Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[beyondtimeandspace]

Ahh... there we are. Thank you Godless, your link was very nice. It put what I tried to say at the start clearly. The problem that Cris makes in his original argument is a modal error. That is, his argument is invalid, as his conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from his premises.

As for the temporality/non-temporality of God. That God interacts with the temporal does not necessitate Him as a temporal being. As I have stated, the eternal nature of God means that His actions, knowledge, thoughts, and whatever else, are simultaneous, thus God's actions at any point in the temporal sphere, occur at once, in the eternal sphere.

Thanks for the lesson in Calvinism, but I was quite aware of that. If you want to be specific about the particular Christian "God" that we're talking about, then please do, it would make things much easier. As it is, I don't believe in the Calvinistic God. I also do not believe in the Temporal God. This is because I believe both in the omniscience of God and free will. Hence, belief in either of those Gods would represent a logical inconsistency on my part, however less for God's omniscience and more for God's immutability.

In my religious studies, I have seen God named omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, infinite, omnijust, omnibenevolent, truth, existence itself, pure being, pure spirit, pure act, eternal. While most of these attributes (and others that have slipped my mind just now, as I'm struggling to keep my eyes open), can be accounted for by various other means, mostly having to do with God as an infinite being, three of these attributes caused me the most difficulty. They are: pure act, omnipotence and immutable.

While most would probably look at those three and wonder how they can cause any kind of logic problems, I don't, or didn't. The difficulty came from breaking the terms down and understanding the root dualities of two of them, with respect to the third. That is, broken down, the two represent actuality and potentiality. Omnipotence means that God is capable of anything. To have a power means you are capable of something specific. To have all powers means you are capable of every possible action. However, to be capable of something means that you can do it potentially. In other words, there is the possibility of your doing it.

This causes a problem if God is said to be Pure Act. Of course, being Pure Act would make complete sense if God is Pure Being. However, temporal entities, as beings, are neither pure act, nor pure potential. They move from potentiality to actuality, potency to activity. To be possible, is to be potential. To be real, is to be actual. Change occurs in the movement from potentiality to actuality.

So if God is omnipotent, that is, contains all possibility, is fully potent, not lacking in any form of potential, but also Pure Act, that is, purely actual, fully real, perfect reality, but at the same time immutable, unchanging, then how is it that He interacts with people, how is it that He exists sequentially (moving from one moment to the next)?

The only way to reconcile all of these different, seemingly contradictory aspects of God, was to realize the full meaning of that final quality belonging to Him: eternality. The temporal is a sequenced existence, which is why anything existing in the temporal experiences time, past-present-future, sequenced events. The eternal is holistic existence, anything existing in the eternal experiences perfecton, totality, fullness, pure simultaneity, present, the "Eternal Now."

This then allows for omnipotence, immutability, Pure Act, as well as interaction, since interacting with temporal entities would still be experienced by an eternal being eternally, simultaneously, at once. All relationships known, experienced, made, acted upon, reacted upon, at the same time, at once, always, forever, unchanging, now.

There is precedent for asserting such an existence. That precedent is the duality of sequence and holism, potential infinity and actual infinity, partial and complete, evolution and perfection. The very thinking device utilized by every human being operates upon this basic duality. One hemisphere operates on logic, sequence and is responsible for science, reading of symbols, mathematics, any sequenced function. The other hemisphere operates on intuition, holism and is responsible for religion, art, the big picture, and holistic function.

Though you may not find this precedent convincing, I believe it is simply a basic underlying reality of existence. Thus, if there is a temporal, and there clearly is, there is also an eternal.

At any rate, the knowledge that even a temporal person has of the future is a result of the choices made in the future. That someone knows what those choices will be, doesn't mean those choices are predetermined. Consider it like this: if I didn't choose to do what God knows, then God wouldn't know it.

[jay_7]

From the paradox that starts this thread, it clearly follows that BOTH free will of humans and omniscience of god can exist - but only if god has created humans that are destined for hell - in else god is evil ........
If you believe in both free will of humans and omniscience of god - then you must accept that god is evil ....

No, not at all. It wouldn't be just for God to not perform the experiment, and tell the souls that they would be going to hell, without letting them sit the test. It's like this, just say a teacher knew you were going to fail your test based on what she knew you knew, then she got give you a D without letting you sit the test. That would be unjust, same thing goes for God.

For more on this, read: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

Perhaps we are just guineapigs or dancing puppets (robots) for god .....

Nah. :) As beyond said, you have to understand the concept of enternal.

[Godless]

No problem.

However there's a fundamental flaw of this article which I chose to overlook. For obvious reason it assumes that a god exists. Now lets take a stab at with the reasoning of an atheistic stance. Shall we?

click (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/freewill.html)

the imposibility of god. (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html)

Christian god logical? (http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/rebutgodlogic.html)

Excuse for not putting all the above findings in my own words, but basically my ideas are arrived from these. My time is limited.

Off to work.

Godless

[jay_7]

LOL. Here we go again, how many times will we explain this to you, i see no point in argueing, if your gonig to keep bringing up the same point, over and over, not matter what.

Here it goes again, Gods created souls, he knows them as well as a parent knows their children, he knows what descisions we'll make based on our hearts, and with that knowledge, he can have precise results. Another point being, you don't know what other possibilitys of knowing what will happen can be. Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

-------
Oh and also. Ive been looknig into this more, and i've found that, somebody who lived 1000 years before Christ, wrote about that Jesus is coming in the future, thsi is all in the old testament, which was written BEFORE Christ. When the old testament was completed 400 years B.C. this man had quoted exactly what Jesus said before it even happened. Now, just because he knew this, this ordinary human did not have any effect on what happened in the future, but he knew what was going to happen. Its not impossible to know the future, and still have no free will. Sorry for my lack of explaining, take a read of this: http://www.carm.org/dialogues/proof.htm
It's a discussion somebodys having with an atheist in a chatroom. He talks a little about it better then i do.

[beyondtimeandspace]

Godless, I really hope those links aren't the sum of the arguments that have caused you to hold your present position on the matter?

First, none of them address the argument I've presented, and I presume that is because mine isn't one most Christians use. That's fine. While many would say God is "outside of time," most don't actually know what they mean by that.

At any rate, your first link makes the same modal error. Despite what you think, assuming the existence of God has nothing to do with the method of modal logic used in the article you posted that I addressed last night. If it does, please enlighten me.

The second article is probably the strongest one. However, there are several ideas which he does not address, and several others that he does, but clearly does not fully understand. However, I won't discuss them here, I don't have time. If I were to offer a rebuttle to his arguments, I'd send him an email like he's asked. At any rate, I like his arguments the best, because they're the most challenging of the three links.

The third link is just terrible. It's so full of holes and logical errors I wouldn't even know where to begin. I realize you'll say "point them out please," but I don't feel like writing an essay on the matter. Furthermore, I simply don't have time, like you.

Anyway, to offer a simple and brief summary, none of these articles offer rebut to the argument I've put forth, namely that of Eternality - holism. As such, I disregard them as proofs against the Christian God, despite that many of the arguments they present I do agree with, given their understanding of the Christian God.

Again, another way of considering this, though not so much from a temporal perspective: "You've already made the choice. Now you must understand why." - The Oracle

[KennyJC]

LOL. Here we go again, how many times will we explain this to you, i see no point in argueing, if your gonig to keep bringing up the same point, over and over, not matter what.

Here it goes again, Gods created souls, he knows them as well as a parent knows their children, he knows what descisions we'll make based on our hearts, and with that knowledge, he can have precise results. Another point being, you don't know what other possibilitys of knowing what will happen can be. Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

I do love the way idiotic fundies construct posts.

First there is the "LOL" as if to say "well duh, it is so stupid of you not to understand this simple fact", then they go on to say "well obviously God created souls and knows what we will do based on the organ that pumps blood around our body!".

[The Devil Inside]

i just now started reading this thread...
cris you started the thread, so this question is directed toward you and you alone:
by the title, i assume you see a difference in the G-d of christians, and the G-d of abraham?

just wondering. :)

[(Q)]

Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

[Godless]

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

Their unreconigsable falasy is making assumptions of something they know nothing about. Like assuming such an existence of another dimension where supposedly this god resides, (outside of time, outside of our universe, out of sight yet determines men's outcome.) :confused:

There's no following any logic here. Oh! yes modal logic. What if it exist, what if it's true, best not take any chances.

Fear I tell ya! fear is what keeps fundies and theist in line, fear of death, fear of hell, fear of the unknown, fear of living by one's own volition.

Godless

[Godless]

Godless, I really hope those links aren't the sum of the arguments that have caused you to hold your present position on the matter?

Na! it was a quick qoogle search. However I've been an atheist longer than some people here have been alive.

I was once a believer, I was once a Christian, Catholic, Babtist. But I saw no evidence of such a being called god, I felt nothing, other than fooling myself to believe such tripe, I got laid more often. Perhaps I should go back :D And just keep my real opinions to myself. But too bad I'm determined to be honest. :( For this honesty I've lost good opportunities, good jobs, and I sure as hell can't be a politician! :rolleyes:

Godless

[jay_7]

Your basing this as if he was in our universe, which he is not, this is a typical thing for an atheist to do.

And, would it be typical of a theist to know so well that which resides outside of our universe?

Yes, but your forgetting the point of this thread. Cris is saying he claims that he has proof that a Christian God cannot exist, while also suggesting himself that God lives outside time, which indicates even he thinks Gods outside another universe, now as you claim, there may not be another universe, which completly wrecks this argument. Theres no point really arguing from ehre though, theres no proof in the first post.

[Godless]

The "concept" of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, "That is God." To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one's peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another -- that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

Importance of philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_God.html)

Godless

[jay_7]

"God" is not a concept at all because it subsumes no particulars. Unlike a real concept, there is nothing in reality to which one can refer to and say, "That is God." To be unlimited in power, omnipotence, is a contradiction. To be unlimited in goodness, omnibenevolence, is taken without any standard of good. Regarding God, it is said that God is good. What is good? God's will. What characterizes God's will? Goodness. That circle is without substance and meaningless. Some people claim that all these objections are silly because God is simply unknowable. How do they know that God is unknowable?

How do we know? Because we don't! :D

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

Gods good, which makes hes will good. Asking what makes God good and answering "Gods will" doesnt say anything really. What makes a good person a good person? Their good will, and what makes their will good? God. So now that truns into Gods will is good, because God is good. He just is.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.

That doesnt rule out Gods possibility, we jsut simply laugh because of the unknown.

What is disappointing is not so much all of the faithful, but all those who sanction faith in others. To accept without comment this ridiculous self-contradicting life destroying nonsense in one's peers and give it a sort of spiritual relativism sanction, to claim that each can believe whatever he wants, that one spiritual belief is just as valid as another -- that is what perpetuates the evil of faith-based religions and notions.

Doesnt do any harm. Religion actually makes people good, not bad, the bad comes from those who arent willing to have faith.

The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)

Its not evil, i don't see how it is. If anything it actually gives us knowledge and guidelines.

[Godless]

Thanks Jay_7 for making a complete ass of yourself.

Doesnt do any harm. Religion actually makes people good, not bad, the bad comes from those who arent willing to have faith.

Crusades, dark ages, flat earht, heliocentric theory vs geocentric.

Many soldiers have used Bible verses to justify horrific destruction against their enemy. Such beliefs can comfort the minds of men to do virtually any kind of atrocity against men, women, and children of the enemy. The Crusaders of the 12th century, slaughtered or tortured anyone who stood in their way. The Bible's words gave them their justification. Dark bible (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm)

Yea! these people sound like real nice people :rolleyes:

Godless

[jay_7]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Look. Ive stated by opinions & views. So has everyone else, and the first post of this thread has been proved wrong and theres no longer need for debate. Thanks for the good debate ;) its up to you to find your faith. Im not going to take part in this anymore.

Cya :)

[TW Scott]

The one with faulty argument is you. You don't get it.

If god "knows" before hand of a decision it's predetermined. Thus no free will exists, if god is to be omniscient. And by that same account god himself is stuck in the same dilema, if a being is omniscient there's nothing that it can do to change an outcome, that has already been predetermined.

have a nice read if you care to understand the paradox. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm)

Godless

I understand where you think there is a paradox. The operative word is think. Now if you know your sister well enough to know that she will refuse a proposla from Jerk A, does that mean you have taken her free will? No. The same goes with God. He knows you so well he knows which freewill choice you would make before you make it. Nothing is predetermined. he didn't say yes or no for you. He just knows that you will make that choice.

[Medicine*Woman]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Look. Ive stated by opinions & views. So has everyone else, and the first post of this thread has been proved wrong and theres no longer need for debate. Thanks for the good debate ;) its up to you to find your faith. Im not going to take part in this anymore. Cya :)
*************
M*W: You are the only thing that has been proven wrong. You don't "debate," you post worthless website links. You came to a scientific website to prove a point which you were unable to do. Run along home now, son. You couldn't play with the big boys after all.

[jay_7]

*************
M*W: You are the only thing that has been proven wrong. You don't "debate," you post worthless website links. You came to a scientific website to prove a point which you were unable to do. Run along home now, son. You couldn't play with the big boys after all.

lol I suggest stop talking if you dont even contribute to the argument in a logical way.

[The Devil Inside]

lol she has 2660 posts...she has had alot more to say (whether i agree with it or not) than you have here, mister 62 posts. show some respect for others if you want it yourself.

[jay_7]

She disrespected me way before i disrespected her.

[The Devil Inside]

*shrug* but she never told you to stop posting. even though i (almost) completely disagree with every single thing she has to say, the fact that she has been here THAT long, warrants a little respect...dont you think?
maybe im just talking out of my ass though, too.

[(Q)]

Jay

theres no proof in the first post.

There is nothing wrong with Cris' opening post. It is irrefutable and you agree with him.

[Godless]

I understand where you think there is a paradox. The operative word is think.

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

If you are all-knowing, you know your future actions, what choices you will make, and you cannot change them otherwise your knowledge would be wrong, and you wouldn't be all-knowing. An omniscient being has no free will to choose actions; all its actions are predetermined. Vexen (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html)

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.

She disrespected me way before i disrespected her.

Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

[jay_7]

I know my sister well enough, yet I can't predict what she'll do.

As for god, hell he don't exist, and if it did, it would be bound by it's own omniscience.

Vexen (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html)

Thus this follows thinking, don't ya think?.



Boo Hoo!. Get used to it, atheist mainly get kicked out of fundies forums!.

Godless

Its difficult for us being in time to understand this concept. You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence. I think this may be a ok way to explain it: Try and picture it as you have your own universe in a box at home right now, and the computer thats connected to it says whats going to happen, by prediciting and and estimating precise results that are completly accurate, but the computer is for the universe you own, not YOUR home, so it doesnt predict what you (the creator) are going to do, just whats going to happen in your box which consist fo the universe.

Or, i was reading this about time travel: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

If it's like they say, life is a blink of an eye in the travel of light speed/time, then of coarse God can know all. And that hes universe can be enternal without time.

[beyondtimeandspace]

Concerning the vexen link,

1. "An Omniscient (all-knowing) Being Does Not Have Free Will."

God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously. Vexen understands this concept as revealed later on in his 4th argument concerning God's free will and time. God's knowledge does not necessarily mean that God does not have free will.

2. "A Perfect God Has No Free Will"

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts. Furthermore, free will is not the ability to choose between two or more options. Any animate creature does that. Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course). Even if God only had one choice, He still chooses it consciously, deliberately, with awareness. A single option does not negate the possibility of free will.

3. "A Moral God has No Free Will"

See previous answer. Also, God did not create morality. Moral choice is simply acting in accord with one's own nature. God has nature, therefore morality has existed eternally as a principle of God's nature. Moral choice only exists with the freely willing. So, the argument is moot, since if God were amoral, then that would necessarily mean He is not free of will. Likewise, if God were not free of will, then God would be amoral. The two go hand in hand. However, how is one to say that God is amoral? By arguing that He created morality? But I have indicated that that is not the case.

4. "God exists outside of time... where there is no free will"

The sequenced steps taken in time by which free will operates in time are taken simultaneously, immediately in the eternal. Eternality does not negate the possibility of free will.

5. "How can a creator of free will have free will?"

God did not create free will. Humans are freely willing creatures, but that does not mean that free will was created when humans began to exist. Free will is an aspect of God's nature that has existed eternally. This is part of the Image of God, which humans have.

[Godless]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did ;)


God's actions and God's knowledge arise simultaneously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

Just because God cannot choose to act imperfectly, does not mean He cannot choose between two perfect acts.

There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

Free will is the capacity to consciously and deliberately, with awareness, move your will in a given direction (figuratively speaking of course).

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours, furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse) :(

God did not create free will.

Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.

Godless

[jayleew]

Na! it was a quick qoogle search. However I've been an atheist longer than some people here have been alive.

I was once a believer, I was once a Christian, Catholic, Babtist. But I saw no evidence of such a being called god, I felt nothing, other than fooling myself to believe such tripe, I got laid more often. Perhaps I should go back :D And just keep my real opinions to myself. But too bad I'm determined to be honest. :( For this honesty I've lost good opportunities, good jobs, and I sure as hell can't be a politician! :rolleyes:

Godless

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence. But, if you aren't honest with him and play make believe, it does little good for anyone. Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions. Recently, my faith was tried. And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts. It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back. That's a lie that I told myself. Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic. So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic?

Who knows how long you have, but if you want, God can prove himself majestically. I guarauntee it, because if he can do it for me, he can for anyone. Amazing.

Good luck with your new brain! I am glad you are honest with it now!

[Katazia]

Jay 7 -

You have to remember God has no time, so this matter of knowing before hand doesnt make sence.But time does exist so for something outside of time it will be easier to see before and after a particular point in time.

Kat

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?

Being honest with your true feelings about God's existence, and questioning his existence is healthy part of being real with God and coming to answers, but more answers always equals more questions.With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Recently, my faith was tried. Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

And God lifted me up in the midst of all my doubts. Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

It wasn't anything anyone said that strengthed my faith, it was God alone who put me in the circumstance to see the answers.Translation: Facing reality would be too much for me to handle.

Instead, you have crossed over into knowledge and logic.Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.

So, how can you believe when you have reason and logic? Because any belief would then have a factual basis, unlike yours which is baseless.

Kat

[Godless]

Hey Jaylee!

There is a God and God has proven it to me every time I question his existence.

In my field of study I find this to be delusional.

You think you have crossed over and can never go back.

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.

Good, that is a step in the right direction.

Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.

Godless

[jayleew]

Jayleew –

Has anyone else witnessed your interaction, or is it all in your head?


I have had only one "interaction" with God (which a reasonable man might say that I am experiencing halucinations), the rest of the evidence for me is from my experience of living life, and witnessing the unlikely occur in accordance to a focused direction, usually unexpectedly. That is the evidence that matters. I'd rather see God's handiwork lifting me up, than to see God's face, eyeing from above.

Hypothetical question:
If there was only one god and it was the Christian's god, who hid himself from all but those who sought him, could this god prove his existence in the same manner among a diverse-minded people and still remain anonymous from the reasonable skeptics?


With such frequent doubts real honesty would be to admit you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Yes. If I were to dismiss the experiences as coincidences as just that. That would be fine for awhile...and it was. I was agnostic during that time. But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.


Translation: You experienced a moment of realism.

Maybe. Or, maybe God hid himself from a sinner who stopped asking for a sign.


Translation: You gave in to familiar comfort feeling of insanity.

No comfort was involved. Realizing God brings humility, which is not particularly comfortable...that is why many are still lost in their own sins. It's easier to keep doing those drugs then to face the problem.



Which means you admit to preferring the opposite; ignorance and illogic.


Yes, it is illogical for anyone to believe in God without seeing for themselves. You say I am illogical, and from your point of view, I agree with you. At the same time, I have evidence that would be illogical to discount as coincidence.

[jayleew]

Go back to being delusional? No thanks. There was never a "crossing over" it was more of a realization. Blame it on education, blame it on reason. Reason killed god, logic made him imposible.


Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.


Thanks I've never been so honest until I became an atheist. I made a right step in the right direction, not by questioning the existence of this entity, but by realizing that I don't need a crutch to walk a straight path. I can walk on my own, my own volition, and my own set of values. Not that of an ancient religious rhetoric, of which the value it preaches, are the most broken.


Well, I have to respect you for your position. Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path. Sure, I'm a hypocrite at times...who isn't...and we all pay a price for our sins, regardless of if they are forgiven or not. That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

[Godless]

Good point. And it is the same reason and logic that you can realize God with.

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Myself, I strive for a perfect path. The most moral path.

There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

That is why I need a savior, because a perfect life is impossible on our own volition.

I don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless

[Katazia]

Jayleew –

But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.And there lies, perhaps the real crux of the entire religious nightmare. What you claim as a major factor for your belief is a fundamental fallacy in logic. It is the idea that something must be true because so many others believe it. The oft quoted example of the flat Earth should give you some insight to the utter stupidity of your position. Or put another way; you believe because someone else believes and they believe because you believe. It is perfectly circular with no sign of truth at any aspect. In other words you admit to being little different to a mindless sheep.

Kat

[beyondtimeandspace]

Good answers BT&S. But some points contradict your previous assumptions of god, and some fallcies as well. Let's see how I do; lets try not to take over this thread like we once did ;)


Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun. :)


Correct me if I'm wrong but this assumption contradicts omnisciece, if an entity be omnisciet it's knowledge is already stablished, nothing new would arise, nothing to be learnt that is already known.

I will correct you. You are right, an omniscient entity's knowledge would already be established. "Arise" is a semantic that I'm limited by. They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been. As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.


There's no such thing as two perfect acts to an all knowing being. It's one act which ever may be has to be perfect, no choice can be made between two, this would sugest that one act is more perfect than the other. The choice it makes has to be the better of the two.

I suppose this kind of depends on your definition of perfection. I do believe the Vexen link provided a good definition of perfection: completeness, wholeness, totality, fullness. Therefore, any action which is itself complete, can be said to be perfect. However, because actions necessarily arise from entities with natures, the action must also be complete with respect to the nature of the being performing it. Hence, any action, which is itself complete, with respect to the nature of God, would be perfect. In this sense alone would I agree that there can only be one action, GIVEN that God is the only conscious, freely-willing entity in existence. However, God is not, and thus there is interaction between God and these other conscious entities, which means that there may arise many actions that are perfect with respect to the nature of God, and with respect to the context of the engaged entity. However, of course, God's actions arise from eternity, and God is said to be pure act, which means that ALL of God's actions are performed form eternity, including that actions which are interactions with the temporal. At any rate, concerning God's action and free will, what you quoted was not my full answer to the question.

This assumption would limit the entity god, by having a free will similar to that of a mere human, this entity is nothing like human this would suggest it's characteristic be nothing like a human; thus it's incapable of free will such as ours...

Actually, God does not have a quality similar to humans (free will), but rather, humans have a quality similar to God. Will is a principle. Will is effect, which is also cause. Free will can be effect and cause, but can also be simply cause. God's free will is Cause only. For example, there is cosmic will (bear in mind that this is merely a term I made up to convey a specific idea(, but that will is not free, no choices are made, there is merely mechanical cause and effect relationships taking place. There is also limited free will. This is the kind of free will that humans have. It is not perfectly free, I don't think I need to demonstrate that. This means it can merely be effect and effective (causal), like cosmic will. However, because it is free, it also means that it can be also solely causal. That is, it can act according to its own deciding. Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity. God's free will is perfect, unlimited. That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause. God is purely holistic, with pure free will. The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will. Humans (and any intelligent creatures) are a blend of the two, partly holistic, partly sequential, with imperfect free will.


Then god did not create humans, nor the universe, nor anything that exists. If this entity be the creator of all, all it created even free will!.


See answer above. Free will is an intrinsic part of God's nature. Humans were created, and imbued with free will. However, God did not create free will when He created humans. If anything could be said, it would be that God created human free will, which is different than God's free will, being imperfect, rather than perfect. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this.

...furthermore I recall you mentioned we shouldn't think of "god" as an entity but some sort of spirit what have you; I recall telling you "that what you call god, is called nature on my part". (forgive my memory lapse) :(

I wouldn't think of God as a "being" as such (technically). God is furthermore, not a spirit, as such (ahh technicalities). However, when speaking of God it is easier to understand him as such. Just as in mathematics, it is easier to treat a very large number as infinity, merely for the sake of simplicity. However, just as in mathematics, it should be understood that we're not talking about a being, as such. Beings are created things, but more simply, beings are things. God is neither created, nor a thing, and thus not a being.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The universe can be said to be existence (tentatively), can be said to have identity (but not to be identity), as a universal identity (containing all identities... again... tentatively), but cannot be said to be consciousness, cannot be said to be conscious, but can only be said to contain conscious entities. In this way, the universe itself cannot be said to be axiomatic. So, the point being made here is that what you call "nature" I do not call God. There is a distinguishment to be made, a subtle one, but an important one. Both God and the universe may be said to contain all principles of reality (tentatively), but only God can be said to BE all principles of reality.

[Godless]

Oh, I don't know... taking over the last thread was fun.

Yes indeed it was fun debating without the insults of difference of opinions. Though I do sometimes get overheated at plainly ingnorant discussions like the one on the "Masterbation is for loosers" thread. Oh! well and the fact that it's mostly allowable here to use ad-hominems and personal attacks on opinions makes it fun to build character and strengthen one's stance. :cool:

But then we find characters such as you who intellegently enough discuss in a good manner and one can see that your not a blithering idiot. That I enjoy.

So here goes my rebutal;

They (God's actions and God's knowledge) "arise" from all eternity simultaneously. That is, both God's actions and God's knowledge have always been.

Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.


As an eternal being, God's actions don't take place in a sequenced order, neither individually nor as a set. This is the nature of the holistic.

This sounds like non-sequirtus to me, by reading it this entity can be at all times at the same time, and change it's mind accordingly to each situation in any frame of time. That's not logical, and it's certainly not a emperical observation of the nature of existence that a beign, which it's existence is questionable in the first place can do these outrageous feats. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary emperical proof (borrowing from Carl Sagan)

Only an intelligent entity can do this. Only an intelligent entity can have free will. Furthermore, intelligence can only exist in a freely-willing entity.

The only entity with consciousness known to man to do this is man himself.

The christian god, an entity with no identity of itself can't possibly posses intelegence. This is a contradiction to the law of identity. This entity has not shown itself to exist, it's mere existence has to be accepted as a matter of faith, and faith alone on the rhetoric of ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water. Thus through traditional values bestowed upon its people the god concept has survived in humanity for better or worst.

That is, God's will is causal only. It is not affected, and it does not act as a result of effect. Of course, this is how God is First Cause.

The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.
I'll let the Infidels to rebutal this one for me here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html).

Moving on;

The universe is purely sequential, with non-free will.

I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena. Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

A new theory has arised agaist the big bang, and this being the modern guy that I am, is more acceptable to me, than a point of origin to the universe. The big bang theory is an acceptable theory of theist, thus giving them further reason that an entity caused the universe to happen. The church has historically been wrong to accept theories it formally knows nothing about, nor study further and accept without emperical evidence. Thus the flat earth, was shown to be wrong, and the infamous geocentric vs heliocentric theory of which the church believed the earth to be the center of universe, and the sun revolve around us. Today we know different.

Existence, Identity and Consciousness are axioms of speech, which allow us to know with certainty that those three things are true. That is, all sentences acknowledge the fact that: A) Things exist (both statically and actively). B) Things have identity (specifically, specially and naturally). C) There is a consciousness that knows, understands, refers to those existing specifics. I say there are more than merely three axioms. Truth is an axiom, for example. Another axiom is intelligence. However, let's move on.

I agree that existence, identity & consciousness are axioms. Truth is subjective thus not an axiom, intelligence is not an axiom but a study of epistemology, intelligence is sought out, learnt, gathered, but not an axiom to the true meaning of the word.

An axiom is an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction. click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Axiom.html)

"I AM" is the name given to God for the exact reason that it contains specifically and ONLY those axioms. In saying "I AM" God declares (or, at the very least, as you would believe, humans declare this to be true of God) that He is existence (becuase He does not specify a particular way that He exists), He is identity (because He does not specify a particular form that He exists as), He is conscious (if not consciousness), and that He is truth (because the sentence itself is expected to be true, because it is the most basic truth that can be spoken by any conscious entity, and because it is the ultimate truth of reality in its simplest form, purely axiomatic).

The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.

I'll finish this latter, as I've got to brush up on some details to my next post. Ok!.

Godless

[TW Scott]

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods? And using the line about explaining the unexplainable and societal control do not work. If there was no God there would have been one civilization that did not believe in gods.


There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.

don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Godless[/QUOTE]

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people. according to your observations I would have to believe all Atheists are child molesting murderers because I have heard of a few who were. See how ridiculous that sounds.

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril. Religion makes the common people better. It gives them the answers science can not. Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together. It may not be the same being, but the idea is the same. People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend. What's so hard to understand about that.

[Godless]

Okay here is logic for you. If there is no God why is the no Major civilization that doesn't beleive in gods?

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it!. There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?

Classic Strawman, people waged wars, they may have used a perverted view on religious beliefs, but it was still people.

Correct advocates of a non-existent entity to manipulate the masses to commit atrocities. This is not strawman but fact!. Read your history.

Talk about pervertion, read your own freaking bible as well. Start here (http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm)

Religion has also given us comfort in times of great upheaval and peril.

False hopes.

Religion makes the common people better.

Go to your county jail, and ask how many there believe in god! :eek:

Belief in a supreme being is a common thread that ties all our cultures together.

Nonsese our cultures are at each other's throat there's no commonality in their beliefs and the zealots actually murder, promote wars, and even rape children. Catholic preasts. What a shame you still believe in this rhetorical bull shit!.

People have known for millenia that there has to be something else beyond what our feeble minds can comprehend.

The only one here to have shown a feeble mind is YOU! :bugeye:

Godless

[Jenyar]

Study anthropology this will give you the answer you seek. Ingnorance of the unknown created the idea of gods. The god did it factor. I can't explain it therefore god did it! There has been throughout human history hundreds of gods which explains the evolutionary steps to self realization. God's take an anthropormophic atributes ascribed by humans to something they have no evidence for. Furthermore this fallacious argument of the many believing in fary tale don't make them right. The earth was found not to be flat as the many believed, and not the center of the universe as so many believed as well. thus the many dont make it so.

Nuf logic for ya?
And modern man just happens to be "enlightened"? If all cultures developed gods to explain away what they couldn't, how do you explain human progress? Or do you think it's only unbelievers who enquired further?

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe - one that made sense even though the sense wasn't immediately apparent - as opposed to a random chaotic universe that operates on chance. That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly. These cultures might have developed great skills and craft (the god of wine blessed the good winemaker etc.), but no deep science, no unified theories.

[Godless]

Here's a theory I did find in anthropology. Civilizations that believed in an intelligent Creator could imagine an ordered universe

Well this is a rationalization; If you would have searched further you would know that today, we know that our universe is not an ordered existence but a chaotic existence. click (http://www.icra.it/Research_area/research_area2.htm)

That prompted them to look for the underlying sense and structure, to find out what God did and try to understand discrepancies like suffering and death. Cultures whose gods resembled nature and refelcted every human quality (i.e. only the immediately apparent) could not fathom that there would be more than there seemed to be, and didn't "civilize" correspondingly.

Like Christianity who opposed reason, and history proves us through the "Dark Ages" when church had complete political power, and human advancement became almost at a hult. Read your godamn history! man... :rolleyes:

how do you explain human progress

Read and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance)

Dark Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages)

Glad to be of service read a little will ya.

Godless

[nameless]

Logic and reason (of which, there appear to be a couple of inherently fatal errors in the original proposition BTW), will and can only take this so far;

"The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. "It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God." The "most rewarding view" not the most logical!

"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/

[Godless]

True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology."

The only thing that made organised religion not so dangerous is the fact that they hold no political power, at least on this hemisphere of the earth. However the dangers of organised religion still exists, just by looking at the M.E. were zealots Islamic radicals comit suicide in public places with the hope of taking as many innocence with them, believing they are bound to be in heaven after their sacrifice.

On another note as well, the psychologicaly damage done to patrons who have false hopes, and foisted quilt complex from organised religion gradually become mentaly disturbed with delusion and in rare instances schizophrenic.

click ref. (http://www.smw.ch/archive200x/2004/25/smw-10322.html)

Godless

[Mythbuster]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."

[Godless]

The rest of my rebutal;
The universe can be said to be existence (tentatively), can be said to have identity (but not to be identity), as a universal identity (containing all identities... again... tentatively), but cannot be said to be consciousness, cannot be said to be conscious, but can only be said to contain conscious entities.

The universe is part of an existence, the only identity to the universe is that we know it's there, I agree that the universe is an inanimate phenomenon with no cosnciousness and that there exists beings which evolved into consciousness. However the universe since it contains our being and we exists with it, it's an axiom. Unless you were to contradict that we don't exist in this universe. (So, the point being made here is that what you call "nature" I do not call God.) OK.

Both God and the universe may be said to contain all principles of reality (tentatively), but only God can be said to BE all principles of reality.

That my friend is certainly an extreme assumption.

Consciousness exists as a specific type of existent with a specific identity. To claim that it does any thing other than what we see it doing is completely arbitrary and without merit. Making the claim "existence requires consciousness" is as valid as the claim "existence requires this table" or "existence requires a large maple tree." - arbitrary, without any basis in reality, without any evidence, and also quite absurd.
Interdependence Theory (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_InterdependenceTheory.html)

The accepted notion of a god, is that it's a primacy of consciousness. This is a canard.
*(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.)

One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.*
click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_PrimacyOfConsciousness.html)

Godless

[Godless]

**"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing." **

I like this guy! ;)

[nameless]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."
Beautifully said.
Regarding 'tireless', though;
We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource.
perhaps 'mighty' instead of tireless? well thew'd? relentless? IRON!
"I Am the Ankh! I Am the Bird with Iron Feathers!"
Ahhh the power of poetry!

[beyondtimeandspace]

Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.

You're still missing the point. Yes, God knows everything at the beginning of time. Yes, God can never change His mind. Yes, God has full knowledge of what is occurring. Yes, God's mind is set from the beginning of time. Yes, I understand the paradox of the language I'm using between past and present tenses. I'm doing that purposely.

Here is a way to consider it:

There are possible worlds and there are actual worlds. The actual worlds are what are. Time is the sequenced movement between actual worlds. What determines what possible worlds are actual, is choice. There are two kinds of entities. The holistic and the sequenced. Sequenced entities experience actual worlds sequentially. Holistic entities experience actual worlds holistically. Hence, the sequenced entities experience actual worlds one at a time, in sequence, while holistic entities experience actual worlds simultaneously, holistically.

Aristotle made this distinction when he defined the two infinities: actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinite is a complete set, it is perfect, holistic. A potential infinite is an incomplete set, and tends toward the infinite, thus operating by sequence. Really, the universe is potentially infinite. It operates in sequence, or time. Moving from one possibility, or possible world, to the next, probably endlessly. It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist within the universe, as is clear because of the many contradictions that arise. The universe itself is actually not a thing that can be talked about. Things exist in the universe, but "universe" is actually merely a conceptual categorization of reality. That is, it is the sum of existing things. Thus, we can say it is potentially infinite, sequential, since all existing things are in a constant state of flux.

Since the universe, itself, is merely a categorization, and not a specific thing, but contains things, it can be said that it has had a beginning. This is because all things have beginning. If the universe is a summation of existing things, and all things have beginning, then the universe also had a beginning. While one may argue that energy/matter has always existed, and therefore the universe has always existed, that could only be true if you argued that the universe is the summation of energy/matter. This I might go along with, though I find it interesting that many people argue that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet other people say that in a vaccuum matter appears to pop into existence from nowhere. I say the matter isn't closed yet.

However, moving on. All things have beginning, so whether you wish to argue that the universe is infinitely old based on the energy/matter argument, you must still recognize the fact that things have beginning. Thus it stands to reason that some force caused things to come into being. You're left with two options: 1. The energy/matter itself has consciousness and caused itself to form things. 2. There is some outside intelligent force that caused matter/energy to form into things. Or, I suppose you could also simply reject the statement that there was an origin to things and say that things, like matter/energy have always existed.

However, no matter what stand you take, you're lacking in empirical evidence, thus to hold a position one way or the other means you're asserting a stance based on purely on abstract logic. You, of course, will argue that there is not empirical evidence for a conscious universe, nor empirical evidence for a conscious extra-universal being, thus your stance is more logical. However, I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe of things, all of which have beginning, did not have beginning. I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe that operates on the principle of cause and effect didn't have an original cause. Others might argue that the universe did have a beginning, but that it has had many beginnings and operates on another universal principle of cycles, and thus, though having many beginnings (and endings), is itself infinitely old. Some would argue that it is cyclic, but that it did have a beginning, and that the cycles are births and deaths of the universe, but merely universal cycles along an endlessly spiralling time-line.

In the end, what we're left with are theories, all drawing from what we know and experience. What matters, what makes one person take one stance over another, is his own personal experiences. You, for example, find it necessary to have empirical evidence otherwise you won't believe it to be true. I am someone who doesn't put so much emphasis on empirical evidence, but do consider it very important. What we both share in common is our devotion to logic, because no matter what stance we take, we both recognize that humans are intelligent creatures for whom it is fully natural and good to make use of. Thus, for people like you and I, it is immoral to disregard the use of the mind. However, I would hope that you recognize that the mind operates both logically and intuitively (again, this duality of sequence and holism). Thus, while I am devoted to logic, I do accept intuition as a viable source of knowledge. This is why I do not place extreme emphasis on empirical evidence, because though intuition also makes use of the evidence it is presented with, it is the logical mind that desires to examine every bit of it, so as to understand each step in the process of reaching the conclusion.

Thus, because I choose to make the stand that there exists a first cause, a universal beginning, an actual infinite, a purely holistic reality, an eternal, I must understand the meaning of such a stance as certainly as I can. Those attributes that I then attribute to this actual infinite are logical progressions, logical results of attempting to understand that reality. Yes, they do seem paradoxical, but that is because when trying to understand them, most people approach the matter as though they were considering a temporal reality, something belonging to sequence, to the universe. This is the error.

If there is an holistic reality, then all of reality already exists: past, present and future. This is because past, present and future are merely categories utilized by the logical mind, within a logical or sequential setting. Some would say that this definitely means predestination. However, predestination implies a predestinator. What, or who, was the predestinator? It cannot be said to be knowledge, since knowledge does not determine what is, knowledge only recognizes what is. If God knows all of time, from all eternity, then it is not God's knowledge that has determined all of time, God's knowledge is only a recognition of what is. Thus, to say that God is omniscient, is to say that all of time already is, already exists, but it says nothing more.

What then is the predeterminator? Could you argue that the first cause was the predeterminator, since then everything following that is an indirect result of it, thus making God the predeterminator (assuming one holds God as the first cause)? If so, then you have already assumed that humans do not have free will, as we have no ability to alter the course set by the first cause.

What then is the predeterminator? I answer that there is no predeterminator. Rather, what is, is determined by choice. Thus, humans are responsible for reality as it is (at least after humans came into existence). Thus, while I say, I am existing now, and my choices will determine a small part of the future, what I'm really saying is that the choices I make now, are what have determined the future that already exists. Then, one might say that the future is predetermined, but only as far as it is individuals, us, you and I, who determine(d) it.

This keeps both human free will in tact, the eternality and unchangability of God in tact, as well as His omniscience.

...ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water.

That is was created by those nomads is assumptive, along with the reasons you ascribe to that creation.

The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.

Fallacious in what way? I've read the rebuttle. Aquinas never claims the first cause argument to be a proof. He merely says that it is a good reason for believing in a God. As for the "possibly multiple first causes" (or multiple gods) argument, I've already indicated why that wouldn't be the case. I've set up reality with a basic duality, the incomplete and the complete, the partial and the whole, the imperfect and the perfect, the logical and the intuitive, the sequential and the holistic, the potentially infinite and the actually infinite, the temporal and the eternal. The nature of the actual infinite, as a first cause to the potential infinite is such that it can only allow for the singular, rather than the plural. There can not have been multiple "gods" as they would all have been eternal, actually infinite, perfect, complete, etc.. and thus all identical and unified, effectively making them a single unit, rather than a group.

Concerning the need for an origin of God, again, the duality of the real should be explanation enough. If the God is eternal, and unchanging, then all of existence is eternal. Thus, though the universe had a beginning, it has also always existed. The reason the universe logically needs a beginning is because things have beginning, sequence also has beginning. Holistic existence could not have a beginning, because that would imply that it is not holistic, but rather incomplete, imperfect. Because the universe changes, it can be seen to not be complete, holistic, actually infinite. It is sequenced, tending toward the infinite, potentially infinite. I do not say that the universe has a beginning because it needs explanation. I say it has a beginning because that is its nature. God does not have a beginning because that is the nature of God.


I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena.

I believe reality is eternal, but the universe, as the sum of existing things, must necessarily be temporal, sequential. I don't know how you could possibly deny this. But please, I'd like to hear your argument (sorry, didn't read the link before writing this. I might take a look when I'm done).

The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.

This is conjecture, so I'm not going to say anything concerning it. I'll let the issue of axioms and the "I AM" drop for now, for the sake of staying on topic. The topic, of course, being the contension that omniscience precludes free will.

[beyondtimeandspace]

The rest of my rebutal;

The accepted notion of a god, is that it's a primacy of consciousness. This is a canard.
*(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.)

One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.*
click (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_PrimacyOfConsciousness.html)

Godless

Accepted. My rebuttle:

God's consciousness and being arise eternally simultanseously. Thus, God has always been aware of Himself. Moreover, all of existence has existed eternally, thus God has always been aware of existence. At the same time, God's actions also arise simultaneously with His consciousness and being, this including God's creative actions. Thus God's being, God's consciousness, God's creative actions, and God's creation (existence aside from His own being), all arise simultaneously, eternally.

As for the primacy of consciousness. That primacy only exists in regards to the existence of His creations, not His own existence. If we were to align God temporally (and this, of course is going to be problematic, but just for the sake of understanding), God exists, God is conscious of Himself, God is conscious of all possibility, God chooses, God acts, God creates, Universal Existence begins. Anyway, God is eternal, not temporal, so all of these things occur at once, eternally.

[Jenyar]

Well this is a rationalization; If you would have searched further you would know that today, we know that our universe is not an ordered existence but a chaotic existence. click (http://www.icra.it/Research_area/research_area2.htm)
And yet we had to delve through an incredibly ordered system to find that out. So ordered that we could even predict the existence of elements that had never been found. That a chaotic system could harbour so much order on the surface is something that physicists are still working on. Why are they still working on it? Because they're convinced there's an explanation, something to understand.

Like Christianity who opposed reason, and history proves us through the "Dark Ages" when church had complete political power, and human advancement became almost at a hult. Read your godamn history! man... :rolleyes:
Did you even read your own links?
Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself.
...
Ironically, while Petrarch's concept of a "Dark Age" corresponded to a mostly "Christian" period following pagan Rome, the neutral use of the term today applies mainly to those cultures least Christianized, and thus most sparsely covered by the Church's historians.
...
In modern times, the term "Dark Ages" is still used in popular culture. Petrarch's ideological campaign to paint the Middle Ages in a negative light worked so well that "Dark Ages" is still in popular use nearly 700 years later.

[jayleew]

wrong! It is with "reason" that I became atheist. It's with logic that I killed him/her/it.

An Atheist Manifesto (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)




I agree with you that logic does kill the existence of God. I know what that's like. I know what it's like to defy your reason to be a believer. It sucks....it's unnatural. It is lunacy to be unreasonable. What I am saying is that when God proves himself, you don't have any other choice than to believe because of the reasons he reveals. I only wish you could understand, but you must experience God for me to prove him. I know you have at some point, but logic has killed God. And the thing is, God will not reveal himself to those who do not need God.


There's no such thing. Morality is subjective, morals are what drove me away from organised religion. Read your Christian history. What is moral about massacre of thousands of innocent people who denied your god? There's no morality in christianity. It's quite the opposite, and history has proven that.


You're right. Morality is subjective. History has proven that people are the opposite of moral, regardless of being a Christian or not. Christianity, and the teachings of Christ, are the true way to live. Humility, peace, and love are the primary qualities.

Massacre of thousands of innocent people? Which event are you referring to? If morality is subjective, then why is that not a moral action? It depends on the circumstance, doesn't it? We also must define innocent.

When I said, "moral" I did not mean morality like right and wrong. I mean the most pure way to live. An unadulterated life of love, peace, and harmony that ends in the best situation for all parties involved. A combination of utlitarian morality and something else...


I don't dwel in the posibility of a perfect life, I know that's just a fantacy made up to fool the masses of what organised religion can accomplish. It has been 2500 years and basically all we've seen from organised religion is wars, crusades, inquisitions, zealots like Kores, Rev Jim Johnes, Osama bin Ladden, Bush, Catholic preast who seduce children..Damn boy can't you see that there's no morality to your god or it's religion?


Morality is subjective. Nobody's perfect. Nobody gets a free pass.

My God is merciful and loving, but morality is subjective. For instance, I don't think the Isrealites thought God was very moral when they were being swallowed up by the Earth. Nor did Sodom think God was moral when they were destroyed with Brimstone. Nor did the people think God was moral when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and all but Noah and his family were drowned. Who is to say what is moral? The maker of the universe offers only the best solution for all in every situation.

Anything which follows God's commands is moral. That's not to say that anyone who follows God is moral, but if they are in fact following God (and not just proclaiming it), it is moral. Killing is a moral act if God commands it. Except, that is usually not the best solution to problems and not a concept Jesus condones. There is only one time that I can remember that God asked a group to kill. He was punishing the Isrealites and allowed an invasion. Then, after that, the army that invaded was punished because they didn't kill by God's command.

[jayleew]

Jayleew –

And there lies, perhaps the real crux of the entire religious nightmare. What you claim as a major factor for your belief is a fundamental fallacy in logic. It is the idea that something must be true because so many others believe it. The oft quoted example of the flat Earth should give you some insight to the utter stupidity of your position. Or put another way; you believe because someone else believes and they believe because you believe. It is perfectly circular with no sign of truth at any aspect. In other words you admit to being little different to a mindless sheep.

Kat

Yo, I didn't mean people. There is no one on this Earth that is able to prove God's existence to anyone, and anyone who believes just because the pastor on Sunday preaches, is being set up for a fall. I WAS a mindless sheep. When reason came in, I stopped believing in God, but I did have a hope. And through time and many different experiences, God proved himself. Sure, I have doubts of God because I am naturally a skeptic, but I also don't have a choice but to believe because of my experiences of God.

Jayleew:But, there comes a point when there are so many that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

I meant so many experiences.

If it smells like a pig and looks like a pig, that doesn't mean it's a pig. But, if it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, weighs approximately like a pig, eats what a pig eats, sounds like a pig, tastes like a pig, etc. It's more than likely a pig.

There are so many experiences I've had, so many coincidences, that are focused, building upon the same destiny, that there is only one logical conclusion. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

[jayleew]

"A believer is a bird in a cage. A freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing."

Critical thinking is an important part of life. I am sure we all have felt the negative effects of gullibility. But, at what point does a "freethinker" believe in anything? Should they?

[jayleew]

You're still missing the point. Yes, God knows everything at the beginning of time. Yes, God can never change His mind.

God saw the sinful acts of the Isrealites and told Moses that he would destroy all of them and make a new nation of Moses. God planned to do that. Then, Moses petitioned to God to spare them, and that God ought to kill him too if he was going to kill the Isrealites. Then, God changed his mind. He said, very well, for your sake I will not destroy them. God knows all hearts and all powerful. He has all the gifts, including prophecy. But that instance right there proves many things about God, but definitely is an example of him changing his mind.




Since the universe, itself, is merely a categorization, and not a specific thing, but contains things, it can be said that it has had a beginning. This is because all things have beginning. If the universe is a summation of existing things, and all things have beginning, then the universe also had a beginning. While one may argue that energy/matter has always existed, and therefore the universe has always existed, that could only be true if you argued that the universe is the summation of energy/matter. This I might go along with, though I find it interesting that many people argue that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet other people say that in a vaccuum matter appears to pop into existence from nowhere. I say the matter isn't closed yet.

If energy has always existed, how can there be a beginning to life? Life has not always existed, therefore energy has not always existed.

I think Moses meant that God created energy the first day, because light as we know it was created on the fourth day.


I believe reality is eternal, but the universe, as the sum of existing things, must necessarily be temporal, sequential. I don't know how you could possibly deny this. But please, I'd like to hear your argument (sorry, didn't read the link before writing this. I might take a look when I'm done).


Good point.

[Sarkus]

If energy has always existed, how can there be a beginning to life? Life has not always existed, therefore energy has not always existed.
LOL! Genius comment! :D
How did you reach these conclusions?

[jayleew]

LOL! Genius comment! :D
How did you reach these conclusions?

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

[Mythbuster]

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

Arguments like these contradict evolution.

[ArtofWar]

Think about it before you hastily read and respond to surface arguments. Why didn't energy create life an infinite number of years ago, since energy is infinite? On the same token, if energy is eternal, how could the universe have a beginning? If if the universe is eternal, why isn't the Earth eternal?

Because the Earth will one day Transfer it's energy beyond it's mean and therefore living out it's end. Planets live and they die, some planets never host life, does that mean that they never lived? The bottom-line is that energy in form is inevitable to change, but that does not constitute the idea of energy no longer existing.

[jayleew]

Because the Earth will one day Transfer it's energy beyond it's mean and therefore living out it's end. Planets live and they die, some planets never host life, does that mean that they never lived? The bottom-line is that energy in form is inevitable to change, but that does not constitute the idea of energy no longer existing.

But, if the universe did not have a beginning, how could any planet exist? What I mean is that if energy is eternal, it has been around forever. If that is so, then there should be an infinite number of Earth's and alien lifeforms. Because of that, life has been around for an infinite number of years. Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false. If you say we lack evidence, that is like me telling you there is a God and not providing any evidence and telling you that you haven't found it yet.

[fess]

If god exists in the popular form, then it is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal. yada, yada. Being god, it cannot be subject to any laws, such as logic or reason. If it was, then those laws would be greater that it.
So, god is not subject to logic & reason, so therte is no point in talking about it since it's nature would be totally unpredictable and thus unknowable.

[(Q)]

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

You are right, energy has not always been around.

[ArtofWar]

But, if the universe did not have a beginning, how could any planet exist? What I mean is that if energy is eternal, it has been around forever. If that is so, then there should be an infinite number of Earth's and alien lifeforms. Because of that, life has been around for an infinite number of years. Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false. If you say we lack evidence, that is like me telling you there is a God and not providing any evidence and telling you that you haven't found it yet.

Not sure what you mean. Planets exist through constant formation or configuration of smaller particles that create an even larger entity. Who says that a planet in it's curent state is at its apex?

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

things age in their current form but does that mean that their energy has aged? No it does not! Scientists state that all matter in our universe is 6-8 Bill years of age, which means your new born of two weeks consists of 6 bill year old matter. That being said they are only talking about matter that was created during or after the galaxy was created not the energy in iteself!

So simply stated under the conservation of energy rule, you are as old as the universe which is into infinity. So therefore you do not age perpetualy, because for you there was no 'real' begining.

[jayleew]

Our current evidence doesn't support this theory because we can age everything around us, so either we lack evidence, or the theory that energy is has always been around is false.

You are right, energy has not always been around.

I agree with that, but for other reasons.

Do you have any scientific proof because the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved in a system such as the universe. For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

[(Q)]

For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

We would have to know whether or not energy existed before the big bang. But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

[jayleew]

Not sure what you mean. Planets exist through constant formation or configuration of smaller particles that create an even larger entity. Who says that a planet in it's curent state is at its apex?



things age in their current form but does that mean that their energy has aged? No it does not! Scientists state that all matter in our universe is 6-8 Bill years of age, which means your new born of two weeks consists of 6 bill year old matter. That being said they are only talking about matter that was created during or after the galaxy was created not the energy in iteself!

So simply stated under the conservation of energy rule, you are as old as the universe which is into infinity. So therefore you do not age perpetualy, because for you there was no 'real' begining.

If the universe is infinitely old, there should be an infinite number of life supporting planets, and life on other planets. We have found neither, yet. How can we say the universe is 6-8 billion years old and that energy is constant. If there was only energy before the universe, then how long did energy exist before the universe? Do you understand what I'm saying? If energy was around infinitely before the universe, then what in the heck caused the universe to exist if energy was perfectly happy by itself for an infinite number of years.

I am disputing the notion that energy always existed, but doing a poor job about it. Perhaps Q can help.

IMO, energy is constant today, but was not always constant, and it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing. If energy has always been constant, then the universe is infinitely old, and there should be abundant life forms on other planets.

[ArtofWar]

I agree with that, but for other reasons.

Do you have any scientific proof because the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved in a system such as the universe. For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

I believe you just answered your own question. The universe exists because of the rules of attraction. the same rules that apply here on earth on the micro bio level. Before matter assembled to form an absolute body and exploded into the universe as we know it, matter just aimlessly existed or not. this is why some scientists belive that the universe will contract and expand continuously and not forever Accelerate as many others believe including Albert Einstein who concluded this in his 4th theory of relativity before scrapping it.

[jayleew]

For it to have been conserved, that means it would have always had to existed, because energy exists.

We would have to know whether or not energy existed before the big bang. But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

[c7ityi_]

But, that would be meaningless to us because energy was created from the big bang.

yay, energy from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye physicists, ye make theories but no explanation.

How can we say the universe is 6-8 billion years old and that energy is constant.

if you're stupid, it's possible to say anything!

If there was only energy before the universe, then how long did energy exist before the universe? Do you understand what I'm saying?

yes, you just showed that the big bang theory is a big joke and you're right.

IMO, energy is constant today, but was not always constant, and it is illogical to believe that something can come from nothing.

if you study this "something" you call the universe, you'll realize that it consists of "nothing" (infinity and stuff), so no wonder you can get something from nothing. infact, the universe is created in the presence rather than in the past. the "creation" is continuous, like a tv broadcast, it allows the picture to be there.

[KennyJC]

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

Have you read the bible?

If Christians have burried their heads in the sand and taken on 2,000 year old wisdom and discared todays knowledge, then the Christian God is not compatible with what we have discovered about the universe so far.

I know the people that wrote the bible did not have the technology we have today, but Christians need to decide if we are to take their philosophy as truth, or if they want to change/modernize their views of God.

Since Christians don't keep slaves despite the fact the bible says so, I'm guessing you have already modernized to some degree, yet still hold on to the fact the Earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve and 7 day creation.

At it's core fundamental roots, the Christian God can not possibly exist. So that raises the question if modernized Christianity is still the same thing. Certainly, the more time that passes and the more we learn, Christianity will continue to seem all the more redundant.

[KennyJC]

I just think, whenever I hear a Christian championing the existence of A God... they are not necessarily making a good case in describing the existence of their own God.

[Mythbuster]

Here's another paradox:

God exists in everywhere, yet can't be found in anywhere. A multiplying zero with infinity.

[Godless]

yay, energy from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye physicists, ye make theories but no explanation.

Yay a god from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye theists ye make theoris but no explanation!. :bugeye:

Godless

[jay_7]

Yay a god from nothingness just like that!! typical to ye theists ye make theoris but no explanation!. :bugeye:

Godless

This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?

[Godless]

When scientist theorized the BB theory. The church was oppose to it. But Christian scientists embraced it as a point of origin. Their bible god said let their be light. This they postulate was what started the big-bang to occur.

However the BB theory is estimated to have occured about 20 billion years ago. This is in contradiction to new renegade scientist findings.

**Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space.
Very briefly, matter, as Spherical Standing Waves, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space. Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler shifts due to an expanding universe - thus there was no Big Bang).
This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, though we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that the work contained in these essays is very important (as theories of the Cosmos also affect the rest of human knowledge and also tend to affect the attitudes of Society), and are the genuine and sincere work of intelligent and knowledgeable Scientists who I think care greatly about the Truth.
Geoff Haselhurst, 2005**

The Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

Godless

[Godless]

**This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?**

How do you know? Who tell's you, fellow theists. You believe because you have FAITH on the assumptions of others, not because there's any evidence that an existence exists outside of time. This is just circular logic, you can't explain it, so theists make up shit as they go!.

[jay_7]

When scientist theorized the BB theory. The church was oppose to it. But Christian scientists embraced it as a point of origin. Their bible god said let their be light. This they postulate was what started the big-bang to occur.

However the BB theory is estimated to have occured about 20 billion years ago. This is in contradiction to new renegade scientist findings.

**Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space.
Very briefly, matter, as Spherical Standing Waves, determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space. Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler shifts due to an expanding universe - thus there was no Big Bang).
This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, though we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
Finally, I wish to emphasize that the work contained in these essays is very important (as theories of the Cosmos also affect the rest of human knowledge and also tend to affect the attitudes of Society), and are the genuine and sincere work of intelligent and knowledgeable Scientists who I think care greatly about the Truth.
Geoff Haselhurst, 2005**

The Big Bang never happened (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm)

Godless

It says the Big Bang never happened, and that the Universe is infinite, but that means that energy just came into existence out of nowhere, this makes less sence then Godless saying God came out of nowhere, its more logical to say a God always existed then energy always existing and forming everything hear today! I dont think the above article really meant anything, just made the atheist side of this argument more idiotic. :rolleyes:

[jay_7]

**This universe isnt outside time, God is.. how many times will we go threw this. Hmm.... 50 times?**

How do you know? Who tell's you, fellow theists. You believe because you have FAITH on the assumptions of others, not because there's any evidence that an existence exists outside of time. This is just circular logic, you can't explain it, so theists make up shit as they go!.

:) Just like you. The Bible says the God exist outside time.

You say energy appeared from nowhere because you choose to believe that God does not exist, and you find any argument to prove that, which you don't. You say you choose more logicial things then God, but hows believing the universe is infinite more logicial then God?

[Godless]

Just like you. The Bible says the God exist outside time.

The bible dear, is not a scientific document.

You say energy appeared from nowhere because you choose to believe that God does not exist

I dont say shit! The evidence provided states that the big-bang never happened, this implication is only stating that the universe is either A: lots older than thought out to be, B: Eternally existing, thus energy appears to be eternally existing also.

you could postulate that a god then has been eternally existing as well, but then this would contradict the "let their be light" command and the whole genesis would collapse to what it really is. An allegorical mythical notion with no basis in reality!

You say you choose more logicial things then God, but hows believing the universe is infinite more logicial then God?

LOL.. How can you believe that a god is logical?

You have no evidence, but base your belief on the FAITH of others.

**The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

We view with mirth the ancient Greeks and Egyptians and other peoples with their pantheons of various Gods controlling various aspects of the world. We laugh at contemporaries who claim to have been visited by aliens or seen Bigfoot. Some even laugh and deride those scientists who make claims with only a little evidence in support of their views. But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine" either because someone they know believes it or because a large portion of the population believes it. Truth is not a social phenomenon. Reality is absolute and can only be understood through reason.**Importance of Philosophy (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_God.html)

Godless

[jay_7]

The bible dear, is not a scientific document.

I didnt say it was, the bible is what, not how. Anyway, the bible reveals many things that scientest did not know until lately.

Examples being:

"
In Mark 9:46, Jesus Christ says about hell: "Where THEIR WORM dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Jesus said explicitly — THEIR worm — not a worm, or the worm — but THEIR worm. The Bible teaches that Christians will one day have a body like the Lord Jesus Christ. Could it be, as some Bible students teach — that men and women in hell take on the form of their father, Satan (John 8:44)? In Revelation 12:3, Satan is described as a red dragon. Could Jesus Christ be referring to the body lost men and women will have for eternity?

The earth’s crust on land is normally 50 miles thick. You’d have to go down 50 miles before the edge of the fire. But in parts of the ocean floor, the earth’s crust is less than a mile thick.

Scientists recently discovered cracks on the ocean floor where fire was leaking out. Do you know what they found around these fire-breathing vents in the crust? Eight-foot long worms, found no other place in the world! The book, The Deep Sea, by Joseph Wallace (p.39), reads, "Perhaps the strangest of ocean creatures recently discovered are Riftia, the giant tube WORMS. Measuring up to 8 feet in length, the worms are ONLY FOUND NEAR DEEP SEA VENTS."
"

For more on this, check out: http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
May be a little ridiculas too you, but i want to see your thoughts on it.

I dont say shit! The evidence provided states that the big-bang never happened, this implication is only stating that the universe is either A: lots older than thought out to be, B: Eternally existing, thus energy appears to be eternally existing also.

you could postulate that a god then has been eternally existing as well, but then this would contradict the "let their be light" command and the whole genesis would collapse to what it really is. An allegorical mythical notion with no basis in reality!

Yes, even if the energy/the universe is enternal, it doesn't eliminate the fact of something living outside the box (universe), energy could be enternal, but as jaylee said, why didnt it form billions of years ago other then how ever old the universe is. Also, the universe has time, something that has time is temporal, unlike Gods universe, enternal.


LOL.. How can you believe that a god is logical?

How can you believe energy existing infinite in a universe with time is logical? And that it all just 'happened' and caused everything we have today, including intelligent life, in my point of view, something of intelligence is behind it.

You have no evidence, but base your belief on the FAITH of others.

Dont tell me what i do, you know nothing about me and what i base it on, ive always believed in God for more reasons then your've heard here, ive believed before i even looked into all this.


But what is truly ridiculous is the people who then turn around and say, "the belief in God is perfectly fine"

Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!'

[Godless]

***Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!' ***

What is more rediculas to me is that god came from nowhere!!!!!! & created a universe out of nothing!!!!!

Godless

[Godless]

Scientists recently discovered cracks on the ocean floor where fire was leaking out. Do you know what they found around these fire-breathing vents in the crust? Eight-foot long worms, found no other place in the world! The book, The Deep Sea, by Joseph Wallace (p.39), reads, "Perhaps the strangest of ocean creatures recently discovered are Riftia, the giant tube WORMS. Measuring up to 8 feet in length, the worms are ONLY FOUND NEAR DEEP SEA VENTS."

Rubbish!. You are trying to tie in of what an illiterate said 2000 years ago, to findings of today. The bible is very contradictory, and caries so many inconsistencies that even the Catholic church admits some parts of the bible should be taken as allegorical!. :bugeye:

This pice of trash document further stipulated that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the earth. This was merely a generalization without any evidence to back it up. Just like I.D., Flat earth, and all the other BS written by Hebrew nomads who wanted to scape from bondage.

Godless

[jay_7]

***Whats more ridiculas to me is 'the universe came from nowhere!' ***

What is more rediculas to me is that god came from nowhere!!!!!! & created a universe out of nothing!!!!!

Godless

You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.

[Godless]

**You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.**

Basically here you are saying (TO HELL WITH REASON) I have faith!!.

There's no proof you can provide that an existence exists outside of time, this is what is rediculous, in order to exist it has to have an identity, be self aware, and have something to be aware off, if outside of time (a misconcept)BTW. It don't have nothing to be aware off, no identity, and no self awareness., i.e. NON-EXISTENT!!.

Godless

[jay_7]

**You already said that, but God being something outside time makes more sence then something inside time living enternaly.**

Basically here you are saying (TO HELL WITH REASON) I have faith!!.

There's no proof you can provide that an existence exists outside of time, this is what is rediculous, in order to exist it has to have an identity, be self aware, and have something to be aware off, if outside of time (a misconcept)BTW. It don't have nothing to be aware off, no identity, and no self awareness., i.e. NON-EXISTENT!!.

Godless

Yes, but if God is outside time in a different universe, the concept would be entirely different, which of coarse we wouldn't understand.

[(Q)]

I hate to dig up old bones, but why does the Christian god not fit the big bang theory? What could cause the creation of energy that resulted in a universe, and by chance, life?

Gods are p