| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2008 05:45:32 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I do not assume that time had a starting point. I believe, like you, that time is eternal.
I also believe that God is eternal, as well. |
I believe time is eternal because it's a comparative measurement (length, width, temperature, time, etc.), not an "existing" thing. You could always measure something even before there were two events or points to measure. Do you consider God a unit of measurement? |
So by grouping time into the same categlry with length, width, temperature, (etc.) do you really mean to imply that length is eternal? width is eternal? temperature is eternal? etc.? |
Probably. Was there any time when length didn't exist? Will it cease to exist at some point in time? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:49:54 PM · #552 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I do not assume that time had a starting point. I believe, like you, that time is eternal.
I also believe that God is eternal, as well. |
I believe time is eternal because it's a comparative measurement (length, width, temperature, time, etc.), not an "existing" thing. You could always measure something even before there were two events or points to measure. Do you consider God a unit of measurement? |
So by grouping time into the same categlry with length, width, temperature, (etc.) do you really mean to imply that length is eternal? width is eternal? temperature is eternal? etc.? |
Probably. Was there any time when length didn't exist? Will it cease to exist at some point in time? |
Apparently none of the above ( with the exception of time ) existed at the time of the singularity ( Big Bang ), if, that is, you believe in the Big Bang theory.. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:55:06 PM · #553 |
Tulane University professor of mathematics and physics Frank J. Tipler proposed a mathematical theory using the known laws of physics specifically, quantum mechanics, general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Standard Model of particle physics to show the existence of God. (Omega point theory)
So it seems one can use both philosophy and science to support the idea that God exists or doesn't...
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:05:45 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still? |
Can't answer the question, so you make a glib remark, eh? |
No, I just asked another question, equally valid as your own, in response to yours. |
OK. I'll answer yours, then you answer mine.
Here's my answer to your question: No, just because your watch stopped, it does NOT mean that time is standing still.
Now, you answer mine. |
Really? If my watch stops, how would I know that time is still moving and hasn't slowed down or stopped? Imagine that you are present at some time before the universe came to be. Is the concept of time even valid?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:06:24 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
The existence of God is not a philosophical question, it's a scientific one. A universe with a god would be fundamentally different from one without a god. Saying "The existence of God is not a scientific question!" falls into the same category as saying "Where did God come from? Hahaha. God does not need an explanation, silly!". You are simply stating that the rules don't apply and that you are right because you are right.
The argument "You can't prove that I love my wife and therefore God exists." is also silly. No, you cannot use the scientific method to judge the beauty of a piece of art because it depends on the subjective view of an observer. You can, however, measure this subjective view (you can make polls and ask people what they think of a piece of art, for example). Everything that has an effect in the real world can be studied scientifically. You may never be able to explain it in every detail, but you can examine it.
At the moment you guys are playing a game of "See, you can't answer this question about the origin of the universe, therefore God exists!". This makes no sense. There are things we simply don't understand, like the nature of time. Maybe we will never be able to understand it, because we are limited by the world we live in. And maybe one day we'll find out. If an ant tried to figure out what created the lawn it lives on, you would laugh because the ant doesn't even realize it lives on a planet! Well, we are in the exact same situation, just on a different scale.
Yes, there are things we cannot explain. I, for example, wouldn't say that I understand the big bang theory or quantum mechanics. However, I fail to see the logic step to the existence of a god. And even more difficult is the step to my question no. 2 you still haven't addressed:
[quote=Sam94720]2) Where's the rational step to "This intelligence wants you to worship it, it has a son who was born of a virgin and is actually also his own father (and you can eat him in the form of a cracker), it does not want homosexual people to marry, etc."? How can you aquire (rationally) any knowledge about possible characteristics of this intelligence? |
A) I am not playing "you can't answer the question so God exists." I have only ever said, "God could exist." and it is as rational an explanation as any other. In case you haven't heard me numerous times, I'll say it again: I cannot prove God exists. Duh. I'm not going to answer a question that has been asked for as long as questions have been asked.
B) You can go search lots of other threads where I've talked long and wide about your second question. I'll not get into it here. We've got enough to talk about.
C) The existence of God is definitely philosophical. You cannot posit testable theories about God.
Clearly you believe the world makes more sense to you without God. That's fine by me. It's rational. Clearly I believe the world makes more sense with God. This too is rational and is also fine by me.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 18:07:12. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:12:37 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is natural to assume the conditions that led to the Big Bang existed in something. At the least the physical laws that governed that a Big Bang would happen were present. What were they present in? |
Tsk... you obviously didn't read Dahkota's link on misperceptions of the Big Bang. "It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings." |
No, I quite understand this. Our universe is not encroaching on another. However, my question is "What is the milieu that the big bang arose out of?" It had to arise out of something. (If that something is not physical in the sense of three dimensions in space, it still had to have some parameters within which the laws governing the big bang existed.) |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:18:31 PM · #557 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
B) You can go search lots of other threads where I've talked long and wide about your second question. I'll not get into it here. We've got enough to talk about. |
I think this is a central point. For now, you have argued that the origin of the universe could be explained by the existence of an intelligent entity that created it. I'm interested in the question how you would figure out what characteristics this entity has. And specifically, how you'd figure out in a rational, logical process that this entity has the characteristics of the Christian God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
C) The existence of God is definitely philosophical. You cannot posit testable theories about God. |
Are you saying that nobody could possibly ever be certain of the existence of a god? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:29:32 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
B) You can go search lots of other threads where I've talked long and wide about your second question. I'll not get into it here. We've got enough to talk about. |
I think this is a central point. For now, you have argued that the origin of the universe could be explained by the existence of an intelligent entity that created it. I'm interested in the question how you would figure out what characteristics this entity has. And specifically, how you'd figure out in a rational, logical process that this entity has the characteristics of the Christian God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
C) The existence of God is definitely philosophical. You cannot posit testable theories about God. |
Are you saying that nobody could possibly ever be certain of the existence of a god? |
Read Book I and II of Mere Christianity (that's a link to the text). It shouldn't take much more time than your video and CS Lewis does a much better job than I ever could.
I am not saying that nobody could ever be certain of the existence of God, but nobody could ever be certain of the nonexistence of God. You cannot prove a negative. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:34:57 PM · #559 |
 DrAchoo, come on, give me something here. What is the rational, logical step 2? Give me a short version, please. A summary.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not saying that nobody could ever be certain of the existence of God, but nobody could ever be certain of the nonexistence of God. You cannot prove a negative. |
Yes, which also applies to unicorns, leprechauns, the flying teapot, etc. "You can't prove a negative therefore God exists!" doesn't work.
You said one couldn't even posit testable theories about God. So how could anyone be certain of his existence?
EDIT: P.S.: Did you watch the video?
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 18:36:19. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:39:28 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still? |
Can't answer the question, so you make a glib remark, eh? |
No, I just asked another question, equally valid as your own, in response to yours. |
OK. I'll answer yours, then you answer mine.
Here's my answer to your question: No, just because your watch stopped, it does NOT mean that time is standing still.
Now, you answer mine. |
Really? If my watch stops, how would I know that time is still moving and hasn't slowed down or stopped? Imagine that you are present at some time before the universe came to be. Is the concept of time even valid? |
Because you would have to suspend logic and reason to believe that time had slowed down or stopped. And we must infer, from prior posts, that atheists would not do that.
If I could imagine that I was present at some time, then certainly, the concept of time would be valid, at that time. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 06:48:14 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
DrAchoo, come on, give me something here. What is the rational, logical step 2? Give me a short version, please. A summary. |
Ha ha ha. Come on. Do I get to keep asking you, "Have you read the book?" I'm serious. It takes about 45 minutes and CS Lewis does exactly what you are asking. You can try the wiki (Mere Christianity), but it is a very poor substitute. Unfortunately you are asking a question that does not have a simple answer, especially an answer I could give where you would not immediately have forty objections to which the reply would be, "read the book".
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not saying that nobody could ever be certain of the existence of God, but nobody could ever be certain of the nonexistence of God. You cannot prove a negative. |
Originally posted by Sam:
Yes, which also applies to unicorns, leprechauns, the flying teapot, etc. "You can't prove a negative therefore God exists!" doesn't work.
You said one couldn't even posit testable theories about God. So how could anyone be certain of his existence?
|
God could appear before me, prove his existence via any miracle I ask for verification, and then never appear again. I would be as certain of his existence as anything else in the world and no scientific theory could test the experience since it only happened once. Just an example.
You keep implying that I am proving God exists. Read my post. I CANNOT PROVE GOD EXISTS!
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 18:49:58. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:03:55 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So I ask you, how are you anywhere other than right beside me when dealing with the question of the origin of our universe? |
The difference is that I don't believe the universe has an origin. I believe it always was. Just like you believe God always was.
BTW - time is a measurement of decay. Without decay, there is not time. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:06:51 PM · #563 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ha ha ha. Come on. Do I get to keep asking you, "Have you read the book?" I'm serious. It takes about 45 minutes and CS Lewis does exactly what you are asking. You can try the wiki (Mere Christianity), but it is a very poor substitute. Unfortunately you are asking a question that does not have a simple answer, especially an answer I could give where you would not immediately have forty objections to which the reply would be, "read the book". |
Ok, read the Wiki page. The book seems to be about a universal law of morality that the author claims to have identified. I have no idea how this would help me understand your rational reasoning for step 2. How do we get from this to the trinity or to gay marriage, for example?
I haven't thought about it deeply yet, but I'd say that morals are dependent on a society. Morals cannot exist without a society. And they are created by the society. They evolve over time (Slavery used to be normal, remember? And God actively promoted it. Still does in the Bible, but nowadays Christians are forced to make up excuses for those passages. The stoning of disobedient children is also no longer as popular as it used to be. By the way, you haven't addressed that question yet.)
For example, the Wiki page says "On a more mundane level, even a non-religious person may believe that someone stealing is doing something wrong.". There are cultures on this planet that do not know the concept of ownership. They do not assign things to people. Stealing is simply impossible in such a society. Therefore there cannot be an universal morality that contains a law like "Do not steal."...
EDIT: And a short addition: I've read quite a few texts of Christian apologists and their logic is simply mind boggling. They say things like "Of course God is all powerful, otherwise he wouldn't be called God. qed.". And often their arguments fall into the category of the Courtier's Reply.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 19:15:45. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:08:45 PM · #564 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - time is a measurement of decay. Without decay, there is not time. |
A measure of change, I'd say. Could there be time without change? Could there be change without time? Interesting questions, but they take us to a level we simply don't understand.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 19:08:58. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:09:26 PM · #565 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - time is a measurement of decay. Without decay, there is not time. |
From WIKI:
"Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars."
So it is more than just a measurement of decay. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:09:42 PM · #566 |
whoops
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 19:12:08. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:26:35 PM · #567 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ha ha ha. Come on. Do I get to keep asking you, "Have you read the book?" I'm serious. It takes about 45 minutes and CS Lewis does exactly what you are asking. You can try the wiki (Mere Christianity), but it is a very poor substitute. Unfortunately you are asking a question that does not have a simple answer, especially an answer I could give where you would not immediately have forty objections to which the reply would be, "read the book". |
Ok, read the Wiki page. The book seems to be about a universal law of morality that the author claims to have identified. I have no idea how this would help me understand your rational reasoning for step 2. How do we get from this to the trinity or to gay marriage, for example?
I haven't thought about it deeply yet, but I'd say that morals are dependent on a society. Morals cannot exist without a society. And they are created by the society. They evolve over time (Slavery used to be normal, remember? And God actively promoted it. Still does in the Bible, but nowadays Christians are forced to make up excuses for those passages. The stoning of disobedient children is also no longer as popular as it used to be. By the way, you haven't addressed that question yet.)
For example, the Wiki page says "On a more mundane level, even a non-religious person may believe that someone stealing is doing something wrong.". There are cultures on this planet that do not know the concept of ownership. They do not assign things to people. Stealing is simply impossible in such a society. Therefore there cannot be an universal morality that contains a law like "Do not steal."...
EDIT: And a short addition: I've read quite a few texts of Christian apologists and their logic is simply mind boggling. They say things like "Of course God is all powerful, otherwise he wouldn't be called God. qed.". And often their arguments fall into the category of the Courtier's Reply. |
Read the book. I'm serious. Lewis talks about all that. Would it make you feel better to know Lewis was an atheist before being a Christian?
To prove he discusses your objections, I'll give you a taste...
"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent
behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and
different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their
moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total
difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching
of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and
Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each
other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in
the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our
present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different
morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for
running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the
people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a
country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what
people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or
your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you
ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men
have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have
always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."
To get more you have to read the book. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:34:13 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - time is a measurement of decay. Without decay, there is not time. |
From WIKI:
"Time is a component of a measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars."
So it is more than just a measurement of decay. |
Sorry - I thought we were talking science and the big bang (and not decay as in tooth). |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:45:28 PM · #569 |
I get it. It is just even when talking physics, the speed of light is the cosmological constant and is the ultimate measure of time in that regard. Of course in particle physics the decay of a particle is a measurement of time. But time is almost impossible to define across the board and we are talking about God as well so how do we quantify God? I guess that is the crux of the biscuit.
:-)
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 19:45:46. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:46:11 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To prove he discusses your objections, I'll give you a taste...
"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent
behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and
different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their
moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total
difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching
of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and
Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each
other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in
the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our
present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different
morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for
running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the
people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a
country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what
people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or
your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you
ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men
have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have
always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."
To get more you have to read the book. |
Sorry, but this excerpt is merely a list of unfounded assertions. Even today there are subcultures where people who kill, steal and rape are admired. It's all a question of what you grow up with. Many people in the Arab world would be outraged to see women walk around in the streets showing more than their eyes. They would consider this behavior absolutely wrong. I guess you see this differently. There are people who admire a brother who killed his sister because she had met a guy for a movie. Those same people would despise him if he didn't kill her. I guess you'd judge the situation differently. Morals are created by the society. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 07:54:00 PM · #571 |
For those interested, Plantinga offers his proofs for the existence of God (His CV is here with links to articles). DrAchoo's arguments are building up to what Plantinga argues. He makes some valid points (as has Dr occasionally when responding). Essentially, based on justified true belief, it is as logical to believe in God as it is to not believe.
At any rate, this discussion has moved far away from the original topic: mistakes found in the bible, a discussion which I found much more interesting as the arguments for and against God are eventually circular. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 08:37:45 PM · #572 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by dahkota:
BTW - time is a measurement of decay. Without decay, there is not time. |
A measure of change, I'd say. Could there be time without change? Could there be change without time? Interesting questions, but they take us to a level we simply don't understand. |
Or maybe what we perceive is an illusion or at best an incomplete picture? After all our senses are not very reliable. Our eyes can not see true reality, instead we are only able to see a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Maybe that's the case with our perceptions of time as well? Maybe in reality time moves both backwards and forwards, the future affecting the past but since we can't perceive that we believe the past is unchanging and the future is full of change when that may not be the case at all.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 20:38:20.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 08:46:42 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read the book. I'm serious. |
You must first watch the video. And read Dawkins, as I've asked of you before. :-P I shouldn't expect others to read proponents of my position if I don't have the same expectation of myself. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 08:55:27 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly I believe the world makes more sense with God. This too is rational and is also fine by me. |
Are you saying that faith is rational?
To me, part of what works for me as faith is not necessarily rational.....it's what I believe.
I may have come about it in a way that is rational to me, yet that doesn't fly with the other men in my small group from church.
Most of that group does NOT believe in God, so to them, my thinking, and faith, is not perceived as rational.
That's fine by me.....I live by my beliefs, not theirs.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 10:03:35 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly I believe the world makes more sense with God. This too is rational and is also fine by me. |
Would it be equally rational for me to say that I believe your belief is not based on rationality but on fear? You can't live with the knowledge that at some point you will die and turn into nothingness and that there is no great father figure up in the sky guiding you that you have turned to religion as a means to cope? Is that rational? Doesn't that make more sense, that is your belief is based on a basic need you have, a survival instinct, rather than a thought excerise? Can you honestly say that doesn't factor into the equation even a little?
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 22:11:27.
|
|
