Information

Originally posted by Shabazz916
the proof is something can't come from nothing

There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

everything has to come from something sir

Originally posted by Shabazz916
everything has to come from something sir

Ya. Where did a creation come from?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. Where did a creation come from?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
from a god that create everything and a perfect order as it started

And what did this god create everything from?

Originally posted by Shabazz916
from a god that create everything and a perfect order as it started

I think you are the person who believes that the universe was created from nothing. I don't believe in a creation so I believe that the universe did NOT come from nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are the person who believes that the universe was created from nothing. I don't believe in a creation so I believe that the universe did NOT come from nothing.

if you don't believe that the universe was created from nothing, then you must believe that everything there is - is already as it was... there is no beginning... funny, how you had a beginning and everything else has none...

The circles being run in this thread are a bit depressing.

There are a few possibilities surrounding the universe's creation. Among them are that the universe is an eternal entity unto itself; or that it did spring from nothingness (impossible to conceptualize but mathematically feasible); or that there was a creation point and something was the cause of it. Whether or not that something was a God or even sentient requires additional justification.

Positing a God or gods as the creator(s) of the universe also brings the problem of infinite regress into the discussion. If you're unfamiliar with that idea/problem, it's not worth engaging anyone on the topic until you understand it. In a nutshell, though, the theistic rationalization for this requires an a priori argument. God just is, or some variation thereof. That rationalization merely avoids the question, however; it doesn't answer it. And if you choose to believe it, that's your prerogative, but you sacrifice both explanatory power and any expectation of convincing others.

...

To segue inelegantly back to the OP's question, Information, in and of itself, is neither a force to move us closer or further from God. In the sense that the "God of the Gaps" is far smaller than he was even 50 years year, let alone hundreds, information has moved us away from a god or gods. However, a theist who doesn't reject science might argue that information merely brings us closer to an understanding of God and his creation. Or, if you adhere to something like Einstein's God (which was basically synonymous for the beauty and complexity of the universe), information and God are practically interchangeable.

So it's all contextual. In most (but not all) senses of modern religion, though, information increases secularism, because it removes the magical thinking that infects much of modern-day theism.

Originally posted by Digi
The circles being run in this thread are a bit depressing.

depressing, indeed... but at least you admitted:

Originally posted by Digi
There are a few possibilities surrounding the universe's creation.

that the universe was created...

but this guy ---

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

this guy's hopeless... 😛

Ok. So, would you like to discuss universal origin and the OP's question?

Originally posted by Digi

So it's all contextual. In most (but not all) senses of modern religion, though, information increases secularism, because it removes the magical thinking that infects much of modern-day theism.

1. What would it look like if it were NOT contextual?

2. "magical thinking ... infects much of modern-day theism" ... Can you give a definition and example of what you consider "magical" thinking?

3. What kind of vetting process do you use to evaluate sources that you trust?
Do they even get one? Or is your skepticism reserved only for things and people you don't like?

4. Is there any secular wrongdoing in the last 60 years that your standard way of operating and thinking would have been able to detect, let alone correct?

You know how atheists are. Anything that doesn't conform to their ridiculous notion that there is no purpose to the universe and that everything is random/came into being by accident is "magical thinking" to them. 🙄

Yeah how silly of us

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. What would it look like if it were NOT contextual?

2. "magical thinking ... infects much of modern-day theism" ... Can you give a definition and example of what you consider "magical" thinking?

3. What kind of vetting process do you use to evaluate sources that you trust?
Do they even get one? Or is your skepticism reserved only for things and people you don't like?

4. Is there any secular wrongdoing in the last 60 years that your standard way of operating and thinking would have been able to detect, let alone correct?

1. By contextual, I mean it depends on your definition of God. I outlined a few such definitions in my last point. I'm not sure what you're asking about no context. The question can't be sufficiently answered, imo, without that point being made.

2. Prayer healing, the power of prayer in general, ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, ghosts, telepathy, astrology, precognition, power of thought on the material universe, near-death spiritual experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, Tarot, crop circles, and many others I'm forgetting. Basically, anything that lacks empirical evidence, but claims a large number of believers.

3. The question is framed as an attack, so please try to change your tone. I've become antagonistic with no one here, and want to keep it that way. But...Skepticism should be all-encompassing, to the point where we're even skeptical of our skepticism at times. Constant evaluation and critical analysis when presented with new ideas is the only real rule. No one is perfect in this sense - least of all me - but that's the goal. To demand justification for my beliefs at all times, rather than resorting to blind faith, and not to dismiss new ideas without first considering them. That sort of openness is how I left religion in the first place. It would be silly to abandon the methodology that led me to my current worldview.

4. I'm not sure of the relevance of this question to what I posted earlier, or how to begin answering it.

And if I ever seem angry or dismissive, it usually has more to do with the person and their approach than their ideas or religion itself. Ideas and beliefs I generally have little problem with, unless they actively harm others. But people, that's a different story. For example...

Originally posted by Star428
You know how atheists are. Anything that doesn't conform to their ridiculous notion that there is no purpose to the universe and that everything is random/came into being by accident is "magical thinking" to them. 🙄

No, not at all. But with that tone, I don't expect to make any headway toward mutual understanding. Suffice it to say, this post doesn't describe my way of thinking at all, suggesting that your antagonism springs more from a flawed understanding of others' beliefs and motivations than anything else.