Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is a question that I have been asked more times than I can count... Where did God come from? He couldn't have always been here, so where did he come from? Well lets think about this:

We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end. But why does God have to be? Remove time from the equation. This is eternity, no beginning and no end, and this is, I believe, where God resides.


Debate please.

Who says he exists in the first place?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Who says he exists in the first place?

Exactly. Saying that God "resides in" the universe, or is the universe, feels wonderful and all...but it's equivalent to saying that a god doesn't exist. If everything is the ineffable divine, nothing is, and it's just a needlessly mystical title for deterministic physical forces.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Who says he exists in the first place?

Touche'. I did, however neglected to add the words "IF there is a God" into the "Where did he come from" statement. my apologies.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Exactly. Saying that God "resides in" the universe, or is the universe, feels wonderful and all...but it's equivalent to saying that a god doesn't exist. If everything is the ineffable divine, nothing is, and it's just a needlessly mystical title for deterministic physical forces.

Elaborate, please.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
This is a question that I have been asked more times than I can count... Where did God come from? He couldn't have always been here, so where did he come from? Well lets think about this:

We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end. But why does God have to be? Remove time from the equation. This is eternity, no beginning and no end, and this is, I believe, where God resides.


Debate please.

To discuss this meaningfully you have to decide on what God is. Once you have decided what version of God you're using the answer is already set.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC



Elaborate, please.

His position is pretty clear. You should ask a more specific question

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
This is a question that I have been asked more times than I can count... Where did God come from? He couldn't have always been here, so where did he come from? Well lets think about this:

We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end. But why does God have to be? Remove time from the equation. This is eternity, no beginning and no end, and this is, I believe, where God resides.


Debate please.

The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal. you speak in riddles. all that does is confuse people. it enlightens no one, except maybe your deranged self. come back when ur not speaking in tongues

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
This is a question that I have been asked more times than I can count... Where did God come from? He couldn't have always been here, so where did he come from? Well lets think about this:

We are constrained by time, everything has a beginning, every thing has an end. But why does God have to be? Remove time from the equation. This is eternity, no beginning and no end, and this is, I believe, where God resides.


Debate please.

It would seem that we cannot see the forest for the trees.

God is everywhere. You cannot be separate from God, because you are part of God. The universe is a living being that you are a part of.

This is simply my personal belief. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would seem that we cannot see the forest for the trees.

God is everywhere. You cannot be separate from God, because you are part of God. The universe is a living being that you are a part of.

This is simply my personal belief. I could be wrong. uh are you saying existance is god? thats a logical paradox to me. to me id say that the universe itself is god. it has always been. makes a shitload more sense than someone who is supposedly all powerful, yet needs 6 days to create the planet. never mentions the universe. who provides humans with the fasade of free will. honestly i bet the writer of the bible wrote all that as a joke. and it worked.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
uh are you saying existance is god? thats a logical paradox to me. to me id say that the universe itself is god. it has always been. makes a shitload more sense than someone who is supposedly all powerful, yet needs 6 days to create the planet. never mentions the universe. who provides humans with the fasade of free will. honestly i bet the writer of the bible wrote all that as a joke. and it worked.

If you think about it;
1. The universe created us. It create all the stars and planets and life. The universe created all of this by coming into existence.
2. We have free will, and we have that because we are alive.
3. One day the universe will destroy us. It's billions of years into the future, but the sun will die. Even further into the future, the universe my rip its self apart, and us with it.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
uh are you saying existance is god? thats a logical paradox to me. to me id say that the universe itself is god. it has always been. makes a shitload more sense than someone who is supposedly all powerful, yet needs 6 days to create the planet. never mentions the universe. who provides humans with the fasade of free will. honestly i bet the writer of the bible wrote all that as a joke. and it worked.

Who says God NEEDED 6 days? Maybe God just wanted to make it in six days. And, as I have said before, what is a God day? To us, a day is 24 hours, one rotation of this planet. Were someone on Mercury a day would be approx. 58 earth days, the time of one rotation of that planet. So, as far as we know, a day to God could be .25 seconds or 25,000 years.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal.

He speaks the truth.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
He couldn't have always been here
Why not?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you think about it;
1. The universe created us. It create all the stars and planets and life. .


but what created the universe?

and what created the creator of the universe?


it just goes on and on.

Humans have to feel important and like everything connected to them (because they put themselves above all other forms of life) must be interwoven into some grand scheme by an all mighty creator who bestowed them with the power to use "rational" logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you think about it;
1. The universe created us. It create all the stars and planets and life. The universe created all of this by coming into existence.
2. We have free will, and we have that because we are alive.
3. One day the universe will destroy us. It's billions of years into the future, but the sun will die. Even further into the future, the universe my rip its self apart, and us with it.
That's all natural. Why bother associating it with a primitive notion like God. The universe could just be the universe and nothing in your system is changed by calling it God.

Originally posted by Mindship
Why not?


Causation presupposes both existence and time

Originally posted by GGS
Causation presupposes both existence and time Kindly elaborate as to why this means God had to have a beginning.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's all natural. Why bother associating it with a primitive notion like God. The universe could just be the universe and nothing in your system is changed by calling it God.

That is the best part. It makes God real.

Originally posted by ScarletSpeed
but what created the universe?

and what created the creator of the universe?


it just goes on and on.

However, that is not important.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the best part. It makes God real.
It doesn't make anything. You took the universe and called it God. This changes nothing. You have merely taken a very real, tangible thing, and given it the name of superstition. Your "God" is the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Why you would choose to apply the name God to it is beyond me.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal.

what are you basing all this on, do you have any context for any of this? logically, eternity and infinity are unsolvable concepts. logically, there is no reason t beleive that there was a first cause, because it poses the logical riddle, "what caused the first cause" and if you attempt to answer"nothing" than it becomes illogical as logic depends on deductive reason whic depends on the evidence seen in the world and its extrapolations which doesnt show anything which came about without a cause. what you have written is an illogical copout to try and force an answer out of the logically unsolvable mysteries proposed by eternity etc.

just saying that it isnt an argument. also, if god can exist without a cause, then so can the fundamental content which creates universe/s.

Originally posted by Mindship
Kindly elaborate as to why this means God had to have a beginning.

I don't as i don't believe in the different holy books description of God

Either God follows the restrictions and logical fallacies placed upon it in the books or obviously the books are lying and works of fiction.

and it doesn't and has no restrictions thus where's the need to make different restrictions in different books.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what are you basing all this on, do you have any context for any of this? logically, eternity and infinity are unsolvable concepts. logically, there is no reason t beleive that there was a first cause, because it poses the logical riddle, "what caused the first cause" and if you attempt to answer"nothing" than it becomes illogical as logic depends on deductive reason whic depends on the evidence seen in the world and its extrapolations which doesnt show anything which came about without a cause. what you have written is an illogical copout to try and force an answer out of the logically unsolvable mysteries proposed by eternity etc.

just saying that it isnt an argument. also, if god can exist without a cause, then so can the fundamental content which creates universe/s.

>> What you seem not to have here is a basic sense of logic. You cannot pose the question "what caused the first cause" because logically the first cause MUST BE UNCAUSABLE . If the first cause was able to be caused, the it was not the first cause. Logically, there cannot be effects or other signs of causation without, once again, a first uncausable cause. And on your point of having no evidence you are simply ignoring the vast amount of evidence at your feet. All caused things are evidence of an uncausable first cause, all created things are evidence of an uncreatable creator, and all motion is evidence of a unmovable first mover, so there is plenty of evidence; you just choose to ignore it. On your point of universes, I am curious to know exactly what you are referring to with "the fundamental content which creates universe/s"

THE OLD DID THE EGG OR THE CHICKEN COME FIRST QUESTION UNSOLVABLE SINCE THE 'START' OF TIME.



LOL

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> What you seem not to have here is a basic sense of logic. You cannot pose the question "what caused the first cause" because logically the first cause MUST BE UNCAUSABLE . If the first cause was able to be caused, the it was not the first cause. Logically, there cannot be effects or other signs of causation without, once again, a first uncausable cause. And on your point of having no evidence you are simply ignoring the vast amount of evidence at your feet. All caused things are evidence of an uncausable first cause, all created things are evidence of an uncreatable creator, and all motion is evidence of a unmovable first mover, so there is plenty of evidence; you just choose to ignore it. On your point of universes, I am curious to know exactly what you are referring to with "the fundamental content which creates universe/s"

lmao, not really my friend. im not the one lacking logic here, YOU are.
simply creating a semantically correct word does not mean anything in itself as long as the concept that word or phrase is trying to convey has no coeherent/consistant meaning. so simply because you say "FIRST CAUSE" doesnt mean first cause EXISTS. its like saying a "square circle exists".

ALL we see in observable reality is already CAUSED things causing other things. we NEVER see an UNCAUSED thing becoming a cause for other things. such a phenomenon doesnt exist and has never been observed. hence you cant use the argument, "everything is caused therefore there must a an uncaused cause" simply because an UNCAUSED "CAUSE" is a self contradictory concept which is logically impossible and never seen in the world. it is a sensless semantically correct statement which is a copout. the real reason we come up with such concepts is because eternity is a concept{as well as infinity} which is about impossible to be worked with in a logic. the chain of cause and effect reaches back into eternity and as a result becomes OBSCURED. that is why we try to impose a {supposedly} comprehendable rationale which is an uncaused cause{which infact is worse since an UNCAUSED cause is an ultimate contradiction in itself}. in reality, there is no such thing and the universe/reality has existed in one form or another forever and there are an infinite number of CAUSED causes in this eternal past, which becomes incomprehendable to us.

what you have mentioned is actually evidence AGAINST your argument. all CAUSED thing are eidence AGAINST an UNcaused cause, all CREATED things are evidence AGAINST an UNcreated creator, and all moved things are evidence AGAINST an UNmoved mover.

what i mean by the fundamental contents of the universe is the STUFF{although not matter or energy or necessarily any physical phenomenon we recognise in our universe} which was transition before the universe{or in a higher dimensional contect if time didnt exist } and turned into the universe and continues to transition as the universe dies and turns into sumthing new. basically, how we say that all forces are actually just aspect of one force{grand unification} and matter may be just curved cpase etc, we are referring to more anf more fundamental building blocks, in context of the universe itself, there are fundamental building blocks{which we havent recognised yet but obviously consist of all around us} which would have been the CAUSE of the big bang etc, but wudnt be exempt from the chain of causation itself.

basically, my point is that all we see in real life are not things so much as being CREATED or destroyed. but merely TRANSITIONING and changing from one form to another. the entire universe is like this. things dont merely come into existance from nothing and dont disappear into nothing. matter changes into energy, energy changes into matter, form changes into other form, etc etc.

Originally posted by GGS
I don't as i don't believe in the different holy books description of God
Understood. Thanks.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, not really my friend. im not the one lacking logic here, YOU are.
simply creating a semantically correct word does not mean anything in itself as long as the concept that word or phrase is trying to convey has no coeherent/consistant meaning. so simply because you say "FIRST CAUSE" doesnt mean first cause EXISTS. its like saying a "square circle exists".

ALL we see in observable reality is already CAUSED things causing other things. we NEVER see an UNCAUSED thing becoming a cause for other things. such a phenomenon doesnt exist and has never been observed. hence you cant use the argument, "everything is caused therefore there must a an uncaused cause" simply because an UNCAUSED "CAUSE" is a self contradictory concept which is logically impossible and never seen in the world. it is a sensless semantically correct statement which is a copout. the real reason we come up with such concepts is because eternity is a concept{as well as infinity} which is about impossible to be worked with in a logic. the chain of cause and effect reaches back into eternity and as a result becomes OBSCURED. that is why we try to impose a {supposedly} comprehendable rationale which is an uncaused cause{which infact is worse since an UNCAUSED cause is an ultimate contradiction in itself}. in reality, there is no such thing and the universe/reality has existed in one form or another forever and there are an infinite number of CAUSED causes in this eternal past, which becomes incomprehendable to us.



Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?



How? If something is caused something had to cause it, eventually you have to follow this back to something that wasn't caused... it just was there already... If something is created then something had to create it, once again, you follow this to something that WASN'T created... it was just there already...

Originally posted by King Kandy
It doesn't make anything. You took the universe and called it God. This changes nothing. You have merely taken a very real, tangible thing, and given it the name of superstition. Your "God" is the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Why you would choose to apply the name God to it is beyond me.
That is because you have superstition attached to the word God. That is something I do not have. I use the word God to convey an iconic idea. This thought is not an absolute, and if you wish to not see the point, then you are free to. I could use the words "Mystic Law", but most people would not understand. I use words that people can understand even though it maybe difficult for them.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
...it just was there already... The simplest proposition.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?



How? If something is caused something had to cause it, eventually you have to follow this back to something that wasn't caused... it just was there already... If something is created then something had to create it, once again, you follow this to something that WASN'T created... it was just there already...

nowhere, the chain of cause and affect goes back eternally where i becomes obscure.

no you dont, there is no reason to do so because to introduce an UNCAUSED cause is a contradiction and a paradox. if EVERYTHING has to be caused then how can there EXIST sumthing which ISNT caused{your conception of UNcaused cause}. read my argument, its all there. and lastly, recognise the contradiction in your own stance, if you say that everuthing had to be created by sumthing then who created the first thing???? {your answer wud be that it always existed}. but then cudnt i just as easily say that the universe or this reality always existed?
why does this eternal existance have to be GOD, or your SPECIFIC conceptiion of god?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nowhere, the chain of cause and affect goes back eternally where i becomes obscure.

no you dont, there is no reason to do so because to introduce an UNCAUSED cause is a contradiction and a paradox. if EVERYTHING has to be caused then how can there EXIST sumthing which ISNT caused{your conception of UNcaused cause}. read my argument, its all there. and lastly, recognise the contradiction in your own stance, if you say that everuthing had to be created by sumthing then who created the first thing???? {your answer wud be that it always existed}. but then cudnt i just as easily say that the universe or this reality always existed?
why does this eternal existance have to be GOD, or your SPECIFIC conceptiion of god?
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

How the **** did that prove anything?

I just feel like I got dumber reading this topic.

Trans' definition of God is self-actualizing. It doesn't prove anything, but simply uses circular logic to presume the existence of such a god.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The logical definition of God is something that fulfills the requirement of being the first point of causation, creation, and motion. Logically for effect to exist, there must be a first; uncausable, cause. For all things created there must be an uncreateable Creator, and for all things to be in motion, there must be an immovable first mover. Logically something with the qualities of God must exist: uncreatable, uncausable, and immovable, therefore eternal.

...statements like these A. assume God's characteristics, rather than allowing for alternative definitions to be possibilities, B. assumes that something exists outside causality, which is logically impossible. The statement that it is logical for something like god to exist (after it assumes god's characteristics, no less) is laughable, because it defies all logic. At that point, saying that God transcends our rational faculties is fine for those of faith, but it does little for those who won't blindly accept something so preposterous.

Matter can be thought of as eternal on a macroscopic level, and time as we understand it breaks down into meaninglessness at the singularity point of the Big Bang. Perhaps the eternal substance is not a mythical god thought up in the ancient Middle East, but the universe itself. And if one really must believe in a preceding cause, we have the creation of energy from nothing at the quantum level, and similarly a disappearance of energy into nothingness. Not only does it give us a means by which the universe could have been created from nothing, but it remains within the confines of our logical faculties and has been directly observed.

Apply Occam's Razor to those two hypotheses. It still remains a possibility that some causality-defying deity exists and created the universe, but it remains exceedingly unlikely and a matter of blind faith, not reason.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
Ok, now explain this to me... you are saying that everything has to have a cause... so where does it all start?

An excellent question. God ends the discussion for those of faith, yet does nothing to address the central problem of a being with no preceding cause. One either gets into an infinite loop of regressive causality since each "god" would need an even more transcendant god to create it....or you set aside logic and assume that your God is eternal and without prior cause. Again, comforting from an existential perspective since it "settles" the matter, but it really makes little sense.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

no to all the above. the universe does not have the qualities of YOUR definition of god. now, since you agree that nuthing in the universe has these properties, then you will also agree with me that neither you not any1 ense has hence SEEN or observed anything with the said properties{since everything we can observe is inside the universe}, seeing as you havent, then what makes you think that such properties exist to begin with?????? what can be taken as evidence{and all evidence is inside this universe} for the existance of such properties????

simple answer is, nothing can.all you are doing is speculating without reason or evidence about what MAY be present outside this universe{for which nuthing that you can observe can be used as evidence, and evrything that CAN be observed denies the existance of the outlandish properties for god you are coming up with}, that is a fools errand and completely illogical.

Use your logic arguments against Quantum Mechanics.

^what about quantum mechanics?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is the universe immovable?
Is it uncausable?
Is it uncreatable?
(Hint: it is not)
And therefore the universe cannot be that something with the qualities of God; as much as you wish it to be.

The "qualities of God" are man made. There is no god outside of the universe. In other words, we humans invented god to explain the parts of reality that we cannot understand. This is still a valid way of looking at reality, but we must not loose sight of the fact that we created the idea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The "qualities of God" are man made. There is no god outside of the universe. In other words, we humans invented god to explain the parts of reality that we cannot understand.

There's actually a fair amount of both philosophy and science to back these claims. Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" talks about your points as much of its central thesis.

It focuses not so much on "Is there a god?" but upon how the concept of God arose in our species and culture, and what purposes it serves from an evolutionary and cultural perspective.

DigiMark007-

Let me ask you a question: does the Einstein's theory of relativity predict and/or postulate causality "outside" length, width, space, and time? Before you answer, keep in mind, that Einstein's theory of relativity, has been tested exhaustively and remains the most proven theory in ALL scientific inquiry--so strong in fact, that many scientists have contested that the theory of "relativity" be dubbed, "law!" What is your response?

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Let me ask you a question: does the Einstein's theory of relativity predict and/or postulate causality "outside" length, width, space, and time? Before you answer, keep in mind, that Einstein's theory of relativity, has been tested exhaustively and remains the most proven theory in ALL scientific inquiry--so strong in fact, that many scientists have contested that the theory of "relativity" be dubbed, "law!" What is your response?

Sigh, plenty of things in science and mathematics are called "laws." They exist that way under those circumstances. Even math is not definite. If you took basic Calculus you should be familiar with intervals.

It is a way for men to give a standard way to research and explain the world.

Stop trying to twist science into something mystic.

No pun intended, but you are a moron.

first off, quantum mechanics is the theory which is the most proven theory in all scientific history. secondly, einstiens theory is not COMPLETE since it breaks down at zero distances which exist singularities. reletivity does not directly postulate anything OUTSIDE space and time as it only applies TO space and time. its predictive powers hence break down at zero distances. it is only a law in the confines of macroscopic non zero value space and time. this is also why it doesnt perfectly reconcile with quantum mechanics, or atleats one of the reasons.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

No insult intended, but it takes one to know one.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

isnt that more insulting?

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

You sir, are an ignoramus.

Generally, I ignore your post. You prove nothing. You insult everyone who disagrees, yet you can't tell anyone WHY they are incorrect.

Originally posted by chithappens
You sir, are an ignoramus.

Generally, I ignore your post. You prove nothing. You insult everyone who disagrees, yet you can't tell anyone WHY they are incorrect.

He is a good Christian.

i'm majoring in Biology, and the more we dwell into macro/microevolution, the more i believe in a higher being exists.

scientists like Richard Dawkins are apparently breaking down the existence of this so called "God", yet 'The God Delusion' is one of the most shallow books ive ever read. It's informative and very interesting, but very shallow and doesnt really answer much.

Dawkins makes Humans seem like primitive creatures. Yes, we are simply metazoans but we are very complex compared to other tetrapods. Birds compute music and unique sounds, dogs learn tricks and have terratorial behaviors, bats have a great sense of smell like most mammals, but when it comes to humans, we have adept capabilities which are infinite.

whenver a professor is asked how something like this could have happened? they either say the universe created it or it happened at random. they say, i'ts based on what you believe.

the term random really 'grinds my gears' (family guy for those that love teh show). random refers to something that doesn't have an aim or a goal, then why does it occur? where's the origin?

same with the term 'evolve'. scientists say that there is no progression or goal. then why evolve in teh first place? to adapt?

i love Biology and the whole field of science, but some things just can't be explained. i could care less if somone believes in a higher being or not. i say morality is more important than religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

There's no pun in that statement.

What exactly have "you" said? I am simply attempting to sift through all the "intellectual snobbery" on this thread! Do you deny the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity? Insult has nothing to do with this, but "objectivity" does!

Are you an infant?

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
scientists like Richard Dawkins are apparently breaking down the existence of this so called "God", yet 'The God Delusion' is one of the most shallow books ive ever read. It's informative and very interesting, but very shallow and doesnt really answer much.

*clap clap clap*

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
same with the term 'evolve'. scientists say that there is no progression or goal. then why evolve in teh first place? to adapt?

Adaptation is the whole point. Things don't evolve for a reason they evolve because that is simply the way it happens.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
i could care less if somone believes in a higher being or not. i say morality is more important than religion.



Unfortunately that position isn't allowed around here.

Originally posted by ushomefree
What exactly have "you" said? I am simply attempting to sift through all the "intellectual snobbery" on this thread! Do you deny the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity? Insult has nothing to do with this, but "objectivity" does!

Are you an infant?

Why not talk about something relevant rather than using giant text and pointless tangents you desperately hope will confuse others?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What exactly have "you" said? I am simply attempting to sift through all the "intellectual snobbery" on this thread! Do you deny the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity?

The only thing you said was that it was maybe going to be called a "law." Nothing about that makes it "objective" in the sense you are trying to define.

You are making everything difficult.

You don't understand the "simple" and that's what is making things "complex".

chithappens-

Do you respect scientific inquiry, not to mention the progress of knowledge over the past 40 to 60 years?

chithappens-

This is not a trick question, bro!

I assume people takes showers? That's ok right?

Anyways, science is simply a way men understand the world and gives a way in which we all can communicate this understanding.

There are various examples of scientific theory being proven incorrect and then it is replaced by the theory that corrected it.

That being said, I am not even questioning Einstein. But it is completely within reason that it will one day be replaced with a more efficient way to understand the paradigm.

The word "god" came from a primitive people and it carrieed on. To use the word god in a different since, to some people, may be a universe/source, energy, it may be some form/spirit/ feelings.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The word "god" came from a primitive people and it carrieed on. To use the word god in a different since, to some people, may be a universe/source, energy, it may be some form/spirit/ feelings.

EINSTEIN WAS COOL FOR HIS TIME...

Oh and don't knock the man...............Id marry him....for sure!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*clap clap clap*



Adaptation is the whole point. Things don't evolve for a reason they evolve because that is simply the way it happens.





Unfortunately that position isn't allowed around here. yea but the ways populations adapt isn't explained either. they say it randomly occurs. i just find that hard to believe.

and were the claps sarcastic claps?

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
i'm majoring in Biology, and the more we dwell into macro/microevolution, the more i believe in a higher being exists.

scientists like Richard Dawkins are apparently breaking down the existence of this so called "God", yet 'The God Delusion' is one of the most shallow books ive ever read. It's informative and very interesting, but very shallow and doesnt really answer much.

Dawkins makes Humans seem like primitive creatures. Yes, we are simply metazoans but we are very complex compared to other tetrapods. Birds compute music and unique sounds, dogs learn tricks and have terratorial behaviors, bats have a great sense of smell like most mammals, but when it comes to humans, we have adept capabilities which are infinite.

whenver a professor is asked how something like this could have happened? they either say the universe created it or it happened at random. they say, i'ts based on what you believe.

the term random really 'grinds my gears' (family guy for those that love teh show). random refers to something that doesn't have an aim or a goal, then why does it occur? where's the origin?

same with the term 'evolve'. scientists say that there is no progression or goal. then why evolve in teh first place? to adapt?

i love Biology and the whole field of science, but some things just can't be explained. i could care less if somone believes in a higher being or not. i say morality is more important than religion.

when did dawkins DENY all that?

as for the last part, it occurs because random factors come together to make many things occur. in te COARSE of creating many thing, most things disintegrate from their original form, but a rare few, who have the properties which PROTECT them from disintegratin and help them reproduce and RETAIN their form survive over ther year, and as time passes, so does the number of such surviveable things increases, as such the number of surviveable things themselves becomes a factor influencing the survival of beings in the enviornment and therefore the best of the best survive {this is not due to any PURPOSE bestowed on them, it is simply due to things being formed from random and a rare few things which CAN randomly hold their form together over time, surviving the ages} and this process goes on and on and on and. it doesnt have a GOAL, it is simply survival of those things, which by chance, got the properties necessary for surviving and keeping their form intact{reproduction being perhaps the single most important such trait}. and these are what you see today, or so the theory goes. no purpose, no founder, no goal, just the simple matter of those randomly made things, which cud survive, surviving. no grand scheme or greater being.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
when did dawkins DENY all that?

as for the last part, it occurs because random factors come together to make many things occur. in te COARSE of creating many thing, most things disintegrate from their original form, but a rare few, who have the properties which PROTECT them from disintegratin and help them reproduce and RETAIN their form survive over ther year, and as time passes, so does the number of such surviveable things increases, as such the number of surviveable things themselves becomes a factor influencing the survival of beings in the enviornment and therefore the best of the best survive {this is not due to any PURPOSE bestowed on them, it is simply due to things being formed from random and a rare few things which CAN randomly hold their form together over time, surviving the ages} and this process goes on and on and on and. it doesnt have a GOAL, it is simply survival of those things, which by chance, got the properties necessary for surviving and keeping their form intact{reproduction being perhaps the single most important such trait}. and these are what you see today, or so the theory goes. no purpose, no founder, no goal, just the simple matter of those randomly made things, which cud survive, surviving. no grand scheme or greater being. i never said he denyed it, i was trying to say he didn't go further into it. he was very shallow.

and that's my main problem. it's just really hard putting all the 'randomness' together. you're repeating some of the stuff that i already mentioned.

i just think all things need an origin, and not to occur randomly.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
yea but the ways populations adapt isn't explained either. they say it randomly occurs. i just find that hard to believe.

Random action can have an organized result without intelligence involved (shaking a box full of loose string quickly produces knots). When constraints are added in the form of environmental factors the random events that influence evolution effectively become organized.

As I understand it each step of evolution (the production of a child from a mix of genetic material) is random but exists within constraints that determine what actual evolves.

Just by way of example. Here is the Chaos Game:

1. Take 3 points in a plane, and form a triangle
2. Randomly select any point inside the triangle and move half the distance from that point to any of the 3 vertex points. Plot the current position.
3. Repeat from step 2.

Every selection is random and can be performed without any intelligence but due to the constrains on the system the result is very much organized. Obviously in the case of the Chaos Game there is an end result but it's a nice visual metaphor.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
and were the claps sarcastic claps?

Not at all.

^ but the majority of the universe after the big bang was created randomly{even if you dont beleive the big band itself was random}, the major reason why we dont have a vaccine for the flue is due to observable random mutations of the virus, the major reason why companies are putting billions into anti biotic research is due to the fact that germs change and evolve so rapidly, the main reason there are different "races" of people is due to natural selection{unless you wish to say otherwise}, the corellation between geographical/neutritional/enviornmental barries and the type of flaura and fauna present is not only well understoof but vividly displayed in nature and can be seen by any1, the awesome similarities between multiple species and the PROGRESSIONAL trends in the types of specied present in the world also allude to the fact of common ancestors and macroevolution. not to mention the richness of evidence in the fossil record. now my question to you, barring all debates about evidence against evolution to you would be "WHY do you think all these very visible trends and evidence would be present in a creationist world view where there is nothing to promot such trends? is god merely playing a deceptive joke on us in placing these things in exactly the way which would elude to evolution????"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is because you have superstition attached to the word God.
That's because, as a religious concept, god is superstition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is something I do not have. I use the word God to convey an iconic idea.
"The Universe" is even more well known... why not just use that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I could use the words "Mystic Law", but most people would not understand.
Since all you describe is the universe, why do you try to apply different terms to it? It would be like me calling everything by it's scientific name, and then saying people could understand it easier that way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I use words that people can understand even though it maybe difficult for them.
All you describe is the universe... you think you are simplifying things but actually you are complicating them.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
The word "god" came from a primitive people and it carrieed on. To use the word god in a different since, to some people, may be a universe/source, energy, it may be some form/spirit/ feelings.
It came from a primitive source, it is primitive. Don't you think we should try and phase out such unenlightened ideas?

Originally posted by King Kandy
"The Universe" is even more well known... why not just use that?

Probably because the connotation and implied meaning are totally different.

Originally posted by King Kandy
All you describe is the universe... you think you are simplifying things but actually you are complicating them.

You're really the one complicating them by taking the effort to not understand him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It came from a primitive source, it is primitive. Don't you think we should try and phase out such unenlightened ideas?

Like wheels?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Like wheels?
No, I wasn't saying that it was primitive because it came from a primitive source... those were two different points. I should have used a period instead of a comma.

Lulz at whoever brought Dawkins up out of nowhere. Random book critique ftw!@

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Let me ask you a question: does the Einstein's theory of relativity predict and/or postulate causality "outside" length, width, space, and time? Before you answer, keep in mind, that Einstein's theory of relativity, has been tested exhaustively and remains the most proven theory in ALL scientific inquiry--so strong in fact, that many scientists have contested that the theory of "relativity" be dubbed, "law!" What is your response?

Well, this covers the basics pretty well:

Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off, quantum mechanics is the theory which is the most proven theory in all scientific history. secondly, einstiens theory is not COMPLETE since it breaks down at zero distances which exist singularities. reletivity does not directly postulate anything OUTSIDE space and time as it only applies TO space and time. its predictive powers hence break down at zero distances. it is only a law in the confines of macroscopic non zero value space and time. this is also why it doesnt perfectly reconcile with quantum mechanics, or atleats one of the reasons.

So basically, it's only a partial theory, but quantum theory is partial as well. Both are valid in their respective areas (sub-atomic and macrocosmic, respectively), but have yet to be reconciled.

Beyond that, we weren't discussing Einstein. His work, while scientifically important, has nothing to do with the point I made; That being the creation and destruction of energy/matter from nothing at subatomic levels, which gives us a valid way that the universe can exist that is both within causality and the realm of observational science, and doesn't need a logic-defying deity to do it.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No pun intended, but you are a moron.

Insults? I'd say you're above that, but you generally aren't. If you're going to attempt to preach to us, at least try to hold yourself to the standards of the religion you espouse. Nothing engenders people ignoring you like hypocrisy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Lulz at whoever brought Dawkins up out of nowhere. Random book critique ftw!@



Well, this covers the basics pretty well:



So basically, it's only a partial theory, but quantum theory is partial as well. Both are valid in their respective areas (sub-atomic and macrocosmic, respectively), but have yet to be reconciled.

Beyond that, we weren't discussing Einstein. His work, while scientifically important, has nothing to do with the point I made; That being the creation and destruction of energy/matter from nothing at subatomic levels, which gives us a valid way that the universe can exist that is both within causality and the realm of observational science, and doesn't need a logic-defying deity to do it.



Insults? I'd say you're above that, but you generally aren't. If you're going to attempt to preach to us, at least try to hold yourself to the standards of the religion you espouse. Nothing engenders people ignoring you like hypocrisy. digi thx for clearing up the diff between relativity and quantum mechanics for me. id been trying to get where they differed for a long time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It came from a primitive source, it is primitive. Don't you think we should try and phase out such unenlightened ideas?

Should we remove the the Medulla? After all, it is the most primitive part of the brain.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should we remove the the Medulla? After all, it is the most primitive part of the brain. i will be your test subject sir. can u make me think im a monkey pwease?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i will be your test subject sir. can u make me think im a monkey pwease?

Ala-ca-zam, presto, you now think like a monkey.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

3. One day the universe will destroy us. It's billions of years into the future, but the sun will die. Even further into the future, the universe my rip its self apart, and us with it.

Well I better start saving water and rationing food....

Originally posted by chickenlover98
digi thx for clearing up the diff between relativity and quantum mechanics for me. id been trying to get where they differed for a long time.

Relativity breaks down at the smallest levels. It only works for entities that are (roughly) > or = the size of an atom. Quantum Mechanics have little, if any bearing on large bodies and deal only with rogue subatomic occurrences.

Both match observational data but are considered incomplete because one cannot be applied to the realm of the other, and therefore there isn't a single common law that we can identify for all aspects of matter.

St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

I agree with you. However, were I differ is on the relationship between God and man. I do not believe that man is the reason the universe was formed. We are not the center of the universe. That is why the bible is wrong, in my opinion. However, the bible is just a book written by us, and we are a selfish animal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you. However, were I differ is on the relationship between God and man. I do not believe that man is the reason the universe was formed. We are not the center of the universe. That is why the bible is wrong, in my opinion. However, the bible is just a book written by us, and we are a selfish animal.

I think your argument would be credible if not for what is clearly an elevated status of humanity- however, human beings are part of creation like anything else and the "stewardship" concept is not one of mastery- we as beings are not Lords of the Manor but rather caretakers, trusted to protect the world we have been given...although, it is quite capable of lasting without us- a reminder of our being human, not god.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think your argument would be credible if not for what is clearly an elevated status of humanity- however, human beings are part of creation like anything else and the "stewardship" concept is not one of mastery- we as beings are not Lords of the Manor but rather caretakers, trusted to protect the world we have been given...although, it is quite capable of lasting without us- a reminder of our being human, not god.

Along with not believing that humans are the reason for creation, I do not believe that the Earth is important in anyway. We don't matter that much in the big picture.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Along with not believing that humans are the reason for creation, I do not believe that the Earth is important in anyway. We don't matter that much in the big picture.

I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.

If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

most people do not understand the contradiction they are introducing when they use the first cause argument. the chain of causality does lead back, but not to any necessary beginning. if you say that things have to be caused{not exempting anything from this} then the first cause also had to be CAUSED. otherwise, you may aswell say, the current things happening dont have to be caused and can just exist without cause. basically, it wud be logicall to say that the universe has existed in one form or another forever and the chain of causeality goes back into infinity where it gets obscured and we are unable to use logically analytic techniques on it. {which is why many are forced to think up of self negating concepts like first cause}.

also, the big band theory speaks of THIS specific universe, which also came FROM sumthing, and there is vast amounts of evidence suggesting physical things OUTSIDE this universe. so the big bang didnt have to come from a FIRST cause, but was merely an offshot of the chain of causality in different dimensions/universes.

i do not beleive the laws of nature, pre exist the big bang, they are unque to our universe and are different{dimensions/forces etc} in other universes.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i do not beleive the laws of nature, pre exist the big bang, they are unque to our universe and are different{dimensions/forces etc} in other universes.

I am sure they are.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.

If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.

even though im not christian or follow any real relgion, the way i deal with that problem is: "even if instead of atoms, entire planets r galaxies or even universes were our building blocks, we would still be the same US" our conciousness isnt dependant on the size of components just like a computers capacities are not dependant on the size of wires that make up its circuit. it is dependant on the MAP that the constituents create and the PATTERNS which form{which are identical no matter how big or small}, so really, there is no QUALITATIVE difference between us or giants or liliputians. it is the quality of our CONCIOUSNESS that is all important, whether we are made up of galaxies or whether we are small enough to live on atoms doesnt matter. and our conciousnesses have infinite potential for thought and creaticity and fealing and that is bigger than all the non sentient things in creation combined. either way, if we lived on atoms, wed call em planets, and if we were made of universes, wed call em atoms. doesnt matter, size continues in both the small and large direction infinitely, doesnt make a difference.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I am sure they are.

just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think the bigger picture, is lost to most people.

If we are looking at the bigger picture, then we realise how small a role the 80 or so years we spend on this Earth is, however, if you do choose to consider the bigger picture things like the "Problem of Evil" and such fall apart.

You make it sound like the bigger picture was something bad. As far as evil is concerned, from the bigger picture, it would be nice if we cared for each other, and got alone.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces. Which could explain many things we don't understand as of yet.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

2) Everything that exists depends on something else for existence. This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist. This could be God...

Paul Davies someone or other also pointed out that when the Big Bang happened, everything operated in adherence to the laws of Physics- he concluded that the laws of nature therefore pre-exist the Big Bang...and therefore everything...he said this means there must have been a lawmaker...i.e. God.

Aquinas was brilliant for his time, but unaware of current science that removes the need for a God-figure. And I'd agree that everything has a prior cause, which then makes the "uncaused" creator logically impossible. If one invokes causality as evidence for a creator, you can't abandon it as soon as it becomes convenient for your religious beliefs. To say that such an argument is intellectually inconsistent is being very generous.

And how are we to know that the laws of physics predated matter? Isn't it equally as possible that that existed as soon as matter/energy existed to adhere to them (or, actually, more likely)? To blindly assume the former is begging the question.

Ontological arguments offer, at best, inferential conclusions. They do not give direct experiential evidence of a transcendent reality anymore than empirical science does.

Originally posted by Mindship
Ontological arguments offer, at best, inferential conclusions. They do not give direct experiential evidence of a transcendent reality anymore than empirical science does.

Who's talking bout the ontological argument?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You make it sound like the bigger picture was something bad. As far as evil is concerned, from the bigger picture, it would be nice if we cared for each other, and got alone.

What I am saying, is in terms of the bigger picture in Christianity- the suffering we have in this life is nelegable based on the pleasure we gain for the rests of eternity, thus Problem of Evil, Suffering and so forth is irrelevant.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Aquinas was brilliant for his time, but unaware of current science that removes the need for a God-figure. And I'd agree that everything has a prior cause, which then makes the "uncaused" creator logically impossible. If one invokes causality as evidence for a creator, you can't abandon it as soon as it becomes convenient for your religious beliefs. To say that such an argument is intellectually inconsistent is being very generous.

And how are we to know that the laws of physics predated matter? Isn't it equally as possible that that existed as soon as matter/energy existed to adhere to them (or, actually, more likely)? To blindly assume the former is begging the question.

I think his point was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, it has to start with something which therefore, wasn't caused. To me, that is logical.

As for Davies, I don't know enough about it to argue it, just thought I'd through it in there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
just incase you were being sarcastic, the weakness of gravity and the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics as well as the twins paradox in reletivity all point to parallel universes with different dimensional arrangements and different types and reletive strengths of forces.

I don't do sarcasm.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...What I am saying, is in terms of the bigger picture in Christianity- the suffering we have in this life is nelegable based on the pleasure we gain for the rests of eternity, thus Problem of Evil, Suffering and so forth is irrelevant...

But the idea of heaven for human ghosts is part of this egotistical outlook we selfish animals hold on to. If there is a heaven, then it has everything in it that is in this world. It would have cats and dogs and trees and aliens. The idea of a separate heave is just a type of revenge made up by people who could find no other way to get back at the people who hurt them.

Poor person who is wronged by the powerful: "I can't get him back now, but I will go to heaven and he will go to hell"

This allows the person to get over the fact that they were wronged and powerless to change it. This belief gives them the power to live on, and have more children, and pass this idea on to them so they can cope with the wrongs of reality.

From my point of view: this life is heaven and hell.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Who's talking bout the ontological argument?
"First Cause" is classic OA.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the idea of heaven for human ghosts is part of this egotistical outlook we selfish animals hold on to. If there is a heaven, then it has everything in it that is in this world. It would have cats and dogs and trees and aliens. The idea of a separate heave is just a type of revenge made up by people who could find no other way to get back at the people who hurt them.

Poor person who is wronged by the powerful: "I can't get him back now, but I will go to heaven and he will go to hell"

This allows the person to get over the fact that they were wronged and powerless to change it. This belief gives them the power to live on, and have more children, and pass this idea on to them so they can cope with the wrongs of reality.

From my point of view: this life is heaven and hell.

I think its easy to say humans are egotistical, but there is no evidence to suggest we are not a special part of creation...albeit just a part.

Your argument would be good if all people took from their religious faith was a way to make up for problems they faced in this life- however, that isn't the case, indeed its a gross simplification of religion.

Originally posted by Mindship
"First Cause" is classic OA.
Is it?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think its easy to say humans are egotistical, but there is no evidence to suggest we are not a special part of creation...albeit just a part.

Your argument would be good if all people took from their religious faith was a way to make up for problems they faced in this life- however, that isn't the case, indeed its a gross simplification of religion.


Is it?

The most important thing that science has given the human race is perspective. We started off as the center of the universe, and now know we are just a small part in a very big universe.

It is only logical that religion should following in this path. The idea of self importance has lead to as much evil as good in the past. Also, remember I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is about living a winning life.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Is it?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
St Aquinas on this matter.

1) Everything in the universe has a cause, therefore it is logical that there is a chain of causes leading back to an Uncaused Causer. This "First Cause" if you like could be God. Or possibly the universe. Yet, we have seen according to the BBT the Universe also has a cause.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The most important thing that science has given the human race is perspective. We started off as the center of the universe, and now know we are just a small part in a very big universe.

It is only logical that religion should following in this path. The idea of self importance has lead to as much evil as good in the past. Also, remember I am a Buddhist, and Buddhism is about living a winning life.

I think your assuming the geocentric view and the homo-centric view. Regardless of the position of the Earth it doesn'st detract from the fundamental wonderous nature of every human life.

Originally posted by Mindship


How is that ontological? Explain to me please, im a little confused.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think your assuming the geocentric view and the homo-centric view. Regardless of the position of the Earth it doesn'st detract from the fundamental wonderous nature of every human life...

It would be the same for every life and non-life. I am not bringing human life down; I am bringing all life and non-life up to be equal in the big picture.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would be the same for every life and non-life. I am not bringing human life down; I am bringing all life and non-life up to be equal in the big picture.

Well, again I am not trying to diminish the importance of other parts of creation, simply that humans have a special role to play.

I assume you agree because I don't think that your average woodlice has the necessary understanding to meditate and achieve enlightenment.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think his point was that there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, it has to start with something which therefore, wasn't caused. To me, that is logical.

Something can come from nothingness. There's your uncaused entity. I agree that there can't be an infinite chain of causes, but God isn't the only conclusion, and it's actually a rather illogical one.

Like I said before, invoking causality to "prove" something with the characteristics of God, then discarding causality as soon as it fits a religion is patently silly.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, again I am not trying to diminish the importance of other parts of creation, simply that humans have a special role to play.

I assume you agree because I don't think that your average woodlice has the necessary understanding to meditate and achieve enlightenment.

I do not believe we have a special role. That is what I am talking about. Human nature makes us want to think we are special, when we are not.

Woodlice have their own enlightenment.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Something can come from nothingness. There's your uncaused entity. I agree that there can't be an infinite chain of causes, but God isn't the only conclusion, and it's actually a rather illogical one.

Like I said before, invoking causality to "prove" something with the characteristics of God, then discarding causality as soon as it fits a religion is patently silly.

Indeed, its a classic example of working backwards I suppose. We have a God...lets prove he's real. Which is ofcourse why the argument supposes he was the first cause.

However, you haven't said anything about the Contingent Being argument yet...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, you haven't said anything about the Contingent Being argument yet...

ok. Was I supposed to?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
ok. Was I supposed to?



I was just interested to hear what you had to say...innocent discussion thats all

Im not going to try and spring some sort of trap as other members might...lol.

k. Cool.



So what the hell's the Contingent Being argument? I've likely heard some variation of it, but most "arguments" go by various titles that I never bother to learn, or never hear in the first place.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
k. Cool.



So what the hell's the Contingent Being argument? I've likely heard some variation of it, but most "arguments" go by various titles that I never bother to learn, or never hear in the first place.

It was my number 2.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How is that ontological? Explain to me please, im a little confused. Ontological relates to the study of being. "First Cause" highlights how being might've began, if it is not eternal.

What were your impressions of the First Cause argument, if not ontological?

Originally posted by Mindship
Ontological relates to the study of being. "First Cause" highlights how being might've began, if it is not eternal.

What were your impressions of the First Cause argument, if not ontological?

Well, I always understood it like this:

Ontological: Argument to prove God exists because of our perception of him.

Cosmological: the universe has a cause, this cause was God.

So I don't see how the First Cause is Ontological.

Your use of ontological (small O) is needlessly confusing in the context of Arguments for the Existence of God.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, I always understood it like this:

Ontological: Argument to prove God exists because of our perception of him.

Cosmological: the universe has a cause, this cause was God.

So I don't see how the First Cause is Ontological.

Understood. You're seeing Ontology and Cosmology from a religious angle, whereas I was speaking more philosophically. From your perspective, then, "First Cause" would be more of a cosmological issue.

Scientifically, cosmology is the study of the material universe on the largest scale, asking the biggest questions. It relies on empirical evidence and logic. Ontology (as I understand it) is philosophical, relying heavily on logic.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It was my number 2.

Oh, ok. Didn't know it had a specific name. Thanks.

Though I disagree with it.

Everything that exists depends on something else for existence.

...so far, so good. I'm a determinist, so this doesn't clash with anything that we know and accept on a scientific basis.

This leads back to the conclusion that there must be one thing that everything depends on to exist. However, that thing does not depend on anything to exist.

....this is where it gets into trouble. If something doesn't depend on anything to exist, we've just discarded the rule (causality) that got us to this point in the first place. Accepting it invalidates the entire argument. It's using science and logic until the point where it stops being convenient for religion, then discarding them for an illogical conclusion. Which is an elaboration on a few of my earlier points. It's not a logically coherent argument and therefore devolves into the realm of blind faith.

...moving on.

This could be God...

To make this leap, we first need to accept the earlier premise, which I don't. Even if we did accept the earlier parts, we now make the transition from an uncaused entity to a uniquely Christian God. Granted, one could use this argument in an agnostic sense to attempt to prove some creative force that isn't the Christian deity. But it's nearly always trotted out to provide "evidence" for someone's religion. The logical gap between something (could be anything) and The God of the Bible (or any religion) is so large as to be preposterous as a rational argument. At best, it provides a passable argument for agnostics. At worst, it fails to provide a rational means for a creative force except by discarding reason for faith.

...

I don't want it to sound harsh. A lot of people justify themselves by similar means, and I'll concede that it's a possibility. I just see it as a remote and illogical one, and one that lacks any other evidence that a vague untestable hypothesis.

All of these salvos back and forth skirt around one fundamental issue -- either matter is eternal or Spirit is. If matter is eternal then the universe is only determined by impersonal physical laws and; consequently, our pretensions to consciousness, will, and conscience are puny and illusory. If Spirit is eternal, then the physical universe is ultimately determined by and reaches its full significance in the personal.

One might say it another way. Either the human heart in its yearning for love and meaning reveals something fundamental about the universe, namely, that those things exist as fundamental (if not always self-evident) realities, or our perceived dignity as human beings is a cosmic illusion.

I suppose this is an anthropic argument for the existence of a personal God. As such, many here will probably reject it. So be it. The human heart is ridiculous too, yet it exists.

I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity.

Um, why exactly does believing matter is eternal make us non-sentient? Furthermore, why can't both exist? Why does it have to be one or the other?

seeing things in an "either this or that" sense is not very wise, there are probably many other possiblities. If you think only spirit (ie energy) and matter exist and thats it ,then you have a very limited imagination.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This sentence really baffles me:
I believe in God because I cannot disbelieve in my own humanity
...you are a human being with morals and "humanity" regardless of whether or not God exists. It seems a weak proof for something that isn't directly linked to the question of the divine.

You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

It is your own self-interest that demands that you do the things like caring for others. The reason for this is simple: you cannot survive on your own.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is your own self-interest that demands that you do the things like caring for others. The reason for this is simple: you cannot survive on your own.

Survival is a meaningless construct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Survival is a meaningless construct.

I disagree. Survival is the driving force behind all living beings.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You'd first have to show any evidence for what you term "Spirit." Pointing to consciousness is really your only save there, and even that is suspect, at best, and many purely physical theories account for consciousness elegantly. No other substantial evidence exists to back such a claim.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely making an argument for my own belief. I suppose by Spirit, I mean disembodied sentience/will.


Originally posted by DigiMark007
The heart doesn't yearn for anything. It pumps blood, and regulates various bodily functions. You're likely referring to your mind. And if you think the heart's existence is preposterous, I'd hate to see what you think of far more complex organs in many species. Anyway, it's a product of evolution, which is completely off-topic. We have enough threads that devolve into evolutionary talk...we don't need another.


Actually the metaphorical "heart" of man isn't his mind. The Greeks and the Hebrews understood it as a separate faculty, one by which man not only contemplates the world, but also invests himself in it.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely making an argument for my own belief. I suppose by Spirit, I mean disembodied sentience/will.




Actually the metaphorical "heart" of man isn't his mind. The Greeks and the Hebrews understood it as a separate faculty, one by which man not only contemplates the world, but also invests himself in it.

But you are talking about something that does not exist. We do not have a soul or spirit.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

It's the old "where do you get your morals/meaning if you aren't religious?" argument. It's not really that hard. The fact that you can't fathom it speaks to an incomplete worldview more than anything. Acting humanely without a divine reference is not only possible, but just as rewarding as doing so within a religious framework. If existence is arbitrary and inherently pointless, we all create our own meaning. Some choose to do so through religion, which is an excellent way to appeal to the supernatural to remove the existential angst that flows from realizing our place in the universe. Others simply find meaning through other outlets.

And sentences like "maybe our humanity believes in us more than we do it" don't even begin to make rational sense. Mystical nonsense sounds wonderful when it isn't objectively critiqued. But be prepared to have others call shenanigans when you utter such silly phrases.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely making an argument for my own belief.

Good, because you provided no logical backing for it.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Actually the metaphorical "heart" of man isn't his mind. The Greeks and the Hebrews understood it as a separate faculty, one by which man not only contemplates the world, but also invests himself in it.

K. What does that have to do with my point? Your heart doesn't contemplate anything, nor does any organ besides the brain. Turn it into metaphor all you want...my point remains the same. However abstract you make it, you're talking about the mind and its workings, which is a product of evolution and a physical entity.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's the old "where do you get your morals/meaning if you aren't religious?" argument.

Well, almost. It's more like the "where do you even get the possibility of morality in a self-stated amoral universe without being religious?" argument.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Well, almost. It's more like the "where do you even get the possibility of morality in a self-stated amoral universe without being religious?" argument.


Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's not really that hard. The fact that you can't fathom it speaks to an incomplete worldview more than anything. Acting humanely without a divine reference is not only possible, but just as rewarding as doing so within a religious framework. If existence is arbitrary and inherently pointless, we all create our own meaning. Some choose to do so through religion, which is an excellent way to appeal to the supernatural to remove the existential angst that flows from realizing our place in the universe. Others simply find meaning through other outlets.

No sense in re-writing it.

srug

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Well, almost. It's more like the "where do you even get the possibility of morality in a self-stated amoral universe without being religious?" argument.

We humans invented religion in the first place.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree. Survival is the driving force behind all living beings.

And always ends in failure. Bit depressing, that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And always ends in failure. Bit depressing, that.

Really? We all seem to have survived over the last 3.5 billion years. Although we have changed from single celled organisms to humans and other animals, but we have survived.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
You're correct that I can act like a human being whether I believe in God 's existence or not. In fact, its a mercy that our conscience doesn't demand that a clear or consistent rationale be present before it prompts us to act. (Perhaps our humanity believes in us more than we do it). However, from a big-picture perpective, acting humanely without believing in a transcendent meaning to our humanity is ultimately absurd.

If there is a purely physical explanation for consciousness/sentience, then these things don't really exist as we undertand them to exist. Love, hope, courage, nobility, etc... are biochemical tricks our bodies play on us to help keep our cell tissues fed. That is why I argue that unless these acts have a transcendent referent, they are meaningless. If the universe is merely atoms bumping into one another, then what's the point of talking about justice, or caring for the poor, or loving your wife, or anything? You could never consciously or self-consistently aspire to anything more than your own self-interest.

but you are forgetting one very basic thing, if you do these things BECAUSE of a divine entity or FOR a divine entity, then these things als have no meaning as you dont do them sincerely for their own sake{i.e. by loving your wife, you are loving and serving god, not actually LOVING your wife, because love is selfless and directed at the PERSON your in love with and exist only for its own sake and not for the sake of sumthing else. basically you cant love a person sincerely to fulfill any OTHER end[i.e. pleasing or acting on god's morals} } also, isnt the fealing you get and others get as a result of your good actions in themselves, worth anything? are they not self evident and meaning enough for you to do those actions?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? We all seem to have survived over the last 3.5 billion years. Although we have changed from single celled organisms to humans and other animals, but we have survived.

But you won't survive. No individual survives.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you won't survive. No individual survives.

I don't understand what you are talking about. I am alive and therefore I have survived. Am I misunderstanding you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't understand what you are talking about. I am alive and therefore I have survived. Am I misunderstanding you?

Do you expect to remain in that state forever?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you expect to remain in that state forever?

Are you referring to the fact that all living things die? If so, then you should keep in mind that death is also a type of survival. If we did not die, we would never change, and if we never changed, then we could not survive on this planet.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If existence is arbitrary and inherently pointless, we all create our own meaning. Some choose to do so through religion, which is an excellent way to appeal to the supernatural to remove the existential angst that flows from realizing our place in the universe. Others simply find meaning through other outlets.


Oh well, DigiMark007, it appears there's nothing but false consciousness and repressed existential angst left for me from here on out...

"Creating your own meaning" sounds too much to me like crafting one's own private reality. But maybe that's just me. Also, how is it comforting or enobling to reflect that you've created a meaning for yourself that is as equally unreal as every other person's? Aren't you essentially saying that you've traded in a mass delusion for a private and self-inflicted one? Every code of honor, even a private one, only functions if the person believes that code to correspond with something higher than the self. Ultimately, we have to decide, whether these "higher" things exist or they don't. If they don't, all codes, private or otherwise, are a waste of the universe's indifferent time.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but you are forgetting one very basic thing, if you do these things BECAUSE of a divine entity or FOR a divine entity, then these things als have no meaning as you dont do them sincerely for their own sake{i.e. by loving your wife, you are loving and serving god, not actually LOVING your wife, because love is selfless and directed at the PERSON your in love with and exist only for its own sake and not for the sake of sumthing else. basically you cant love a person sincerely to fulfill any OTHER end

No, I do these things because of their intrinsic worth. The fact that I find "worth" in doing them is my argument that the universe is determined by a personal Good that belies the seeming indifference of physical laws.

The fact that you can love your wife, or your friend isn't an anomoly or a chemical accident, its a key to the meaning of everything.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
No, I do these things because of their intrinsic worth. The fact that I find "worth" in doing them is my argument that the universe is determined by a personal Good that belies the seeming indifference of physical laws.

The fact that you can love your wife, or your friend isn't an anomoly or a chemical accident, its a key to the meaning of everything.

Nothing happen by accident, but that does not mean there is some designer outside of our selves.

Talk about survival!

h7MuFDVEUro

Originally posted by ushomefree
Talk about survival!

I cannot see anything from youtube. It is blocked on my computer.

At work?

Originally posted by ushomefree
At work?

Can you give me a rundown of your point?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you give me a rundown of your point?

It was a bear fighting a mountain lion or something?

The Bear retreated.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It was a bear fighting a mountain lion or something?

The Bear retreated.

How is that Relevant? It's ok if you have no idea.

BTW thank you Grand_Moff_Gav.

The video has no "direct" relevance to the thread; but "indirectly," I simply thought it was interesting. The word "survival" was tossed around a few times, and I simply posted the video. Simple as that.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The video has no "direct" relevance to the thread; but "indirectly," I simply thought it was interesting. The word "survival" was tossed around a few times, and I simply posted the video. Simple as that.

Spamming a thread with irrelevant videos is fine, I guess.

I'm going to Burger King to get a double whopper w/ chess! Oh baby... here I come!!

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm going to Burger King to get a double whopper w/ chess! Oh baby... here I come!!

puke

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Oh well, DigiMark007, it appears there's nothing but false consciousness and repressed existential angst left for me from here on out...

"Creating your own meaning" sounds too much to me like crafting one's own private reality. But maybe that's just me. Also, how is it comforting or enobling to reflect that you've created a meaning for yourself that is as equally unreal as every other person's? Aren't you essentially saying that you've traded in a mass delusion for a private and self-inflicted one? Every code of honor, even a private one, only functions if the person believes that code to correspond with something higher than the self. Ultimately, we have to decide, whether these "higher" things exist or they don't. If they don't, all codes, private or otherwise, are a waste of the universe's indifferent time.

This is wrong on pretty much all counts. It's liberating to create meaning/happiness for oneself, regardless of one's personal ethos. That you can't see that is obvious, as is the fact that you warp my words to suit your own opinions, and so I won't belabor the point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And always ends in failure. Bit depressing, that.

The survival unit is the gene, not the organism, which copies itself admirably in most species. It's been a wild success so far. It's only depressing if you allow it to be.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Talk about survival!

I was going to report this, then I realized it's just a bear fighting a mountain lion. I suppose that a logically neutral argument, as opposed to an offense to reason, is a step up for ushome, so I can't really fault him for posting it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The survival unit is the gene, not the organism, which copies itself admirably in most species. It's been a wild success so far. It's only depressing if you allow it to be.

Then the organism is meaningless. It's only not depressing if you allow yourself a bit (or a lot) of self delusion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then the organism is meaningless. It's only not depressing if you allow yourself a bit (or a lot) of self delusion.

But without the organism, the gene is nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But without the organism, the gene is nothing.

The gene is not required to be anything whatsoever.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm going to Burger King to get a double whopper w/ chess! Oh baby... here I come!! ** prefers McD's third-pounder with bacon pickles onions lettuce, but only once a week, tops**

Well, as long as we're off topic...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The gene is not required to be anything whatsoever.

What?