Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Post Volume: Total: 918,963 Year: 6,220/9,624 Month: 68/240 Week: 11/72 Day: 11/9 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 8 of 872 (688015)
01-18-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-18-2013 8:33 AM


Might need to clarify...
Question: Who made God?
Phat, in so many words writes:
Assertion: God was never made.
Conclusion: No one made God.
Are you sure you mean to assume your own conclusion? It doesn't leave much room for discussion...
Or do you mean to say that this is merely your conclusion, and that you understand that your conclusion is an assertion with no evidence?
In that case, I agree with Taq and ringo... we made God.
God just seems so anthropomorphic that considering him not to be made by us... seems like a pretty big stretch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-18-2013 8:33 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 01-18-2013 3:46 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 24 of 872 (688545)
01-23-2013 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
01-18-2013 3:46 PM


Re: Might need to clarify...
Phat writes:
The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it.
I suppose its human nature to reject something that we cannot explain. Some critics say that we reject anything that challenges our own reasoning and that deep down its in our nature to reject an authority higher than our own human wisdom.
Sounds like something that could be said of anyone, about pretty much anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 01-18-2013 3:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
(1)
Message 53 of 872 (689403)
01-30-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
01-29-2013 2:19 PM


Re: Evidence
Faith writes:
You've been given fair and trustworthy witnesses, it is nothing but stubborn insistence that you be given something personal that keeps you from the very evidence you say you want.
Fair and trustworthy witnesses would be good enough for me. I base a lot of things on fair and trustworthy witnesses like my friends/family/co-workers/peers/authority figures. Of course, there are also lots of friends/family/co-workers/peers/authority figures who are not fair or trustworthy and are therefore not good enough to base anything important on as well.
The sticking point is the fairness and trustworthyness.
I have met some "God-witnesses" that are fair and trustworthy. They all seem to have one thing in common, though. None of them try to actively convince other people that God is in fact real. None of them tell other people "you just aren't looking at the evidence!" When someone says this to an honest person, and doesn't show what the evidence is, they are actually not being fair. When they say this, and don't describe how the evidence is convincing, they are not being trustworthy.
Fairness and trustworthyness always seems to lead God-witnesses to say "this works for me, I'm not sure why it doesn't work for you... I have faith that it does, but, no, there is no evidence."
Which is perfectly valid, just not entirely convincing.
Ironically, though, it is more convincing than showing your self to be unfair and untrustworthy by using certain forms of "evidence" for things like mortgages, family matters and life but a different form of "evidence" for things like God and the Bible.
Those who are fair and trustworthy seem to understand that they cannot convince others, and leave this to God. They are okay with, and sometimes even promote other people not believing in God because it is between "those others and God."
When people talk about things that cannot be validated, they are lowering their trustworthyness.
When people do not stay consistent when dealing with varying situations, they are not being fair.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell when someone is not being fair or trustworthy because there are many ways to hide such things from the surface. Those who simply make statements like "you just aren't looking at the evidence!" are acting from the surface. Without clarifying and explaining what the evidence is, they are refusing to delve underneath and actually look at the subject matter. Going around making statements and not taking the time to discuss alternative possibilities is a mark of being unfair and untrustworthy.
Matthew, Mark, John and Peter who wrote parts of the New Testament all personally claimed to have witnessed Jesus' miracles of healing, healing lifelong blindness, causing people who couldn't walk to walk, even restoring people to life, changing water into wine, but you won't believe them. The Books of Moses attest to the miracles God did in Egypt and the pillars of fire and cloud that led the people, the manna from heaven that fed them, and so on and so forth, but you won't believe Moses either, probably won't even believe there WAS a Moses. So, you've been GIVEN evidence, the very kind you say you want, all you have to do is believe the people who reported it, but you won't.
The Bible has shown itself to sometimes not be fair and sometimes not be trustworthy. These miracles are, of course, extraordinary events. It's not fair to just "believe the people who reported it" because it's quite possible that some of those people are mistaken or even misleading.
You shrug it off as a myth and me as an idiot, but you COULD choose instead to think maybe so many people who believe it have good reason to.
You won't.
I have chosen to think "maybe so many people who believe it have good reason." That avenue just doesn't seem very promising. There are so many more people that do not believe in it and also have good reason. There doesn't seem to be any difference from believing or not believing.
Some believers are happy, some are sad. Some unbelievers are happy, some are sad. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are rich, some are poor. Some unbelievers are rich, some are poor. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are respected, some are despicable. Some unbelievers are respected, some are despicable. No significant advantage to either side.
I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you can't describe an actual difference between believers and unbelievers. This makes me think that there is no difference between believers and unbelievers. This may indicate that God exists and doesn't care to (or can't) make a difference. Or it may be because God doesn't exist.
But you saying that we should believe because others do isn't fair. There's lots of things others do that we shouldn't do.
You saying we should believe because some miracles are described in the Bible isn't fair. There's lots of miracles described in non-Bible books and places. None of them seem to be true either, just like the ones from the Bible.
Point is you've been given evidence. You've refused it. It's on your head.
This is not a threat, it's a simple fact. Saying this as if it is some sort of threat has the effect of making you seem unfair and untrustworthy.
Afterthought: Funny you think you'd believe a miracle if you personally witnessed it. Somehow THAT would trump all the evidence you think you have from science against such things? Why would your own personal witnessing have such power over science but all the testimony of all the people in the Bible to such miracles doesn't? And you probably can't even see why this is bizarre.
I think you are confusing things. Nobody is asking to simply witness a miracle by seeing it once. People are asking to be able to witness a miracle by verifying it. The verifying would likely be through some sort of scientific methodology. Not understanding this is, again, not fair.
The Bible writes:
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."
I never understand when someone tries to convince an unbeliever with the story of Thomas. Thomas did not believe and God came and convinced him personally. Regardless of the threatening (unfair, untrustworthy) moral of the story, bringing up Thomas only serves to add more fuel to an unbeliever feeling justified in asking to be personally convinced by God and not you because that's what God did in the story.
TL/DR - I've never met a fair and trustworthy God-witness who has convincing evidence for believing in God. If you know of one, feel free to point them out. Without such a thing, it certainly seems to me like we've gotten it backwards. God didn't make people, people made God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 01-29-2013 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:17 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 84 of 872 (689521)
01-31-2013 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
01-30-2013 8:17 PM


Play Fair
Faith writes:
So you've eliminated that evidence from usefulness to you.
...
But once you start denying this part or that part eventually you'll make it all useless to you.
...
The Bible IS evidence, but of course you can discount it.
That's just it though. I don't eliminate anything, or deny anything or discount anything.
In fact, I accept all the evidence you've mentioned. It's just that there's equal forms of evidence for all sorts of religions and non-religions. I accept that as well, because I need to be fair.
There's just nothing about the Christian evidence that puts it ahead of any of the other evidence from other religions and non-religions.
those who died willingly in the millions under torture for their faith, that I'd have to count as solid evidence too, millions more witnesses. (No, I don't think blowing yourself up for Allah compares).
...
Oh no there are not. Nothing that qualifies as a real miracle such as the Bible reports on
You seem to discount the Islam religion and their evidences for being correct.
That's not being fair.
Faith writes:
Stile writes:
I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you can't describe an actual difference between believers and unbelievers.
That's sad if so. I know I changed enormously when I became a believer but I also know I have a long way to go to be conformed to Christ. But the things you mention, being happy or sad, rich or poor, aren't differences I'd expect to see. If they are true believers, however, there should be a real joy beneath the surface sadness.
I see lots of "true believers" with real joy beneath the surface sadness.
I see lots of true believers with real joy just on it's own, even.
I also see lots of unbelievers with real joy beneath the surface sadness.
I also see lots of unbelievers with real joy just on it's own.
If you really think there's something different about Christian joy, please make an attempt to describe it. So far, you've simply described teh exact same joy everyone else has. "Real joy."
I personally do not believe in the Christian God as described in the Bible.
I personally do have real joy, and I do not think I have a surface sadness.
But, if there's actually something you think I'm missing, please continue. You may want to try here, though... there's a whole thread on it where no one has yet to identify anything that "true believers" possess that anyone else cannot obtain through other, non-Godly means.
What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?
Faith writes:
But this is impossible. There is no way to scientifically verify a miracle.
But it's not impossible, not for an all powerful God. I could do it, if I had enough power. I would simply make some thing vanish and reappear randomly, over and over. Scientists could study it for as long as they wanted. They would never be able to explain it scientifically. It would be a scientifically verifiable miracle.
Faith writes:
Stile writes:
TL/DR - I've never met a fair and trustworthy God-witness who has convincing evidence for believing in God. If you know of one, feel free to point them out. Without such a thing, it certainly seems to me like we've gotten it backwards. God didn't make people, people made God.
Now it sounds like you've made up your mind about all this. Until now it wasn't that clear.
Sorry, "TL/DR" means "Too Long/Didn't Read", it's simply meant as a minor synopsis at the end of a long post. It wasn't mean to sound final, that's why I used the world "seems" and asked you if you knew anyone to offer as a fair and trustworty God-witness with convincing evidence.
What do you think of John Bunyan who wrote Pilgrim's Progress? Did he have convincing proof when he refused the deal given him to be set free from prison if he gave up preaching, even though by staying in prison he committed his family to God?
No, that doesn't sound convincing.
Let's be fair, there are plenty of people who have very similar stories except they do not say it was God. They sometimes say it was Allah, or any other God they believe in. They sometimes say it wasn't a God at all and simply people being magnificent people. That's why it isn't convincing. We need to be fair and look at all the stories, not just the ones you want to look at.
What sort of evidence do you think you want anyway? Would you believe any of the martyrs described in Foxes Book of Martyrs or just dismiss them as deluded?
I would not dismiss them as deluded.
I would accept this as evidence. I would also be fair and accept the evidence of the martyrs for other causes, religions and non-religions as well. Again, when we're fair, it's simply not convincing.
Would you consider this evidence? A Russian woman was about to be clubbed over the head...
I would consider it evidence, yes.
But, again, we need to be fair.
So, we look at other stories as well.
And, we find very similar stories all over the world throughout every culture. Some are attributed to God, others to Allah, others to other Gods, others to magnificent people and others to "I don't know what happened."
Therefore, again, it's not very convincing.
Let's just try to be fair, don't you think that's a good goal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 11:21 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 113 of 872 (689620)
02-01-2013 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
01-31-2013 11:21 PM


Re: Play Fair
Faith writes:
Other religions are NOT like the Bible. The Biblie is mostly historical narrative about real people who know the living God, the other religions are mostly teachings given by certain teachers. The miracle stories in the Bible all add up to demonstrating the gift of the Messiah. Miracle stories in other religions have no organized purpose.
Except that other religions ARE like the Bible.
Some other religions are mostly historical narratives about real people who know the living God. Some of them say that the Bible is mostly teachings given by certain teachers. Some other religions have miracle stories that all add up to demonstrating their gifts from their Gods. Some would say that the miracle stories of the Bible have no organized purpose.
...if you want to be fair, anyway.
I don't ignore those other people. You seem to deny their evidence and pretend that it's not the same, or doesn't exist.
I don't know if I'll come back to try to answer your post beyond this.
That's okay, answer only what you feel like answering. You do not owe me anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 11:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 11:55 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 151 of 872 (825908)
12-19-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
12-17-2017 11:55 AM


Re: Play Fair
Faith writes:
You're wrong, Stile, other religions are NOT like the Bible and you have said nothing to prove otherwise.
The way I see it, the Bible is mostly an historical narrative about real who have a relationship God.
It includes prophecy, miracles, and stories that reflect moral guidance.
I think many other religions fit this category.
-mostly historical narratives about real people who have a relationship with their God
-includes prophecy
-includes miracles
-includes stories that reflect moral guidance
...I actually have a hard time finding a religion that does not meet these similarities.
You're correct that the specifics and details are always different. But I find that to be expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 11:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 12-19-2017 3:44 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 159 of 872 (825986)
12-20-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
12-19-2017 3:44 PM


Re: Play Fair
Faith writes:
There is no other religion that even includes a historical narrative intended to support its religious views, at best it's all circumstantial.
I understand that you believe the Bible... and you don't believe the other religions.
You think the Bible is true... and you don't think the other religions are true.
That's apparent.
That's also not what I'm talking about.
The Bible includes a historical narrative (in the sense that it attempts to speak of history... regardless of it being true or not).
Other religions also include a historical narrative (in the sense that they attempt to speak of history... regardless of them being true or not).
Can you agree that many different religions "attempt to speak of history" regardless of their ability to be true or not?
It is very apparent that you think the Bible is true, and other religions are not.
But, can you agree that many religions attempt to speak of history? Regardless of the possible truth-value of their narrative?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 12-19-2017 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 12-20-2017 12:10 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 164 of 872 (825995)
12-20-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
12-20-2017 12:10 PM


Re: Play Fair
Faith writes:
What does "attempting to speak of history" even mean?
That they try to explain things they think happened in the past that led to their present state today.
Regardless of it being true or not.
Like me saying "When I was a kid I learned hard work... I walked to school and back, uphill both ways!"
1 - Untrue without some clever usage of withholding significant information
2 - However I do speak about the past, and how it led to my present state today.
I am "attempting to speak of history" even though the truth-value is irrelevant.
It is a "historical narrative" in this sense.
Can you agree that other religions have "historical narratives" in this sense where we are not concerned about the truth-value being accurate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 12-20-2017 12:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 12-20-2017 2:18 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 166 of 872 (826008)
12-20-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
12-20-2017 2:18 PM


Re: Play Fair
Faith writes:
My point, apparently unclear enough to allow for all kinds of weirdness instead of honest answers, is that the Bible offers REAL history and REAL prophecy in REAL space-time.
That wasn't lost on anyone.
Everyone's aware of your thoughts on such a matter.
I'm not ignoring your point because I think you're wrong.
I'm ignoring your point because it doesn't detract at all from the point I'm making.
Since it doesn't matter to my point, engaging with it would only take away from the point I'm trying to make.
My point isn't about your thoughts, it's about how many religions are similar to the Bible.
Without getting into which are true and which are not, many religions provide an historical narrative about people they consider to be real doing things they think led to the world being such as it is today.
I totally agree that you think the Bible does this truthfully, and that all other religions do this incorrectly (either lying on purpose, or possibly without their own knowledge of it being wrong).
However, that doesn't change the fact that they are all similar in that they all do it. Regardless of who does it accurately or not (such is up to the individual to identify for themselves) or even usefully or not.
This is just to say that there is some layer of similarity.
This is not to say that I think they are all exactly the same.
Just the fact that they can all be called "a religion" implies that there is some layer of similarity. Otherwise they all couldn't be identified using the same word.
In turn, the fact that they are called "different religions" implies that they are not all exactly the same. Otherwise they couldn't be called different.
That layer of similarity will go so far, and then begin to break down.
Your insistence that no religion is similar to the Bible in any way is silly.
Obviously all religions are similar in the sense that they have followers (whether correct to follow or not).
All religions have precious items (holy books, symbols... things like that).
All religions have some sort of code you need to adhere to (moral perhaps, maybe even just a dress-code).
In this sense ALL religions are similar to the Bible.
In the sense of having an historical narrative attempting to speak of people they think are real doing things they think led to the state of the world today... MOST religions are similar to the Bible. Maybe all of them, again? I don't really know.
None of this suggests whether or not any of those religions are true or valid.
Not every idea is an attempt to attack your personal views.
Most of us really don't care what your views are, we have our own to worry about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 12-20-2017 2:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 264 of 872 (826781)
01-09-2018 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Phat
01-09-2018 11:35 AM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
Phat writes:
How much energy does it take to imagine God or a god?
I don't know. "Some - not all that much."
Is it the same amount of energy required to imagine a bowl of cereal?
Give or take - yes.
The same amount of energy required to imagine pretty much anything.
How much energy does our mind(s) use in internal creativity and reasoning?
I don't know. More than imagining just God or just cereal. Less than moving and breathing.
If we can conceive of a universe without a designer, would it take a similar amount of energy to conceive and attempt to define a designer?
Sure, I guess so.
But again...as I CANT asked, how much energy did it take to create me?
Maybe a lot.
Maybe not so much.
I don't really see how it matters.
Making a paperclip from existing wire doesn't take much energy. Just a few bends.
Making metal from an exploding star takes much more energy than that contained in a paperclip, or you, or our entire planet.
Does that make an exploding star a God because it took a lot of energy to make metal?
If a universe took a lot of energy to make, why does that matter?
And, of course, it's equally possible that the universe didn't require any energy to be "made" at all... and all it's doing (exploding stars, creating people...) is simply molding the matter that's already here... like bending paperclips.
But the real question is... why does an amount of energy (no matter how large) indicate a God of any sort? I don't see the connection.
I understand how it's impressive.
But I'm impressed by glass-blowing, too.
I don't think glass-blowers are Gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Phat, posted 01-09-2018 11:35 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 1:49 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 270 of 872 (826789)
01-09-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by ICANT
01-09-2018 1:49 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
ICANT writes:
What would you think of a glass-blower if he could produce the material the glass is made of, out of nothing. Simply by speaking it into existence, would you then think he was God.
Yes.
Whether or not He's worthy of respect would be another question. But, in a word, yes.
And if no one ever does it, I will think that God does not exist.
And you don't think that the statement that all the energy required to create the universe and everything in it was at one time pilled on top of each other in a place the size of a pin point sounds just as impressive and impossible.
No, I don't.
Creating things by "speaking them into existence" seems a lot more impressive than "pilling things on top of each other (but not creating or destroying any of them)."
One I can't do at all, and no one has any evidence of it ever being done. Anywhere. By any one or any thing.
The other I can do a bit myself, and there's plenty of evidence that the natural universe is much better at it than I am.
Edited by Stile, : Fixing quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 1:49 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by jar, posted 01-09-2018 5:25 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 279 of 872 (826808)
01-10-2018 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Phat
01-10-2018 12:32 PM


Re: God, Cosmology, & EvC
Phat writes:
I CANT has a point in that we have been unable to observe the origins of the universe, thus why not invoke GOD rather than simply ENERGY?
I think it's more like one is invoking GOD where the other is not invoking GOD.
Invoking GOD
-has been tried before
-when tried before, has never come up with a verifiable answer
-when tried before, has usually been replaced with a not-invoking-GOD answer that is verifiable and offers additional knowledge to the situation
-has never been able to firmly and adequately answer any question about how anything works
-sure, could be right this one time... but is there any reason to think it would be?
Not invoking GOD
-has been tried before
-when tried before, sometimes comes up with a verifiable answer that offers additional knowledge to the situation
-has an excellent track record for providing firm, adequate answers about how things actually work
-not guaranteed to be right, but if it does learn something, that something is guaranteed to be useful
One is as likely as the other.
I don't see how.
I can understand how they are both possible answers to a situation where "I don't know" accurately described our knowledge.
However, "as likely as the other" seems to be woefully ignorant of each idea's track record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 01-10-2018 12:32 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 295 of 872 (826838)
01-11-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:
Since no one knows what was there or if anything was there how can anyone know what took place?
Because of what we see now.
If I see a dead tree in a forest, I know that tree grew from a much smaller beginning many years ago.
I didn't have to see that tree start growing in person.
I know this from observing similar things I can see today and understanding how plant growth in general works.
If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.
They don't have to see the BB start expanding in person.
They know this from observing similar things they can see today and understanding how cosmology in general works.
So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10-43 s. But I can't question how that something got there in order to begin to expand.
Why can't you question it?
I question it.
How did that something begin to exist anyway?
I don't know.
But just because I don't know... and because science doesn't know (yet) doesn't mean you can't question it.
Questioning it is exactly what scientists studying it are doing, even.
They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.
Because of that restriction, I don't think a solid answer for your question is available from science at this time.
It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.
I don't see why that would be true at all.
It seems like you're making a claim without backing it up.
I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.
Well, that seems like an arbitrary decision.
I would not do such a thing.
People used to call the sun a God because they thought it was big and powerful.
The sun is not a God.
You seem to want to call 'anything that could create the universe and everything in it' God because you think such a thing would need to be big and powerful.
I don't see why it would have to be big or powerful.
But, even if it was, I don't see why we should call it God anyway. Especially if it's a natural process and has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or will.
We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed. - impossible as the universe would be dead.
2. The universe began to exist where there was non existence. - impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God. - is the only logical choice
1 - Why would the universe be dead if it always existed?
Don't you believe in a God that always existed? Does that mean your God is dead?
If not, why is this limitation placed on the universe but not God?
2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?
It seems to me you simply cannot fathom existence beginning to exist. I have a hard time doing it myself.
But many things occur without my ability to fathom them. I'm not that smart.
Maybe existence beginning to exist is something that happens that I (and you) simply cannot fathom.
Unless you have an actual reason? - I'm pretty sure we've had entire threads devoted to you trying to explain a reason, and you've never been able to do so.
3 - But you haven't eliminated the other options. You just seem to claim that they are eliminated.
I agree that if I take your word for it... then 3 is the only number left after removing 1 and 2. But there are problems... there doesn't seem to be any actual reason to remove 1 or 2 other than your say-so. Your say-so isn't very convincing. Also, what about additional options:
4 - The universe always existed in the past, but will not always exist in the future.
5 - The universe began to exist from something else that already existed.
6 - The universe was created by a weak, eternal God.
7 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), eternal God.
8 - The universe was created by a weak, non-eternal God.
9 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), non-eternal God.
10 - The universe was created by entirely natural processes and no God of any sort was involved in any way.
11 - Something else that Stile or ICANT cannot fathom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 10:38 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 306 of 872 (826860)
01-12-2018 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by ICANT
01-11-2018 10:38 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:
This universe began to exist only one time and you have no empirical reproducible evidence of what took place.
I agree with you.
Why are you mentioning this?
I've agreed with you many times that I don't know how the universe began, and neither do you, for this exact reason.
There's no need to debate something we both agree on.
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.
You talk about the BB like something banged, what was it that banged?
You are mistaken. I'm not talking about the BB like it banged. I only mentioned that it left "remnants" to which I was using to refer to observational evidence we can see today.
Many things leave evidence that do not bang. I am very puzzled as to how you jumped to that idea.
I was under the impression that Son's little pea sized universe he told me about just began to expand and that was all there was to it.
That's what I was referring to. Let's stick with that.
Are you under the impression that an expanding universe does not leave remnants (or "observational evidence that we can see today?")
Because it did. And we see it. No bang required or observed.
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.
That is the problem there is no empirical evidence and can never be as there is no scientific data available of what was there or what took place.
Because of that restriction, they will give no answer.
You are correct that they have no empirical evidence yet. That's why there's no answer yet.
But who is reading the future saying there can never be any empirical evidence?
Is it you?
People who read the future, especially those who say science cannot advance in certain areas, have been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong over and over and over as science keeps discovering new things and moving forward.
Will this be the one and only time science can never find a way to get an answer?
Maybe. But it's extremely doubtful.
Much more likely that it's just a matter of time.
It was either eternal or the universe began to exist from non existence.
Why can't it be something else that you and I cannot fathom?
Are you, ICANT, claiming to be all-knowing?
I don't believe you.
I just think that anything that could cause the universe and everything in it to begin to exist would deserve the title of God. You call it whatever you want too.
Sounds good.
If anything is ever known about it, I'll call it exactly what it is.
You can continue to add unnecessary confusion to the topic as long as you'd like. That reflects a lot more about you than it does about me.
I have never seen a natural process that did not require matter to work with to do anything. Could you name one?
Nope.
But natural processes have been shown to exist.
Can you name one supernatural process that has been shown to exist?
As long as you can't do that... natural processes will always remain as more-likely answers to unknown questions.
Before the natural process of lightning was discovered, it was quite valid for someone to ask "Can you name one natural process that can create electricity?" and the answer at that time would have been "Nope."
Until, of course, the natural process of lightning was discovered.
...this same process of not-knowing-things and then science-figuring-out-things has happened over and over and over again for many ideas.
Many of them had "God" as the answer previously as well. So far... all of them have turned out to be wrong. God was not the answer, it was a natural process.
This is one more similar as-yet-unknown issue.
If you want to go with the side that's lost every argument where answers can be verified... that's up to you.
I'll go with the on that's won every argument where answers can be verified.
ICANT writes:
It would be cold dark and lifeless had it been around for infinity. I believe it has something to do with some of the laws science has discovered.
I see. You're confused.
Being cold, dark and lifeless is what would happen to our current universe, eventually, if it's ever around for "infinity" and remains to act as it has for the last 13.7 billion years (after it began).
Any laws of science that have been discovered are about the universe after it's beginning.
They may not apply to the universe's actual beginning. Like I said... science doesn't know... yet.
Therefore, it's quite possible that an eternal universe-beginning would not be cold, dark and lifeless after being around for infinity.
It remains a valid possibility.
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?
You really getting silly now, what you drinking?
Again, I don't think you know everything and I don't believe you.
I'll take your ongoing inability to answer this question to mean that you still have no reason to actually support your assertion that existence cannot begin to exist.
It's okay, I wasn't really expecting you to have anything to back up your claim.
We've spent many posts and threads trying to get you to back this up in the past, and you've never been able to.
ICANT writes:
Comment: Same as #1, #2, #4...
Not true.
But, it doesn't really matter since your #1, #2 and #3 aren't valid statements to begin with.
Where did the energy required to accomplish the job come from?
Who says any energy was required?
But, if it was, then would come from the cause... whatever it was. Quite possibly God. But probably not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 10:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:23 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 311 of 872 (826867)
01-12-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by ICANT
01-12-2018 1:23 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:
You mention BBT and then Big Bang without theory behind it. If you print the abbreviations for the words meaning Big Bang what am I supposed to believe you are talking about.
I only used the BBT abbreviation because it's what you used in Message 290, the message I was replying to.
Big Bang Theory, however, doesn't include any bangs, or explosions only inflation.
And I never talked about it as if it did include any bangs.
It's poorly named, and adds confusion.
I'm pretty sure scientists today would change the name (or maybe they have?) in order to prevent public misconceptions... but since they already know what it means, it doesn't matter too much to them. And they have more important things to spend their time on. Like.. actually answering the questions we're asking here.
It's very similar to how you keep wanting to call any possible cause of the universe "God" even if it doesn't include any God-like qualities.
If you'd like to be consistent... perhaps you should have issues with your own insistence on calling any possible cause "God" as you do with calling the description of the inflation period the Big Bang Theory.
What would you propose to plow through that hot dense universe to get information prior to T=10-43 s?
I don't propose anything.
Like I said, I don't know.
I don't even know how to get information at T=2 billion years.
But science does.
Why do you think that just because I don't know something that science will never learn it?
Science knows much more than I do today. My knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.
Science knows much more than you do today, too. Your knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.
Science knows much more than any single person does today. Any one person's knowledge is a poor barometer for what science can learn.
Science has proven time and time again that where once things were unknown... tomorrow they can be verified and become known.
If you want to go against what's happened over and over again and say "this time it's impossible!" well.. there's a long list of failures you can join with that idea.
But, who knows? Maybe you're right.
My point isn't that you are wrong. Like I've said, I don't know and neither do you.
My point is only that you're likely to be wrong. Since all those taking your position on past, similar unknown-issues were all shown to be wrong as the unknown became known... thanks to science.
It had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist as it does exist today.
You keep saying this.
And I keep saying the same thing in response:
"Why?"
Why can't there be an option that ICANT and Stile cannot fathom?
And no I don't know it all. If I did I would not be here wasting my time trying to learn new things.
I know you don't know it all, that's why I don't believe you when you claim things you can't possibly know like "it had to exist eternally or have a beginning to exist."
Unless, of course, you have an actual reason to claim such a thing?
I'm pretty sure the reason is "because ICANT is unable to think of any other possibility."
Well, I'm not really impressed with ICANT's ability to think up possibilities... as I increased a list of yours from 3 to 10+ quite easily just a few posts ago. And you were unable to come up with any reason why my possibilities should be included in your existing ones.
So, unless you provide a reason why these are the only possibilities... your claims will remain entirely meaningless.
There was the pea sized universe that existed at T=10-43 s in which all the energy, mass and matter that is in the present universe existed. Can you imagine the power required to accomplish a feat such as that?
Yes. It could be none. Or maybe some. Or maybe lots.
You seem to think it must be lots.
Again, I'm unimpressed with your ability to think of possibilities.
My question is what held it in place after it got there until it decided to expand?
Good question.
Scientists are asking that same question, as well as others.
And they're actually working on verifiable answers beyond your meaningless, baseless claims.
Maybe it wasn't held together at all and began to expand immediately.
Maybe it didn't take any energy to hold itself together and it held together for an infinite amount of time into the past.
Maybe our current knowledge of time/space/matter/energy is insufficient to explain what happened.
Maybe something else that ICANT and Stile cannot fathom.
There seems to be many, many possibilities. Why do you seem so sure that you've nailed it down to one that has done nothing but fail in the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 4:40 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024