Author Topic: God ? (Read 7712 times)

Fatty · « **Reply #45 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:40:44 AM »

The point being if you're going to take superstitious lore over an attempt, wrong or right, to understand, why this superstition and not another?

NUKE · « **Reply #46 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:45:29 AM »

fatty, pretty funny.

I never mentioned relegion by the way.

To make my point simple: science cannot explain how all the matter in the universe was created. If science states that all matter simply created itself, it is just as plausible to state that God created it. If science concludes that all matter always existed, then it's just as plausible to say God always existed.

Both of these things are not explainable by man either way, that is my point. We cannot understand.

Fatty · « **Reply #47 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:46:50 AM »

You're right, we will never know everything. There will always be ignorance and religion will always be there to feed off of it. It always had and it always will be, though it's had to evolve now and again once people figure out they can start a fire without a sacrifice.

NUKE · « **Reply #48 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:48:02 AM »

Who said anything about religion?

If you are ruling out even the possibility of a God who created everything, then it seems to me that it is you who are limiting your mind and being ignorant.

Fatty · « **Reply #49 on:** February 07, 2004, 08:48:57 AM »

If it wasn't a religious reference, it wouldn't be capitalized.

miko2d · « **Reply #50 on:** February 07, 2004, 10:23:36 AM »

NUKE: To make my point simple: science cannot explain how all the matter in the universe was created. If science states that all matter simply created itself, it is just as plausible to state that God created it.

There may be a good reason why science will never be able to "explain" the origin of universe or a few other things I could think of.
Human mind is just not able to comprehend things beyong a pretty narrow range - we do not have symbols and concepts to express that knowlege.
In that sentense you have used several deep concepts that developed in human mind to reflect the reality with which our ancestors were faced - which has very little to do with the more general picture of the universe.
"Created"and "always" presumes the concept of time - something coming into existance that did not exist before in time. Also space - created where?
Time is a feature of the Universe and so is space. They both must have originated along with the Universe. So we cannot use those concepts to express conditions associated with its creation.

And so on.

By God we assume a being with intent - hence mind. But it is obvious that such mind would have beed vastly different than our mind. We would not be able to recognise it as mind if we encountered it, so we project and assume that God would be like us but with more memory, processing power, etc. That's not the case.

Obviously if God created the Universe with its time and space, He must be "outside" time and space. We will never be able to imagine, let alone discuss how a mind "outside" time and space woule operate. How does one think of cause and consequence without time? If not, how can we make a statement that God caused the Universe to exist?

Etc., etc... We just cannot understand because we are not equipped to. Science is great in describing its own limitations. The science of mind gives a good idea of what limitations of the mind are - including what kind of science the mind could do.

miko

NUKE · « **Reply #51 on:** February 07, 2004, 10:34:45 AM »

miko you have made some very thoughtful statements in that post

~~I do disagree with you on this though.... when discusing something which has "always" existed, the "always" existed eliminates time as a reference or influence.~~

miko2d · « **Reply #52 on:** February 07, 2004, 12:45:53 PM »

Unless you seriously redefine the meaning of "always", I do not see how always eliminates time as a reference.

Always means at any and every moment (point) in time, just as everywhere means at any and every location (point) in space.

We know (or at least it is plausble) that space is limited in volume and that space originated and seems to continue appearing but we cannot speculate about the environment of the space's existance because we have no categories for it.
We cannot say "beyong" our space or "next to" or "around" because those are all concepts denoting relations withing space.

With time it's even less intuitive. If God created time, he could not exist in every point inside that time. Or at least he could not exist only in every point inside that time (he could enter it) since he created time "where" (have to use some word) there was no time. He could not create time with himslef in it while being "inside" time.

It is easier to make analogy with a space than with time. Say we look at a sheet of paper on which an insect moves that only goes forward. For an insect the space is linear - he discovers it point by point. One thing follows after another for it. But we see everything at once. The insects concepts of causality "I get here and then I get there" does not exist for us because we see "here" and "there" simultaneously.
If we cared to affect the insects paths by re-arranging some gates and tracks, we would see the consequences (end point of his jorney) at the same time as we made a change.

That at least blows the hypothesis of tinkering God out of the water. Basically, God cannot have any reason to interfere with our everyday lives because being outside time he had the complete picture "once" he created the whole space-time continuum - future as well as the past "simultaneously".
Of course you are not referring to the interfering God here but to the creator, so I brough that example just for illustration.

What I want to stress, is we cannot possibly say anything relevant about Creator of the Universe because we do not have concepts to express whatever would need to be expressed.
It's similar in physics. We have some equations that seem to make valid predictions in the ordinary matters but nobody could interpret in physical terms what they express in exotic points - like close to the origin of the Universe. Something happend here but we cannot describe it in terms of the things we know.

miko

Steve · « **Reply #53 on:** February 07, 2004, 01:37:53 PM »

Quote

When you hedge your bet you play the odds and you are not a true believer.

Nice try Mcgroin. You presumed much when you typed this.. and presumed incorrectly. This thought was the foundation that induced me to look into religion. My faith sprang from there.

Good thing you like flaming here in the threads, if there is a God in the christian sense, you'll be flaming for a very looooooong time.

Steve · « **Reply #54 on:** February 07, 2004, 01:41:37 PM »

Quote

That's a well known belief system, Steve. It's known as Pascal's Wager.

Beet, looks like an interesting website. I really don't have the time right now to look it over. While working in the garage I realized I left my cordless drill in my office. I came upstairs to retrieve it and took a quick look at the boards as an excuse to sit down for a minute.

The Pascal's Wager thing is... see above post.

Arlo · « **Reply #55 on:** February 07, 2004, 01:56:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Estes
I freely admit that it would be nice if I could believe in a god, if there really WAS a god, however, evidence of evil disproves the existence of god, therefore I just accept this fact and get on with my life.

Just an observation but saying "Evil disproves the existance of God." is akin to saying "Fire disproves the existance of water." or "Darkness disproves the existance of light." If your disbelief in a God is based on the premise of a God being incapable of creating anything involving evil (even if it's man's use of it ... or even man's perception of nature within the mindset of "civilization" that makes it that way) then I can see you falling into that mindset but one must ask if evil doesn't exist how does one apply the conception of "good" or how does one discern right from wrong or justice from injustice? Is the elimination of free will, of options, of choice .... good?

Just something for you to consider.

Arlo · « **Reply #56 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:00:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e

There is no God.

<-- 6'-1", 217lb, son of Methodist Preacher.

Being a minister's son is somewhat of an ironic aside though not all that unique. I have no idea what your physical stats have to do with all this.

Arlo · « **Reply #57 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:06:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
If it wasn't a religious reference, it wouldn't be capitalized.

Does that make "Washington DC" or "Robert Wagner" religious references as well?

beet1e · « **Reply #58 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:09:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Being a minister's son is somewhat of an ironic aside though not all that unique. I have no idea what your physical stats have to do with all this.

Yes, that's something I have in common with Alice Cooper! I quoted my stats because MrBlack quoted his!:p

Arlo · « **Reply #59 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:18:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, that's something I have in common with Alice Cooper! I quoted my stats because MrBlack quoted his!:p

Oh! Missed that. Yeah ... he does that alot. It never fails to impress me. Unless .. of course ... I tune it out. Wait .. I apparently do that automatically now.