

Quantum Quack
How important is life to the existance of universe? Very important, the universe is life, without life, there would be no universe.

How does life fit into the scientific principles?
Science is really the study of life.

 

[Hevene]

Half asleep doesn't mean no life.

 

[Quantum Quack]

right on ...half in a state of sleep doesn't mean unalive...very true.....

 

[MacM]

QuantumQuack (& Others),

I have little problem with your post. We seem to be in close agreement on these issues. My stance may seem more cast in stone than it is but that is prompted by the tendancy of those such a jcarl to dig in and hold absolutest positions.

I have stated only that on blance the concept of Cretion Ex nihilo - existance without a God is far more logical and understandable than the creation of God via the extraordinary extrapolation of our understanding of science.

There is simply no evidence supporting the contortions made to accomotate a God and no advantage (other than Wes's warm blanket analogy) to creating one. Scientifically it is worse than wotrthless it is detrimental to our pursuit of knowledge.

But I unlike the religious posters am not making absolute statements of validity and my views are at least anchored solidly in science.

The point being that all scientific understand continue to under go an evolution and nothing can be claimed absolute truth. It is a matter of odds. My only point is that those odds are not even as good as winning the multi-state lotto if you subscribe to the God option or all options available.

****************************************

Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

Hawking is in the league of Einstien and is not someone I or jcarl, are equipped to effectively dispute.

For more of these quotes on the subject see the string entitled "N----->(+s)+(-s) under Physics and Math)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by MacM
Saying your belief can stand up to the hardest of attacks in not the same as saying your belief is valid or true.

Very true.

If you cannot answer actual bonafide questions about your belief in God then your belief is hollow and your continued faith is not a sign of the correctness of your faith, it is a sign of your obstinance and inability to accept obvious flaws in the concept that you support.

Not necessarily, there are many unanswered questions in the realm of science. One of the most pertinent is; "Where did it all come from?". Yet scientists still continue with the scientific method - they still have their faith in science. Our whole existence is built on faith, observation, and science. According to you, this is all hollow. Non-existent existence.

This question is based on the following assumptions:

1 - You claim your God is the creator of everything.

[...]

If God was the creator of time and space just where and how did he create himself before he created time and space and how could he have created time and space before he created himself?

Any scenario you propose results in Creation ex nihilo which doesn't require a God, so why add the middle man which still doesn't resolve the basic issue of origin of existance?

Ahhh, but why not add the middle man? It may take us closer yet. Isn't that how the concept of infinity arose? Isn't that how problems are solved in human situations? In math especially. If you have a problem with something; invent! That's how 'what's his name' came up with the concept of the neutrino, that's how Hawking came up with virtual particles. That's why there's dark matter and dark energy. You see a hole, you plug it. You just have to invent a plug which is the right shape, size, and composition. Okham's hypothesis is not very easily applied to the unknown. For example; the origin of existence. In fact, it is beginning to seem that you cannot avoid complexity.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Quote from MarcAC:

"Not necessarily, there are many unanswered questions in the realm of science. One of the most pertinent is; "Where did it all come from?". Yet scientists still continue with the scientific method - they still have their faith in science. Our whole existence is built on faith, observation, and science. According to you, this is all hollow. Non-existent existence."

Now, there is a good response! However, I should think that such philosophers and theologians as many of you surely are, would have thought of it all by yourselves.

I have to wonder............if man becoming so disconnected with nature that he no longer can feel the spirit of his creator? Is what we call progess, making modern man feel unrealistically invincible? Are there just too many busy pictures in his undeveloped mind, and too much opportunity for incessant vocalizing, for him to ever hear God speak?

Not long ago I heard that man uses only a small percentage of his brain, does this information not cause him to pause before he defies the existance of God? Apparently not.

Could a sign from the Almighty make these wizards hush for a moment and listen? Do you think?

Then what sign would that be? They who so easily believe man, ...what would God have to do? Well, it would have to be something that could not be explained away? But then, if it were sufficient to leave a man with no doubt, then how long before someone might come and haul him away, or worse yet, laugh at him, belittle him, or still worse, ignore his existance?

Man tends to exalt himself. No God does he need, just men with ideas, just books that will confirm his vain thoughts. Because, he has already convinced himself there is no need of a God he cannot prove, and he makes sure that he keeps his head filled with things that can be proven. Is this correct? He thinks so, because those people who claim knowledge that God exists are not too bright. Of course, that's it. That is it, because this man that enjoys being smarter than any higher power believes it is right!

I am really very patient, and I love people regardless of their persuasions. I belong to no church, nor do I think that I am a better person than any of you. It just amazes me that you so much fun in quibbling carelessly, and entirely disrespectfully, toward any who would return the challenge, and even to those who would not, -like me. Believe what you will, but that is not good.

PMT

 

[Quantum Quack]

MacM, Thanks again for your thoughts.

In some ways I liken the universe to a large Bolt with a nut on it.

When you tighten the nut to the bolt to the maximum so that the head of the bolt and the nut are in tension. The bolt and the nut are one but in a state of zero duality.

The force of the nut and the head of the bolt are under incredible tension but hold as a single unit. The tension is effectively neutralised by the equality of opposing forces.

Outwardly we see none of the tension but we do know that the tension exists.

We take our nut and bolt and we fling it out into deep space for it to travel for ever, always in a state of oneness as a duality.

AS long as time exists the nut and bolt are one and yet dual and as long as the nut an bolt exist space and time exist.

Vacant space could be said to be in the same state, a duality of time, past and future, a duality of distance none and all, a duality of dimensions 2+t and 3+t. all in a state of equalibrium tension.

When this tension of space is buckled the tension is released in the form of static energy. As the dualities are infinite but in a state of equalibrium the energy potential ( mass potential ) is also infinite but because of the desire for balance the infinite is never really able to achieve full potential ( except maybe as an absolute singularity...which would see the entire destruction of the universe)

With our nut and bolt scenario, if someone finds this nut and bolt and attempts to tighten it a little more the head of the bolt will break and all this tension will create the energy to propell the head of the bolt away from the nut. Thus the duality ceases to exist ( the universe dissappears)