Does Science Exclude God?

[symphony]

I'm not really sure if this question has been asked before in this same section, common sense tells me it has, since this is one among the many 'frequently-asked's. And yet here I am, posing this question, mainly out of curiosity to read the different insights that may appear...

I am a worshipper of science, and to be honest, I dont think one who knows or wants to know science truly can avoid believing in God, whatever the term indicates. 'God' has different meanings to different people. Science, with its ultra-fastgoing footsteps, clearly shows the universe is following a definite order. The main aim of physics now is to unify all the laws and merge them in one-- a law that governs the whole universe. This very idea seems to indicate the presence of a power, a source of all energies(or masses), a beginning. To me, God is that source of all energies.

I have often been subjected to criticisms (of types manifold) for considering God as a source of mass or energy... but is it really that bad? I believe in a beginning of time, in a source, in a cause. And I call that my "God" for general convenience. Is it really that weird a belief?

I'd like to hear ur views on topics related to this. Please open up. :)

[Turk]

No it can't. Many of the most important personalities of science were believers.

[Virgil]

I agree with you. Einstein believed in God. The more he understood the universe, the more he believed.

[Pelican King]

Hi, i posted an answer in the philosophical literature forum which might help


As for science being in opposition to the existence of God, it's only true if you take the disproving of scripture to mean that a God is unlikely to exist, science doesn't directly disprove the existence of a God. This is the division of naturalism, metaphysical naturalism is the case where supernaturalism (i.e. God) is believed to be unable to exist. Methodological naturalism is the second position, which is where we must assume there is no supernatural explanations to conduct science, although this position is agnostic and is open to the possibility that supernatural things may exist, but we can never really know of them.(Source: ME)

As for one disciple of science not being able to disbelieve in God, it depends on what you mean by God, but altogether i don't think it is so. Science has revealed deep and magnificent order behind the universe and it's far from done. Although currently it is struggling with the quantum mechanics at the atomic level, and so far we can say that at this most fundamental level of existence there is randomness and uncertainty. Also when viewing the universe being orderly and supposing a first cause, the solution God is question-begging of God's first cause, no matter your definition of God. And from here is seems impossible to distinguish why the universe cannot be it's own cause but God can be.
To go back to your original question, science even offers a theory about the origin of the universe, the big bang, which does not unavoidably require the existence of a God per se. The truest question is not of origin in itself, but why is there something instead of nothing. If you can answer that please tell me :)

[Turk]

(Source: ME)


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Einstein was a Spinozist, so he did not believe in a personal God. In fact, he mathematically showed that Spinoza was correct in position on substance plurality, around 300 years after he published Ethics.

To assert that God must be the cause of order and civility in the universe is not necessarily the soundest choice. Why could matter not have existed forever, just as God is said to? To claim that God is responsible for making matter out of nothing is somewhat frivolous; energy is all that exists, whether it is concentrated into mass or the apparent reason for movement. Furthermore, pure matter can propogate its own laws by itself by merely existing, so I don't see the need for God to command it.

The idea that God created substance from nothing is, as I see it, rather unnecessary. That is, if God created substance, than what created God? Surely God need not rely on anything else, but then again, mass/energy doesn't either, which is precisely the point Spinoza and his advocates assert.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Hi, i posted an answer in the philosophical literature forum which might help

(Source: ME)

As for one disciple of science not being able to disbelieve in God, it depends on what you mean by God, but altogether i don't think it is so. Science has revealed deep and magnificent order behind the universe and it's far from done. Although currently it is struggling with the quantum mechanics at the atomic level, and so far we can say that at this most fundamental level of existence there is randomness and uncertainty. Also when viewing the universe being orderly and supposing a first cause, the solution God is question-begging of God's first cause, no matter your definition of God. And from here is seems impossible to distinguish why the universe cannot be it's own cause but God can be.
To go back to your original question, science even offers a theory about the origin of the universe, the big bang, which does not unavoidably require the existence of a God per se. The truest question is not of origin in itself, but why is there something instead of nothing. If you can answer that please tell me :)

You beat me to it...

Speaking of quantum mechanics, I am inclined to agree with Einstein that the universe doesn't follow randomness and uncertainty. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I think that its more likely that the manner in which scientists have historically modelled larger objects cannot be applied to waves/particles of such small mass. DeBroglie did a pretty legit doctoral dissertation when he showed that all matter can just as easily be described as a wave, but even that is not entirely accurate in describing everything. I don't think science is able to model and explain everything precisely; dividing infinite substance into parts is a flawed method of reasoning and will eventually yield uncertainty and randomness...

[symphony]

As for one disciple of science not being able to disbelieve in God, it depends on what you mean by God, but altogether i don't think it is so. Science has revealed deep and magnificent order behind the universe and it's far from done. Although currently it is struggling with the quantum mechanics at the atomic level, and so far we can say that at this most fundamental level of existence there is randomness and uncertainty. Also when viewing the universe being orderly and supposing a first cause, the solution God is question-begging of God's first cause, no matter your definition of God. And from here is seems impossible to distinguish why the universe cannot be it's own cause but God can be.
To go back to your original question, science even offers a theory about the origin of the universe, the big bang, which does not unavoidably require the existence of a God per se. The truest question is not of origin in itself, but why is there something instead of nothing. If you can answer that please tell me :)

I'm afraid there are some parts in there that i didnt quite understand. could u please explain what u really meant when u were saying "but altogether i don't think it is so"? Sorry if i'm sounding too dumb hehe. :blush:

As for science offering the big bang theory, i think no theory (developed so far) is devoid of a "?" at the end :) . What I mean is, science if still full of questions yet to be answered, it doesnt offer any strong must-be theory still, everything in science is full of presumptions and hypothesis. As I see it, even the big bang theory requires a God, this theory claims that universe had a beiginning, and it predicts what the conditions were when it came into being. Everything *must* have a source. Cant that 'source' be named as "God"?

[Pelican King]

You beat me to it...

Speaking of quantum mechanics, I am inclined to agree with Einstein that the universe doesn't follow randomness and uncertainty. I have read quite a bit on the subject and I think that its more likely that the manner in which scientists have historically modelled larger objects cannot be applied to waves/particles of such small mass. DeBroglie did a pretty legit doctoral dissertation when he showed that all matter can just as easily be described as a wave, but even that is not entirely accurate in describing everything. I don't think science is able to model and explain everything precisely; dividing infinite substance into parts is a flawed method of reasoning and will eventually yield uncertainty and randomness...

I'll admit i'm not well versed in physics so i can't really discuss much into the uncertainty principle and the like. It just surprises me and delights me that the universe, despite so much discovered, is still very mysterious. Yet i will be equally as delighted if (or when) understandings are found.

[symphony]

You beat me to it...
I don't think science is able to model and explain everything precisely; dividing infinite substance into parts is a flawed method of reasoning and will eventually yield uncertainty and randomness...

Of course it doesnt. Science is nothing but knowledge, which is, we must admit, still limited to definite criterias. But knowing more doesnt hurt ;) , which is why we strive to know the universe we live in, and also- the reason why it is here.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

He is disagreeing with your statement in the OP that men of science can't avoid believing in God, and science is moreso concerned with modelling data accurately than it is with metaphysics.


I'll admit i'm not well versed in physics so i can't really discuss much into the uncertainty principle and the like. It just surprises me and delights me that the universe, despite so much discovered, is still very mysterious. Yet i will be equally as delighted if (or when) understandings are found.

There are a lot of people on this thread now huh?

Scientific discoveries aren't really "discoveries" as they are correct models. It isn't for science to discover truth; they're pretty much looking for consistency and leave metaphysical interpretation for the masses.


Of course it doesnt. Science is nothing but knowledge, which is, we must admit, still limited to definite criterias. But knowing more doesnt hurt ;) , which is why we strive to know the universe we live in, and also- the reason why it is here.

Science never claims to "know" anything, they are after constency. Although pragmatism has helped create more sophisticated models of phenomena, scientists by no means attempt to explain "why" things behave as they do.

[Pelican King]

Of course it doesnt. Science is nothing but knowledge, which is, we must admit, still limited to definite criterias. But knowing more doesnt hurt ;) , which is why we strive to know the universe we live in, and also- the reason why it is here.

What your saying is true. What more i was hinting at was science will never reveal why there is "something instead of nothing", and that will only ever be answered philosophically, that is, not at all:)

[symphony]

Scientific discoveries aren't really "discoveries" as they are correct models. It isn't for science to discover truth; they're pretty much looking for consistency and leave metaphysical interpretation for the masses.

Science never claims to "know" anything, they are after constency.

I dont think we can still be sure of the fact that what science is discovering so far is absolutely right. And i'll call them 'discoveries' since these are realisations gained through logical thinking, and observation.
And i'm afraid i still cant understand the "It isn't for science to discover truth." part. If its as simple as it sounds, i beg to disagree. if not, what did u actually mean by that bit?


What your saying is true. What more i was hinting at was science will never reveal why there is "something instead of nothing", and that will only ever be answered philosophically, that is, not at all:)
That is also a part of the question posed by science today. While reading some of Hawking's works, I often came to queries like "why is the universe here?" (which is the same question ur asking) and "how did it come into being?".

[JCamilo]

From the momment you need to construct a metaphorical reasoning to use the word God to mean anything else but God, it is clear God lost his place in much more places than just Science.

[Pendragon]

This might be a mistake on my part, but I wish to go on record that everything I have said here is polite, and I do not try to cast any stones at anyone. If I cannot be at least civil, I will not post.

If then, Dr. Ralph, we take it as a "given" that Spinoza was absolutely correct and nothing exists except energy, Einstein's E=MC² being the perfect formula, what force is then responsible for deciding how energy is distributed? You and I are human, and chemical analysis would show exactly of what we are made. A few years ago, it was worth something like $1.75 in American money for the chemicals that make up our flesh and bone.

But the next thing over may be a tree. Plant life contains different chemicals. Here, there is a rocky outcrop of quartz. There goes a bolt of pure lightning. Here is a fresh water lake, some 50 miles from a salt-water ocean. All this is energy, but not the same form. Does it randomly happen that energy comes out here as one thing and there as something totally opposite?

That’s asking a whole lot of chance. If I could grasp this point, could I then also grasp the scientific law that there is enough space between our atoms for solid objects to pass through each other without touching, and put my hand through this desk without breaking the wood?

I am not making fun by any means. It is just a simple question. Are there laws that govern energy, and if so, who made them?

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Derringer]

I have often been subjected to criticisms (of types manifold) for considering God as a source of mass or energy... but is it really that bad? I believe in a beginning of time, in a source, in a cause. And I call that my "God" for general convenience. Is it really that weird a belief?

I'd like to hear ur views on topics related to this. Please open up. :)

No, it's not weird, in fact, it's no 'weirder' than any other belief because an 'initial cause' - if such a thing even happened - has never been proven without a doubt. Either way, 'it is what it is'; whether you have belief or empirical knowledge you still have to go to work tomorrow. Nothing to lose sleep over.

How philosophy and science are connected is quite the topic these days with the popularity of "The God Delusion" and other similar books. My opinion of such books is that they may have valid points, but they take the wrong approach. Much like communism, the wrong means for the right ends. It's completely un-scholarly, but using wikipedia can be a great start for such topics because there are dozens and dozens of summaries of many scientific/philosophical beliefs. I honestly would not be suprised if you found a belief similar to yours on that site.

[symphony]

worth a check :D

[JGL57]

...It is just a simple question. Are there laws that govern energy, and if so, who made them?...

I think you may be confusing descriptive laws with precriptive laws. Such is not an apples and oranges logical error, but more like apples and gerbils.

[Pelican King]

I'm afraid there are some parts in there that i didnt quite understand. could u please explain what u really meant when u were saying "but altogether i don't think it is so"? Sorry if i'm sounding too dumb hehe. :blush:

As for science offering the big bang theory, i think no theory (developed so far) is devoid of a "?" at the end :) . What I mean is, science if still full of questions yet to be answered, it doesnt offer any strong must-be theory still, everything in science is full of presumptions and hypothesis. As I see it, even the big bang theory requires a God, this theory claims that universe had a beiginning, and it predicts what the conditions were when it came into being. Everything *must* have a source. Cant that 'source' be named as "God"?

My apologies if i was unclear on certain aspects, i just dislike long posts and aim at conciseness.

Your reasoning was so close to reaching my conclusion. We are aware of causality's existence throughout the universe, everything seems to have a cause. Therefore, there must of been a first cause which caused this chain of causes. The Big Bang is a common scientific explanation for a first cause. Yet what caused the Big Bang? From here God logically can explain the occurrence of the Big Bang, despite your definition of God. But then, why is there a God in the 'real first place'? It's commonly argued that God is timeless, the "Unmoved Mover" as Aristotle put it. Yet why is it more reasonable for God to be causeless then for the universe to be causeless? I don't think science necessarily supposes God's existence because i have no reason to think that the universe cannot be infinite.

[Pendragon]

I think you may be confusing descriptive laws with precriptive laws. Such is not an apples and oranges logical error, but more like apples and gerbils.OK. But if I may, this still doesn't answer the question. Laws of physics, Laws of Mathematics, and such things that we are told cannot be broken, I will accept that they exist. But man discovered those laws by experiment. The laws were already in place, governing how energy will work and move. So who or what placed those boundaries in place?

Take for example Newton’s Law that: “For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.” That Law isn’t difficult to grasp. But why is this so? We could live in a world where the action of using energy would simply destroy it, no other reaction. But the energy transfers and becomes something new, an opposite effect. I hope that someone can answer without saying “That’s just the way it is.”

[Redzeppelin]

To assert that God must be the cause of order and civility in the universe is not necessarily the soundest choice. Why could matter not have existed forever, just as God is said to? To claim that God is responsible for making matter out of nothing is somewhat frivolous; energy is all that exists, whether it is concentrated into mass or the apparent reason for movement. Furthermore, pure matter can propogate its own laws by itself by merely existing, so I don't see the need for God to command it.

Matter cannot be self-existent. It is created - like everything else. Energy comes from somewhere - it isn't self-existent either. All causes work backward to the "unmoved mover" (to paraphrase Aristotle). The existence of "now" prohibits the existence of time as infinite (you cannot have an infinite number of moments before "now") - which means that time and the universe had a beginning.


The idea that God created substance from nothing is, as I see it, rather unnecessary. That is, if God created substance, than what created God? Surely God need not rely on anything else, but then again, mass/energy doesn't either, which is precisely the point Spinoza and his advocates assert.

The idea that God created matter out of nothing is very necessary because there really is no good alternative that doesn't require me to accept impossibilites as true. God is not impossible; He may seem improbable, but much of what I'd have to accept as an alternative strikes me as impossible.

Nothing created God: He is the one uncreated Being in the universe.

[Pelican King]

Nothing created God: He is the one uncreated Being in the universe.

Can you answer how this is true of God but not true of the Universe? Why doesn't God need a cause?

[Redzeppelin]

Can you answer how this is true of God but not true of the Universe? Why doesn't God need a cause?

Your question is important because it reveals why many people do not believe in God: His existence goes beyond what we can comprehend; as such, what we fail to completely comprehend, we assume to be imaginary - but much of what we take for granted today (cars, computers, cell phones, laser technology) was inconceivable to prior generations.

God doesn't "need" anything - He is an eternal, self-sufficient Being. That's what the term "God" means - only He is non-contingent. Everything else in the universe is contingent.

[Pelican King]

Your question is important because it reveals why many people do not believe in God: His existence goes beyond what we can comprehend; as such, what we fail to completely comprehend, we assume to be imaginary - but much of what we take for granted today (cars, computers, cell phones, laser technology) was inconceivable to prior generations.

God doesn't "need" anything - He is an eternal, self-sufficient Being. That's what the term "God" means - only He is non-contingent. Everything else in the universe is contingent.

Saying God is non-contingent, and the Universe is contingent is just making suppositions. Saying something is beyond comprehension begs the question of why you think/comprehend it.


"The Universe is something mysterious which we will never understand. It's purpose and existence is beyond our comprehension and all we can do is be aware that we are living in it and enjoy our fraction of time within it."


My statement is on par with yours, and I have fair certainty i will never believe otherwise.

[Redzeppelin]

Saying God is non-contingent, and the Universe is contingent is just making suppositions. Saying something is beyond comprehension begs the question of why you think/comprehend it.

Suppositions to you. You cannot compare God and the universe to each other: one is a created thing, the other the creator. To ask the question of "why doesn't God need a cause?" is to relegate Him to the realm of the created. That would immediately demote God from being "God."


My statement is on par with yours, and I have fair certainty i will never believe otherwise.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. You asked a question and I answered it. If I didn't do so to your satisfaction, then please let me know where I was unclear.

[Pelican King]

Suppositions to you. You cannot compare God and the universe to each other: one is a created thing, the other the creator. To ask the question of "why doesn't God need a cause?" is to relegate Him to the realm of the created. That would immediately demote God from being "God."I don't know how many times i can rephrase this. You only believe the universe is created, you cannot prove it's not infinite. Just as you cannot prove God doesn't need a cause, like your supposition about the universe. There is no argument here but faith. Which as i argued in another thread is causally necessary for belief in God. He cannot be proven rationally.



Not sure what this is supposed to mean. You asked a question and I answered it. If I didn't do so to your satisfaction, then please let me know where I was unclear.
My counterargument demonstrated that if i use your reasoning 'i know it's true because it's beyond comprehension' then both positions are correct. The Universe and God are both at the same time explainable as without cause. And since they are contradictory positions this can't be correct reasoning. If you believe that God is without cause on the basis He's beyond comprehension, then you'd have to say why the Universe isn't 'beyond comprehension'. Otherwise we can both believe our positions on our fallacious premises.
If there is any uncertainty on this i recommend a brief glance over proof by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

[Redzeppelin]

I don't know how many times i can rephrase this. You only believe the universe is created, you cannot prove it's not infinite. Just as you cannot prove God doesn't need a cause, unlike your supposition about the universe. There is no argument here but faith. Which as i argued in another thread is causally necessary for belief in God. He cannot be proven rationally.

You're right: I do "only believe" the universe is created - just like you believe (perhaps?) that it's eternal. That's where you and I are on the same page - neither of us can prove our beliefs. I'm quite clear that my position is based on faith (like yours) but that doesn't mean I have to speak of it as you see it. I'm allowed to speak of what I believe as fact because I believe it to be so - but I don't expect you to take it as such. That God cannot be "proven rationally" doesn't do anything to the possibility of His existence - which was what I was trying to get at. A being described as having the characteristics God has of course defies rationality - because "rationality" here on earth is defined by ourselves - very limited and finite creatures.


My counterargument demonstrated that if i use your reasoning 'i know it's true because it's beyond comprehension' then both positions are correct.

I did not make this argument; people who have spent time reading my posts in this forum know that I never try to "prove" that God exists; I simply remarked that it is a human tendency to dismiss as unreal that which goes beyond our human comprehension. I did not indicate that God's incomprehensiblility is the basis of my belief; rather, it is (more than likely) the basis of non-believers' rejection of God.


The Universe and God are both at the same time explainable as without cause.

No. Matter and time are not self-existent.


And since they are contradictory positions this can't be correct reasoning. If you believe that God is without cause on the basis He's beyond comprehension, then you'd have to say why the Universe isn't 'beyond comprehension'. Otherwise we can both believe our positions on our fallacious premises.

Already corrected above; my belief is not based on God's incomprehensibility. The universe is not beyond comprehension because it has a beginning and an end (as does time).

[Pelican King]

If your just throwing words out here 'God is incomprehensible' then there's nothing I'm opposed to. I think the cosmological argument doesn't prove anything, it's completely invalid. The universe could be eternal, it could be caused by an eternal God from either the Bible, Qur'an or Torah or just a 'God' by definition whom doesn't have any personal relationship with humanity, or the Universe could simply develop with some inherent purpose of developing life. Consequently my secular humanism isn't based upon it. It's just when i hear of someone saying 'well, something started everything, right?', as if this were sufficient, i can only respond with explaining why it can't support anything.

[Redzeppelin]

If your just throwing words out here 'God is incomprehensible' then there's nothing I'm opposed to. I think the cosmological argument doesn't prove anything, it's completely invalid. The universe could be eternal, it could be caused by an eternal God from either the Bible, Qur'an or Torah or just a 'God' by definition whom doesn't have any personal relationship with humanity, or the Universe could simply develop with some inherent purpose of developing life. Consequently my secular humanism isn't based upon it. It's just when i hear of someone saying 'well, something started everything, right?', as if this were sufficient, i can only respond with explaining why it can't support anything.

Matter and time are not eternal. Matter is not self-existent. Time cannot be infinite because you cannot have an infinite number of moments before "now" - and since "now" exists, time had to have a beginning. The universe cannot "simply develop" - nothing "simply develops" on its own volition. Things come from other things - all causes are preceded by another, but infinite regression is an absurdity. I have never claimed that "something started it" was any proof of God. But I do assert that the reality that "something started it" means that secular humanists now have a problem that's difficult to solve. Making matter and time eternal appears to solve their quandry, but that involves a logical absurdity in order to make sense (oh, the irony).

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I hate writing long posts, but bear with me.


I dont think we can still be sure of the fact that what science is discovering so far is absolutely right. And i'll call them 'discoveries' since these are realisations gained through logical thinking, and observation.
And i'm afraid i still cant understand the "It isn't for science to discover truth." part. If its as simple as it sounds, i beg to disagree. if not, what did u actually mean by that bit?

Science is not after "realization" or "discovering truth"; it is used to create and model data, and is absolutely not for answering questions or giving reasons. Scientists do not care whether their data has an explanation, but instead whether their models accurately reflect what is observed in reality.

For example, Newton's laws of motion accurately predict phenomena, but they don't explain why objects move as they do under constant acceleration.


If then, Dr. Ralph, we take it as a "given" that Spinoza was absolutely correct and nothing exists except energy, Einstein's E=MC² being the perfect formula, what force is then responsible for deciding how energy is distributed? You and I are human, and chemical analysis would show exactly of what we are made. A few years ago, it was worth something like $1.75 in American money for the chemicals that make up our flesh and bone.

But the next thing over may be a tree. Plant life contains different chemicals. Here, there is a rocky outcrop of quartz. There goes a bolt of pure lightning. Here is a fresh water lake, some 50 miles from a salt-water ocean. All this is energy, but not the same form. Does it randomly happen that energy comes out here as one thing and there as something totally opposite?

That’s asking a whole lot of chance. If I could grasp this point, could I then also grasp the scientific law that there is enough space between our atoms for solid objects to pass through each other without touching, and put my hand through this desk without breaking the wood?

I am not making fun by any means. It is just a simple question. Are there laws that govern energy, and if so, who made them?

Spinoza's philosophy is demonstrably complete and final and can be shown with mathematics and pragmatism; I do not "take it as a given."

There are several models for how energy behaves, and the study of this is Science. Energy (in its atomic form) propogates its own fundamental laws solely by its own presence. God is not needed to invent these laws, for matter is self-governing. This took me a while to figure out, so I will try to simplify it without trying to sound condescending.

As you've stated before, matter is equal to energy. When an atom exists, it necessarily carries with it an electromagnetic field, simply due to the presence of a charge. This field is responsible for the vast majority of atomic interaction and is made possible by the mere existence of a charged particle. Not only this, but all particles create a gravitational field, and nucleons stay together via nuclear forces (which is also self-propogating). The only deductive argument that can be made is that energy exists in itself and "moves" in a predetermined way solely because it exists in reality.

The tree, lake, quartz, etc are indeed all forms of energy as atoms. These are not fundamentally different from each other, but only appear to be as a result of the subjectivity of your reasoning. Simply because you perceive the lake to be liquid and the quartz to be solid does not mean they are entirely different objects. Properties of atoms are determined by the amount of mass or charge they have (ie, its atomic number and valence electrons). That is what causes these apparent differences, not that they are inherently different sustances.

There is not enough space in between atoms to move through the desk; the normal force of the desk is caused by electromagnetic force, which is governed by a field, so you can't simply move around it.

To summarize, there are models that are used to describe energy transfer and motion of atoms; they do not explain why because there isn't an answer for that. As for who created them, they are inherent to the substance itself, which exists in itself and propogates its own laws by merely existing.


Therefore, there must of been a first cause which caused this chain of causes. The Big Bang is a common scientific explanation for a first cause. Yet what caused the Big Bang? From here God logically can explain the occurrence of the Big Bang, despite your definition of God. But then, why is there a God in the 'real first place'? It's commonly argued that God is timeless, the "Unmoved Mover" as Aristotle put it. Yet why is it more reasonable for God to be causeless then for the universe to be causeless? I don't think science necessarily supposes God's existence because i have no reason to think that the universe cannot be infinite.

There is no reason for God to logically be the first cause, you are right. I agree entirely that the universe is causeless because there cannot exist a separate substance, and moreover, science has yet to suggest evidence for one. Using movement as the basis for a logical argument is rather silly because it neglects to mention that movement is fundamentally the same as that which is moving, if that makes sense...


Matter cannot be self-existent. It is created - like everything else. Energy comes from somewhere - it isn't self-existent either. All causes work backward to the "unmoved mover" (to paraphrase Aristotle). The existence of "now" prohibits the existence of time as infinite (you cannot have an infinite number of moments before "now") - which means that time and the universe had a beginning.

The idea that God created matter out of nothing is very necessary because there really is no good alternative that doesn't require me to accept impossibilites as true. God is not impossible; He may seem improbable, but much of what I'd have to accept as an alternative strikes me as impossible.

Nothing created God: He is the one uncreated Being in the universe.

All science and reason seems to conclude exactly the opposite, and it disappoints me to read such a tangibly sophistical explanation for religious dogma not established by reason. "Something which is not established by reason cannot be removed by it." Make sure you finish all your punch during the meteor shower.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your question is important because it reveals why many people do not believe in God: His existence goes beyond what we can comprehend; as such, what we fail to completely comprehend, we assume to be imaginary - but much of what we take for granted today (cars, computers, cell phones, laser technology) was inconceivable to prior generations.

God doesn't "need" anything - He is an eternal, self-sufficient Being. That's what the term "God" means - only He is non-contingent. Everything else in the universe is contingent.

Do you not see anything inconsistent between your statement that God's "existence goes beyond what we can comprehend" and your bold assertions here and elsewhere as to what God is or is not, wants or forbids, thinks or intends?

[Niamh]

OK. But if I may, this still doesn't answer the question. Laws of physics, Laws of Mathematics, and such things that we are told cannot be broken, I will accept that they exist. But man discovered those laws by experiment. The laws were already in place, governing how energy will work and move. So who or what placed those boundaries in place?

Take for example Newton’s Law that: “For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.” That Law isn’t difficult to grasp. But why is this so? We could live in a world where the action of using energy would simply destroy it, no other reaction. But the energy transfers and becomes something new, an opposite effect. I hope that someone can answer without saying “That’s just the way it is.”

I think you are asking very good questions Pendragon. I'd also like to here what people have to say. I'm one of these people who believes that our bodies contain energy. I know nothing of Physics and science but i personally believe this, but more in the sense that when we die our bodies energy is released. It becomes part of what is around us, the air, the soil,the trees, the birds and animals, and maybe even the unborn baby. its like rebirth and rejuvination. Maybe our energy is our spirit and once we die and it is released, it searchs for something new to awaken, to bring to life, to reincarnate.

[Gorilla King]

Do you not see anything inconsistent between your statement that God's "existence goes beyond what we can comprehend" and your bold assertions here and elsewhere as to what God is or is not, wants or forbids, thinks or intends?

If I may....the appearance of inconsistency can be addressed by the God's revelation. The Bible. I know it's not popular to say these days, but there are more existing manuscripts of both the old and new testament than any other written work in human history and by and large they are very internally consistent. Therefore, while we may have minor errors in our existing text, I don't know of any that affect the actual message. One of the common misconceptions when people speak of the infallibility of the Bible is that they're not (or at least ought not) to be talking about what we have, but rather the original manuscripts. When it comes to what we have, we can say that it's about 99.8% accurate in it's translation with no doctrines affected by the errors (most have to do with numbers).

Now of course even with this the question becomes how can you know what the bible says is true. Well, one good starting point is the old testament prophesies about Jesus. In the old testament, if a so called prophet gave even one false prophecy the penalty was death. And in fact, if any of the prophecies about Jesus in the old Testament aren't true then it's not a reliable text and Christianity falls apart. However, no one has yet been able to show any false prophecies concerning Jesus. The entire Bible is about Him after all, not just the New Testament.

[PrinceMyshkin]

If I may....the appearance of inconsistency can be addressed by the God's revelation. The Bible. I know it's not popular to say these days, but there are more existing manuscripts of both the old and new testament than any other written work in human history and by and large they are very internally consistent. Therefore, while we may have minor errors in our existing text, I don't know of any that affect the actual message. One of the common misconceptions when people speak of the infallibility of the Bible is that they're not (or at least ought not) to be talking about what we have, but rather the original manuscripts. When it comes to what we have, we can say that it's about 99.8% accurate in it's translation with no doctrines affected by the errors (most have to do with numbers).

Now of course even with this the question becomes how can you know what the bible says is true. Well, one good starting point is the old testament prophesies about Jesus. In the old testament, if a so called prophet gave even one false prophecy the penalty was death. And in fact, if any of the prophecies about Jesus in the old Testament aren't true then it's not a reliable text and Christianity falls apart. However, no one has yet been able to show any false prophecies concerning Jesus. The entire Bible is about Him after all, not just the New Testament.

I believe there are as many bibles as there are reader of the bible. Many things are proclaimed as being God's intentions fopr which I doubt there is any scriptural authority, or only of the most tenuous, ambiguous sort and theists, when they interpret the Bible, can not only make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; they have enough left over to clothe a bishop or two.

[Gorilla King]

I believe there are as many bibles as there are reader of the bible. Many things are proclaimed as being God's intentions fopr which I doubt there is any scriptural authority, or only of the most tenuous, ambiguous sort and theists, when they interpret the Bible, can not only make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; they have enough left over to clothe a bishop or two.

You're quite right that many people make foolish attempts at interpreting the Bible. This more than anything else is a function of the current stream of anti-intellectualism within the church. However, there is a correct way to both interpret and approach interpreting the scriptures and those methods are called hermeneutics and exegesis. It's basically the method for textual criticism by which one examines not only the words themselves, but the time in which they were written in an attempt to grasp the plain meaning the author intended. For instance, when Jesus speaks of a camel going through the eye of the needle, we literally think of a camel and a needle. In fact, there was a small gate just for people in the wall of Jerusalem which was called the eye of the needle. Jesus was saying a rich merchant with a loaded camel couldn't go through that gate. And so the words become more clear.

[PrinceMyshkin]

You're quite right that many people make foolish attempts at interpreting the Bible. This more than anything else is a function of the current stream of anti-intellectualism within the church. However, there is a correct way to both interpret and approach interpreting the scriptures and those methods are called hermeneutics and exegesis. It's basically the method for textual criticism by which one examines not only the words themselves, but the time in which they were written in an attempt to grasp the plain meaning the author intended. For instance, when Jesus speaks of a camel going through the eye of the needle, we literally think of a camel and a needle. In fact, there was a small gate just for people in the wall of Jerusalem which was called the eye of the needle. Jesus was saying a rich merchant with a loaded camel couldn't go through that gate. And so the words become more clear.

But hermeneutics and exegesis, no matter how scrupulously applied they are, can still only be nothing more than intelligent guess-work and one simply cannot know the entire context of Jesus' time (and of Paul's and of the times when the Gospels were composed). And to your camel & needle correction I must add that Mary was NOT spoken of in the original as a "virgin" but rather as a young woman. The virgin status was a mistranslation.

[Gorilla King]

But hermeneutics and exegesis, no matter how scrupulously applied they are, can still only be nothing more than intelligent guess-work and one simply cannot know the entire context of Jesus' time (and of Paul's and of the times when the Gospels were composed). And to your camel & needle correction I must add that Mary was NOT spoken of in the original as a "virgin" but rather as a young woman. The virgin status was a mistranslation.

There's very little that can't be easily grasped within the bible (save for Revelation perhaps) and I would certainly challenge you to present anything that might be considered difficult and we can discuss it.

As to the virgin/young woman thing with Mary, don't believe the the modern skeptics on that point. Everyone wants to appear clever but you need look no further than Saint Simeon. Moreover, one would have to question why the great controversy with Joseph and Mary if it was stating something as simple as Jesus was born of a young woman. It doesn't make any sense.

[PrinceMyshkin]

There's very little that can't be easily grasped within the bible (save for Revelation perhaps) and I would certainly challenge you to present anything that might be considered difficult and we can discuss it.

As to the virgin/young woman thing with Mary, don't believe the the modern skeptics on that point. Everyone wants to appear clever but you need look no further than Saint Simeon. Moreover, one would have to question why the great controversy with Joseph and Mary if it was stating something as simple as Jesus was born of a young woman. It doesn't make any sense.


The last of my comments re this debate with you will be to express my deep appreciation of the civility of your replies. Although I seem to be driven or drawn almost against my will to debate with theists, I think my underlying issue is with the dogmatists of either stripe, and the ultimate cleft in humankind, I think, is between the loud and the quiet. I'm too often one of the former aspiring to be one of the latter.

But I simply don't have your depth of knowledge of theology and/or scripture. My point of last resistance would be to say that I find life more interesting without the certainty that there is a God than I might find it othrewise (although, of course, I will never know). So...

Go with God, but keep with man and woman...

Jer

[Gorilla King]

The last of my comments re this debate with you will be to express my deep appreciation of the civility of your replies. Although I seem to be driven or drawn almost against my will to debate with theists, I think my underlying issue is with the dogmatists of either stripe, and the ultimate cleft in humankind, I think, is between the loud and the quiet. I'm too often one of the former aspiring to be one of the latter.

But I simply don't have your depth of knowledge of theology and/or scripture. My point of last resistance would be to say that I find life more interesting without the certainty that there is a God than I might find it othrewise (although, of course, I will never know). So...

Go with God, but keep with man and woman...

Jer

Sounds fair enough to me! I do have to agree, it's quite nice being able to talk about these things in a civil way.

[Turk]

I was kinda teasing at my first posts on this thread. But really; i can't even see a possibility that science can exclude God. Science is science, religion is faith. They are two different things. Main question is why we are here and existence of universe. And science will never answer question of existence "why?". Because of this; i really think this's so meaningles. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe, but please stop trying to use science for your believes. I've never seen a scientific research that says "there's no God".

Btw, someone said Einstein was Spinozist, i don't know if he was Spinozist but as i remember Spinoza wasn't Materialist. So even we say Einstein wasn't Jewish in classic way, he still didn't reject existence of God. And not just Einstein but many greatest scientists believed in God.

[Redzeppelin]

All science and reason seems [Redzep's bold] to conclude exactly the opposite, and it disappoints me to read such a tangibly sophistical explanation for religious dogma not established by reason. "Something which is not established by reason cannot be removed by it." Make sure you finish all your punch during the meteor shower.

"Seems" is all I need, my friend. To the ancient mind, the world seemed flat. Reason is not God and can therefore not account for all of reality; only God can do that. Reason is a handy tool for assessing certain things in this life - but it is not the arbiter of what is real.


Do you not see anything inconsistent between your statement that God's "existence goes beyond what we can comprehend" and your bold assertions here and elsewhere as to what God is or is not, wants or forbids, thinks or intends?

God's existence in space and time is incomprehensible; God's character is not a complete mystery because the Bible is the revelation of God's character. No inconsistency involved here.


I believe there are as many bibles as there are reader of the bible. Many things are proclaimed as being God's intentions fopr which I doubt there is any scriptural authority, or only of the most tenuous, ambiguous sort and theists, when they interpret the Bible, can not only make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear; they have enough left over to clothe a bishop or two.

There is only one Bible. Despite differences of interpretation, the Bible says what it says. Some things require more interpretation than others, but plenty of its statements (especially those dealing with who God is) are quite unequivocal in their clarity.

[JCamilo]

The notion that there is only one Bible does not seem to work with the people who created that bible and developed a discipline that would allow different interepretations of it.
Also the notion that all manuscripts of the bible have coherence is silly - all versions of the Iliad have also coherence, it will happens with texts that share the same source.

The notion of the First Cause is arguable. It is only necessary a first cause if you set the Time as the Chronology of our Universe. However before the creation of our Universe there is not such Time, so the first cause is rather arguable.
Also, God does not answer it. If you argue that matter-universe or energy need a creator to exist and thus you need the First Cause, you should not stop (and you stop only because the arguments wants to prove god and not find the truth) when You find God. God obviously can not exist without a creator as well, unless you come with the theological reasons. Thus, even if the First Cause argument is not falacious the only way to have his final answer "God" is having this answer already set as the correct, even before any questioning, hence, it needs faith. Science excludes faith. hence the original question - God does not belong there.

A final note, just because one argues matter had to be created, etc it does not mean it had to be created by god - after all you are just changing "it appeared from nothing" to "it appeared from nothing by God's will". That certainly is not a good argument to use.

I am sorry, But God does not belong to Science (which does not eliminate religion and faith from the humans that pratice Science).

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

"Seems" is all I need, my friend. To the ancient mind, the world seemed flat. Reason is not God and can therefore not account for all of reality; only God can do that. Reason is a handy tool for assessing certain things in this life - but it is not the arbiter of what is real.

By seems I meant absolutely does, I was being very facetious. {edit}

[Redzeppelin]

The notion that there is only one Bible does not seem to work with the people who created that bible and developed a discipline that would allow different interepretations of it.
Also the notion that all manuscripts of the bible have coherence is silly - all versions of the Iliad have also coherence, it will happens with texts that share the same source.

That there are different translations and interpretations of the Bible does not mean that there's more than one. There is only one Bible. By the way, textual studies show that the Bible has more textual authority than the Illiad.


The notion of the First Cause is arguable. It is only necessary a first cause if you set the Time as the Chronology of our Universe. However before the creation of our Universe there is not such Time, so the first cause is rather arguable.

Sure it's arguable - but you'll need to be more specific about the sleight-of-hand you're doing with time. What else do you set for a "chronology" of something besides time? I'd like clarification on how you'd argue about the issue of time.


Also, God does not answer it. If you argue that matter-universe or energy need a creator to exist and thus you need the First Cause, you should not stop (and you stop only because the arguments wants to prove god and not find the truth) when You find God. God obviously can not exist without a creator as well, unless you come with the theological reasons. Thus, even if the First Cause argument is not falacious the only way to have his final answer "God" is having this answer already set as the correct, even before any questioning, hence, it needs faith. Science excludes faith. hence the original question - God does not belong here.

Here we go again. To dismiss God as the First Cause as you have done reveals only that you do not understand or believe He is who He claims to be. People who ask if God created Himself or needed to be created are applying their temporal, finite understanding of reality to a Being that transcends everything but Himself. God is the uncreated - He has always existed.


A final note, just because one argues matter had to be created, etc it does not mean it had to be created by god - after all you are just changing "it appeared from nothing" to "it appeared from nothing by God's will". That certainly is not a good argument to use.

Then give me a reasonable alternative to the ex nihilo creation of matter besides an Uncreated Being, please.


I am sorry, But God does not belong to Science (which does not eliminated religion and faith from the humans that pratice Science).

Science's job is to try and unravel the handiwork of God; what it has decided is that since it has figured some things out, that there must be no God at all. Silly.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Science's job is to try and unravel the handiwork of God; what it has decided is that since it has figured some things out, that there must be no God at all. Silly.

"What it has decided", haha. I daresay you don't know the first thing about science, my good chum. Please cite sources before you decide to disrespect an entire field of study.

[Redzeppelin]

"What it has decided", haha. I daresay you don't know the first thing about science, my good chum. Please cite sources before you decide to disrespect an entire field of study.

Ho-hum; spare me your assessment of what you think I know about science and I'll spare you my assessment of how little I think you know about God, OK?

"Cite sources"? What? Science used to work in conjunction with religion in its attempts to understand the world and the universe. Around the time of the Enlightenment, science - having figured out a few of the mysteries of the world - decided that God wasn't necessary to explain reality. I don't need to "cite a source" for what is a recognizable result of the Enlightenment. Deal with my argument rather than tell me how insufficient you think it is.

Finally, I've said nothing to "disrespect" science. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, sir.

[Turk]

"What it has decided", haha. I daresay you don't know the first thing about science, my good chum. Please cite sources before you decide to disrespect an entire field of study.

Excuse me but it's belief. As much as yours!

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Ho-hum; spare me your assessment of what you think I know about science and I'll spare you my assessment of how little I think you know about God, OK?

"Cite sources"? What? Science used to work in conjunction with religion in its attempts to understand the world and the universe. Around the time of the Enlightenment, science - having figured out a few of the mysteries of the world - decided that God wasn't necessary to explain reality. I don't need to "cite a source" for what is a recognizable result of the Enlightenment. Deal with my argument rather than tell me how insufficient you think it is.

Finally, I've said nothing to "disrespect" science. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, sir.

Science is not used to "understand" the universe, I have been over this multiple times in the thread. Not once have you given a reason for why God must exist and behave in the manner you've suggested; pardon me if replies to my well-prepared arguments are rebutted with "Only God can do that," "Nothing created God, he is the only uncreated being in the universe" and "matter cannot be self-existant". When I asserted that matter is self-existent, I explained how it was and cited observable phenomena that occurs in reality, see the difference? Once you produce a legitimate argument rather than recycled, cavilous TBN sophistry, then perhaps I might be able to muster enough patience to read and reply without having to teach you how to substantiate your own work.

[Pendragon]

I think you are asking very good questions Pendragon. I'd also like to here what people have to say. I'm one of these people who believes that our bodies contain energy. I know nothing of Physics and science but i personally believe this, but more in the sense that when we die our bodies energy is released. It becomes part of what is around us, the air, the soil,the trees, the birds and animals, and maybe even the unborn baby. its like rebirth and rejuvination. Maybe our energy is our spirit and once we die and it is released, it searchs for something new to awaken, to bring to life, to reincarnate.Thanks Niamh. Nobody else seems interested. I first asked:



This might be a mistake on my part, but I wish to go on record that everything I have said here is polite, and I do not try to cast any stones at anyone. If I cannot be at least civil, I will not post.

If then, Dr. Ralph, we take it as a "given" that Spinoza was absolutely correct and nothing exists except energy, Einstein's E=MC² being the perfect formula, what force is then responsible for deciding how energy is distributed? You and I are human, and chemical analysis would show exactly of what we are made. A few years ago, it was worth something like $1.75 in American money for the chemicals that make up our flesh and bone.

But the next thing over may be a tree. Plant life contains different chemicals. Here, there is a rocky outcrop of quartz. There goes a bolt of pure lightning. Here is a fresh water lake, some 50 miles from a salt-water ocean. All this is energy, but not the same form. Does it randomly happen that energy comes out here as one thing and there as something totally opposite?

That’s asking a whole lot of chance. If I could grasp this point, could I then also grasp the scientific law that there is enough space between our atoms for solid objects to pass through each other without touching, and put my hand through this desk without breaking the wood?

I am not making fun by any means. It is just a simple question. Are there laws that govern energy, and if so, who made them?


To which I got this unhelpful reply.


I think you may be confusing descriptive laws with precriptive laws. Such is not an apples and oranges logical error, but more like apples and gerbils.

So I asked again, with a bit more depth:



Originally Posted by Pendragon
OK. But if I may, this still doesn't answer the question. Laws of physics, Laws of Mathematics, and such things that we are told cannot be broken, I will accept that they exist. But man discovered those laws by experiment. The laws were already in place, governing how energy will work and move. So who or what placed those boundaries in place?

Take for example Newton’s Law that: “For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.” That Law isn’t difficult to grasp. But why is this so? We could live in a world where the action of using energy would simply destroy it, no other reaction. But the energy transfers and becomes something new, an opposite effect. I hope that someone can answer without saying “That’s just the way it is.”

Lots of arguing, questioning of intelligence (WHICH IS AGAIST THE RULES, WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE! NO WONDER THREADS KEEP LOCKING UP! IF THIS WERE OUT ON A STREET, PEOPLE MIGHT GET LOCKED UP! (I will remind you of the rules-- you don't like that, take it up with the moderators.)

But no one answers the question. Why?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I answered in page two and addressed each paragraph the best I could before you reposted, check it our or tell me what you think.

[JGL57]

OK. But if I may, this still doesn't answer the question. Laws of physics, Laws of Mathematics, and such things that we are told cannot be broken, I will accept that they exist. But man discovered those laws by experiment. The laws were already in place, governing how energy will work and move. So who or what placed those boundaries in place?

Take for example Newton’s Law that: “For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.” That Law isn’t difficult to grasp. But why is this so? We could live in a world where the action of using energy would simply destroy it, no other reaction. But the energy transfers and becomes something new, an opposite effect. I hope that someone can answer without saying “That’s just the way it is.”

So who or what placed those boundries in place? That question contains the assumption that there must be a super sentient being who placed those boundries in place. But that is not apparent to me or millions of other non-"believers". Rather than just "believe" it is so, we would rather have a good REASON to accept such as the best explanation. And what reason would you proffer to convince us?

To repeat, we obviously have determined some descriptive laws of nature. Where is the evidence that these laws are prescriptive (created by a super intelligence)?

The Buddhists, for the last 2,500 years, would indeed answer your question with "That's just the way it is.". If they are wrong-headed, then give us a sound logical argument as to why they are wrong.

As I have pointed out in other threads here on this forum, certain greek philosophers (e.g., Lucretious) modern day scientists, and Buddhists, both ancient and modern, are under no obligation to prove the obvious, or disprove the non-disprovable. Those who pose an invisible, immaterial sentient being as an explanation for the laws of nature or - well, anything at all, really - have the burden of proof of their extraordinary claim. Put up or....be very, very quiet.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Please do not resort to personal attacks/inflammatory comments during discussions.

[JCamilo]

That there are different translations and interpretations of the Bible does not mean that there's more than one. There is only one Bible. By the way, textual studies show that the Bible has more textual authority than the Illiad.

Interesting because it seems like several religious groups do not agree 100% about which books belong to the bible. But yet, this is irrelevant, if you resume a book just to its physical aspect (a bunch of papers ,letter cover, etc) you are talking about the object only, not the literature cointained in here.
Anyways, what is textual authority?


Sure it's arguable - but you'll need to be more specific about the sleight-of-hand you're doing with time. What else do you set for a "chronology" of something besides time? I'd like clarification on how you'd argue about the issue of time.

Time belongs to this Universe only. "Before" the Universe was created does not exist. Arguments that set a chronology before the creation of the Universe are only a word play because there is no time to have a "before" or "after" since there was no Universe.


Here we go again. To dismiss God as the First Cause as you have done reveals only that you do not understand or believe He is who He claims to be. People who ask if God created Himself or needed to be created are applying their temporal, finite understanding of reality to a Being that transcends everything but Himself. God is the uncreated - He has always existed.

Not only I understood as you just proved that I did understood. The First Cause is not an argument to prove anything but God's existence. It is a illogical falacy - We have to work with the assumption God's exist and it is what you claim to find a prove that he exist and it is what you claim. The argument is flawed, the first cause is just nice work play good for Thomas.
I wont even point how illogical your claim (preaching?) that I do not understand what god is by "Misusing" the First Cause becaue I apply my finite understanding to a infinite being when the First Cause is a creation of human mind, a finite thing.
If we humans are too limited to understand God then the First Cause - Human creation - is obviously flawed because it can not understand god.


Then give me a reasonable alternative to the ex nihilo creation of matter besides an Uncreated Being, please.

Philosophy neither science is a game that you must claim "head" or "tails". The Uncreated Being violates even the logic of the first cause that claims everything needs a begining, everything needs a creator. It hurts the idea that matery and energy can not appear from nothing. Fact is, God is synounimoyus for the Ex Nihilo you claim, He create things out of the thin air just because He can. The uncreated Being is not satisfactory, so new researches must be done. Answers do not surge espontaneously , much less in an internet forum, asking if I have an alternative or nothing does not help the argument for God, it just help the argument: "Scientists still have work to do".
I do not need to recall how God is now reduced as the creator of the universe, he that once was the creator of earth, life? Seems like viable alternative appeared once time and research was done. You are just repeating century old arguments that now... make no sense at all.


Science's job is to try and unravel the handiwork of God; what it has decided is that since it has figured some things out, that there must be no God at all. Silly.

Science does not have to unravel the handwork of God. Watsoever. The notion that we must study the universe to understand it predates Christianity, Catholic church by centuries. It also happened in nations where "God" was not a part of it, nations with different Cosmogonies.
Once upon a time, God had a say in state matters, legal matters, etc. It is gone also and it was not silly. Happened the same with the Unicorn.

[Gorilla King]

Just a small point with regards to the Bible. It's quite true that there are those who include the apocrypha and those who do not. However, those who exclude it do so because they are primarily historical books and aren't directly related to the central theme of the bible.

[Pendragon]

I answered in page two and addressed each paragraph the best I could before you reposted, check it our or tell me what you think.Pardon me for missing your answer, I was distracted by all the arguing going on on that page. I must say you make a wonderful debater, because you obviously are knowledgable about what you say, and you stick to your views. You do not change like the wind, and blow in another direction when someone disagrees.

That said, neither do I. I fail to see that just because everything is made from some sort of energy, the difference between "A" and "B" becomes an illusion. And if no order exists to govern the Universe, the resulting Chaos will rip it apart. I choose to believe that order is God. Let others call it what they will, I see no reason to fight about it, we are still on the same page. I have no quarrel with you or anyone else. There must be order of some kind for the universe to function. So we will leave it at that.

BTW, it was a serious science journal that postulated the space between atoms theory, not something I made up.

Long live and prosper, Dr. Ralph!

Pen


So who or what placed those boundries in place? That question contains the assumption that there must be a super sentient being who placed those boundries in place. But that is not apparent to me or millions of other non-"believers". Rather than just "believe" it is so, we would rather have a good REASON to accept such as the best explanation. And what reason would you proffer to convince us?

To repeat, we obviously have determined some descriptive laws of nature. Where is the evidence that these laws are prescriptive (created by a super intelligence)?

The question presumes nothing. It states a fact. Science discovered that there are laws that govern how energy acts and reacts. My asking who or what put the laws there suggests that Order exists. What form is Order in? You may call it "the natural Order of things." I may call it "God." Another may call it "The Cosmic All". OK?



The Buddhists, for the last 2,500 years, would indeed answer your question with "That's just the way it is.". If they are wrong-headed, then give us a sound logical argument as to why they are wrong. I have no intention of trying. In fact, it is a good enough answer for me. The reason I phrased my question the way I did, is because people always complain if someone says "God made it that way." Do you see the point, now?



As I have pointed out in other threads here on this forum, certain greek philosophers (e.g., Lucretious) modern day scientists, and Buddhists, both ancient and modern, are under no obligation to prove the obvious, or disprove the non-disprovable. Those who pose an invisible, immaterial sentient being as an explanation for the laws of nature or - well, anything at all, really - have the burden of proof of their extraordinary claim. Put up or....be very, very quiet. Which comes down to what you wish to believe in the end, doesn't it? "Has it ever occured to you that you could be wrong?" to quote Charles Schultz. It is a question that will make a man eximine himself.

As I stated before, I have no quarrels. JGL, Long Live and Prosper!

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

Science is not used to "understand" the universe, I have been over this multiple times in the thread.

Then be so kind as to tell me science's relationship to/interaction with the universe, please.


Not once have you given a reason for why God must exist and behave in the manner you've suggested; pardon me if replies to my well-prepared arguments are rebutted with "Only God can do that," "Nothing created God, he is the only uncreated being in the universe" and "matter cannot be self-existant".

1. I'm not sure why I'm required to give a "reason" to you as to why God must exist. I don't ask you to accept God's existence as true - so why should I give you a reason for His existence?

2. I've re-read this entire thread and saw nothing like a "well-prepared argument" by you. Your first post - the one I originally responded to - gave no "argument"; rather, it gave a few opinions of yours that were not sufficiently explained to make clear how they were true.

3. Please explain clearly and simply how matter can be self-existent; how matter came to be; how matter sponaneously created all that exists. That would be very informative.



When I asserted that matter is self-existent, I explained how it was and cited observable phenomena that occurs in reality, see the difference?

Again: I re-read your posts and found no explanation as to how matter is self-existent or created itself. Please direct me to the posting in this thread by you where that explanation was made clear. Thank you.


Once you produce a legitimate argument rather than recycled, cavilous TBN sophistry, then perhaps I might be able to muster enough patience to read and reply without having to teach you how to substantiate your own work.

I'm not telling you you're wrong - I'm asking you to make clear to me why you're right.

[PrinceMyshkin]

When we ask whether science can exclude "God" or we have any number of other discussions for or against the nature or existence of "God," what in the name of G-D
YHWH
Allah
Ra
Elohim
Adonai
&c.
&c.
&c.
are we talking about? The name(s) mean as many different things as, probably, there are believers: anything from a kindly-faced grandfather with a long flowing beard in a white robe to a raging egotistical narcissistic tyrant to a First Cause to eternally existant energy to... Mrs. Pynchon's cat.

Of course "God" exists.... in the minds of Eleanor, Bob, Jeffrey et al & of course "God" does NOT exist in the minds of Bill, Jane, David et al.

I have spoken!

[symphony]

I'm one of these people who believes that our bodies contain energy. I know nothing of Physics and science but i personally believe this, but more in the sense that when we die our bodies energy is released.
Of course bodies are made of energies. Mass is nothing but energy transformed, energy trapped in volume. So I totally agree with u :) .



Laws of physics, Laws of Mathematics, and such things that we are told cannot be broken, I will accept that they exist. But man discovered those laws by experiment. The laws were already in place, governing how energy will work and move. So who or what placed those boundaries in place?
Pen, I think I slightly touched that point in my first post. The universe is not following the laws because we invented them, it was following those laws and we did nothing but discover them. Which again leads to the question of who made these laws in the first place. I think this may relate to that in a way:


Science, with its ultra-fastgoing footsteps, clearly shows the universe is following a definite order. The main aim of physics now is to unify all the laws and merge them in one-- a law that governs the whole universe. This very idea seems to indicate the presence of a power, a source of all energies(or masses), a beginning. To me, God is that source of all energies.


Pardon me if I'm missing anything. For I'm yet to read all the posts made in this thread, which will take time.

And another thing, I dont want this thread messed up and I dont want ppl arguing in here. Put ur opinions forward in a friendly way and accept others' opinion even if they dont match yours. This thread is not for changing someone's views, it's just for sharing them. :) I had the best interests at heart while opening this thread, so I think I do have the right to expect kindness. :)
While saying this, I dont really mean anyone in particular is being rude or anything, its just a little request to keep a thread clean, since these are sentimental issues and can get tricky at times.

Take care fellas.
Symph.

[JCamilo]

When we ask whether science can exclude "God" or we have any number of other discussions for or against the nature or existence of "God," what in the name of G-D

Yes, yes. I must let clear when I say God I am talking about a Divine Being, most likely the Christian God and his moderm versions. There is no point in naming an energy as God , it is just a metaphorical way and it would make as much sense as calling it Dog. God does not mean a mindless pulse or energy but everyone is free to use any words as they want - With enough craft, any word usage can make sense.


Of course "God" exists.... in the minds of Eleanor, Bob, Jeffrey et al & of course "God" does NOT exist in the minds of Bill, Jane, David et al.

I have spoken!

And of course, God do exist as a cultural phenomen, as a creature we believe, as one of the Things that Lewis Carroll would classify as the impossible things, etc. The belief in his existence is real and undeaniable. But then, so is of every divine being included those like Wottan, Zeus, that we alreay dismiss as "just a myth".

[James Wallace]

I say "No", never will science, whatever greatness and development it may acquire, eradicate that God exists.
It will just show us more and more of God's power and miracles in the creation of everything including ourselves.
As some others referred, many prominent scientists believed in God and with all the rise of knowledge in our times most people on Earth are believe in God.

[Ylana]

There is no reason to believe in God. There are no tests to prove or discount what we cannot physically hold in our hands, even science understands that. the stuff that God is made of, faith, is like the ether that fills space, or the atom that is the fundamental unit of everything - it is inexplicable and unknowable. that is why faith exists despite our ego, (i.e. false ego), despite science, and despite our ever-determined will to explain "why."

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I fail to see that just because everything is made from some sort of energy, the difference between "A" and "B" becomes an illusion. And if no order exists to govern the Universe, the resulting Chaos will rip it apart. I choose to believe that order is God. BTW, it was a serious science journal that postulated the space between atoms theory, not something I made up.

If everything is made of energy, that is, A and B are the identical substances, then all the apparent differences between them must be illusory, otherwise they would not be identical, violating the premise. Leibniz's Law backwards. And I know there is empty space between atomic nuclei and electrons, but the EM field covers that area and will not allow things to "pass through," so to speak.


Then be so kind as to tell me science's relationship to/interaction with the universe, please.

1. I'm not sure why I'm required to give a "reason" to you as to why God must exist. I don't ask you to accept God's existence as true - so why should I give you a reason for His existence?

2. I've re-read this entire thread and saw nothing like a "well-prepared argument" by you. Your first post - the one I originally responded to - gave no "argument"; rather, it gave a few opinions of yours that were not sufficiently explained to make clear how they were true.

3. Please explain clearly and simply how matter can be self-existent; how matter came to be; how matter sponaneously created all that exists. That would be very informative.

Again: I re-read your posts and found no explanation as to how matter is self-existent or created itself. Please direct me to the posting in this thread by you where that explanation was made clear. Thank you.

I'm not telling you you're wrong - I'm asking you to make clear to me why you're right.

I have already explained the role of science in great detail earlier in the thread.

1) You're required to give a reason why God exists because the burden of proof rests on the affirmative claim, otherwise it is unsubstantiated and thus conjecture. I have stated and supported that God needn't exist because matter is self-governing, and that's where the thread was going before your evangelism; I get the feeling that you aren't really reading my posts.

2) The one you responded to was a post of mine which addressed a fallacious post of yours, so of course that one need not be well-prepared; I was referencing the longer and more detailed ones that preceeded it, and which had already explained why yours is not necessarily correct.

3) An explanation for that can be found on page two, which I suspect you haven't so much as glossed over. What I provided there was a summary of how matter behaves and that it only depends on itself. Mathematical logic and physics have shown this to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[JGL57]

The question presumes nothing. It states a fact. Science discovered that there are laws that govern how energy acts and reacts. My asking who or what put the laws there suggests that Order exists...

The question presumes a great deal. E.g., the use of the word “govern” indicates you already assume a conscious “governor” is necessary, and your use of the phrase indicating a “who or what put the laws there” also indicates your presumption and assumption of some sentient or conscious or teleological trans/meta/supra- universal acting agent.

My objection to this is that such is still to be argued for, not just assumed – that is why I gave the example of certain ancient Greeks, the majority of modern day scientists, and Buddhists, ancient and modern who do not assume such. You wouldn’t question all these folk's intelligence or sincerity, would you? Of course not – you’re a nice guy.


…What form is Order in? You may call it "the natural Order of things." I may call it "God." Another may call it "The Cosmic All". OK? ...

Fine except for one thing – the universe is apparent to all (except for solipsists, who don’t count). God is not equally apparent – otherwise ALL people, in the past or extant, would be theists. You propose to “explain” a mysterious phenomenon (the observed Universe) only by proposing an unseen, apparently non-scientifically detectable mysterious phenomenon (an invisible sentient super-agent acting consciously and teleologically). I’m unclear on how this helps the situation.


…I have no intention of trying. In fact, it is a good enough answer for me. The reason I phrased my question the way I did, is because people always complain if someone says "God made it that way." Do you see the point, now? ...

See my reply above – I think it perfectly applies here also.


… Which comes down to what you wish to believe in the end, doesn't it? "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" to quote Charles Schultz. It is a question that will make a man examine himself...

I’m 58 years old. I was steeped in the southern baptist religion for the first two decades of my life. I’ve spend a tremendous amount of my waking hours over the last forty years or so studying, examining and contemplating the ultimate subjects of philosophy, theology and its claims, cosmology, brain research, cultural anthropology and the like. I’ve probably read a couple of thousand books by now on these subjects. I’ve traveled around the world to a great degree and over the years have met people of all persuasions and discussed these high blown issues with them. I even learn something new now and then these last few years by surfing the web.

I understand that my particular opinions and convictions concerning the above-mentioned weighty issues may be wrong in part or in whole, since I am, like all humans, a fallible person with only access or exposure to a tiny portion of the infinity of the data available. But anything I express here on this forum is not something I dreamed up last night after too many beers. I assume the same applies to you.

And per your quote of Charles Shultz, I think he perhaps ripped off Oliver Cromwell’s highly quoted “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”

Similar and apropos is Shakespeare’s Hamlet’s comment to Horatio “There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.”

If every person spent at least a couple of hours a week pondering and contemplating the above Shakespearian truth, don’t you think the world would be a far better place? I do.


…As I stated before, I have no quarrels. JGL, Long Live and Prosper!...

I agree that we have no serious quarrels. Apparently there are others here who do not grok that fact. OK.

Nanu Nanu, my friend.

P.S. - I did not select my bylines below at random. I agree wholeheartedly with both the Jefferson and the Hawking quotes.

[Pendragon]

You wouldn’t question all these folk's intelligence or sincerity, would you? Of course not – you’re a nice guy.

As are you, mon ami.




But anything I express here on this forum is not something I dreamed up last night after too many beers. I assume the same applies to you.

As far a being my own convictions, yes. I do not drink. In fact, it just might be fatal for me. Certain medications and alcohol do not mix very well...



And per your quote of Charles Shultz, I think he perhaps ripped off Oliver Cromwell’s highly quoted “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”

Similar and apropos is Shakespeare’s Hamlet’s comment to Horatio “There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.”

If every person spent at least a couple of hours a week pondering and contemplating the above Shakespearian truth, don’t you think the world would be a far better place? I do. Indeed. The Shakespere quote pops often to mind, I was unaware of Lord Cromwell's, but it is filed away for safekeeping now!




I agree that we have no serious quarrels. Apparently there are others here who do not grok that fact. OK.

Nanu Nanu, my friend.

P.S. - I did not select my bylines below at random. I agree wholeheartedly with both the Jefferson and the Hawking quotes.I know. Sometimes I think Mork had a better idea of what's going on that we do myself!

Cheers,

Pen
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

BTW. I chose my byline because after so many argue just to be arguing, it seemed an appropiate answer! http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/Soccar.gif

[Scheherazade]

I have spoken!Hallelujah!

:D

[Redzeppelin]

1) You're required to give a reason why God exists because the burden of proof rests on the affirmative claim, otherwise it is unsubstantiated and thus conjecture. I have stated and supported that God needn't exist because matter is self-governing, and that's where the thread was going before your evangelism; I get the feeling that you aren't really reading my posts.

I don't know what the phrase "self-governing" means - matter "rules" itself? What? Could you manage to explain that term a bit more clearly for a liberal arts guy, please?

Next: evangelism:1. the preaching or promulgation of the gospel; the work of an evangelist. (dictionary.com)

I have done nothing like this here. The thread is concerned with science and God. I have been discussing God. I have preached to nobody, tried to convert nobody. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you apply terms mistakenly to somebody.


2) The one you responded to was a post of mine which addressed a fallacious post of yours, so of course that one need not be well-prepared; I was referencing the longer and more detailed ones that preceeded it, and which had already explained why yours is not necessarily correct.

That is incorrect. You were the first of the two of us to post in this thread (you are post #6 - my first post was #21). My first post was a comment on your first post.


3) An explanation for that can be found on page two, which I suspect you haven't so much as glossed over. What I provided there was a summary of how matter behaves and that it only depends on itself. Mathematical logic and physics have shown this to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your explanation simply says (if I am paraphrasing correctly) that all matter is energy and that all matter is essentially the same thing. Fine - I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't tell me where energy came from and why it should be here at all. That matter behaves in a certain regulated way does not suggest that it is self-existent or has always existed. I can easily answer that energy behaves the way it does because that's the way God designed it to - now what?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you have not laid out anything that definitively proves your position to be correct. Since your rhetoric implies that you're some sort of expert, I'm asking you again to make clear to me how matter can be self-existent and how I am to logically accept that it has always been here, when our observations of reality indicate that matter cannot create itself out of nothing. For me, the mark of an intelligent person is not someone who can criticize others, but one who can make his/her complicated argument clear and convincing to those who appear to possess less knowledge.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I don't know what the phrase "self-governing" means - matter "rules" itself? What? Could you manage to explain that term a bit more clearly for a liberal arts guy, please?

Self-governing, as I used it, means that matter behaves according to laws, which are entirely deterministic. That is, matter produces its own physical laws by merely existing as the sole substance in the universe, thus governing itself. I explained it better in earlier posts, page 2, I think, a reply to Pendragon.


Next: evangelism:1. the preaching or promulgation of the gospel; the work of an evangelist. (dictionary.com)

I have done nothing like this here. The thread is concerned with science and God. I have been discussing God. I have preached to nobody, tried to convert nobody. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you apply terms mistakenly to somebody.

I very much know what the word means, thank you. It is certainly evangelistic to come into the thread and post the Christian view of God in reply to more scientific posts without providing reasonable evidence or analysis to support your ideas. Although you didn't say explicitly that God was Christian, you described him as creating and having always existed, which I am quite sure adheres to Christian doctrine.

I don't mean to bother you, but instead I am now letting you know that such replies impedes the thread's progress by producing unsubstantiated conjecture about how God behaves and of his history. I will not discuss whether you did or did not post with the intent to take a stab at my method of thinking, so consider this section of our discourse dropped...


That is incorrect. You were the first of the two of us to post in this thread (you are post #6 - my first post was #21). My first post was a comment on your first post.

This is the post (below) I was refering to, not your very first one; I don't think I implied that your first was fallacious, and in fact did not address your original post, but instead the first one you had quoted me in. This is very messy so let's forget about this particular part of the discussion, it is irrelevant to the topic.


Matter cannot be self-existent. It is created - like everything else. Energy comes from somewhere - it isn't self-existent either. All causes work backward to the "unmoved mover" (to paraphrase Aristotle). The existence of "now" prohibits the existence of time as infinite (you cannot have an infinite number of moments before "now") - which means that time and the universe had a beginning.

The idea that God created matter out of nothing is very necessary because there really is no good alternative that doesn't require me to accept impossibilites as true. God is not impossible; He may seem improbable, but much of what I'd have to accept as an alternative strikes me as impossible.

Nothing created God: He is the one uncreated Being in the universe.


Your explanation simply says (if I am paraphrasing correctly) that all matter is energy and that all matter is essentially the same thing. Fine - I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't tell me where energy came from and why it should be here at all. That matter behaves in a certain regulated way does not suggest that it is self-existent or has always existed. I can easily answer that energy behaves the way it does because that's the way God designed it to - now what?

I am saying that the energy didn't come from anywhere and that it has always existed, with just the same logical authority as your statement of that God has always existed. Though, the difference between them is that the existence of matter is very evident, whereas a personal God has yet to be shown with science or reason. In short, you can't convincingly say that matter couldn't have always existed but God could; even omnipotence/omniscence does not guarantee this.


Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you have not laid out anything that definitively proves your position to be correct. Since your rhetoric implies that you're some sort of expert, I'm asking you again to make clear to me how matter can be self-existent and how I am to logically accept that it has always been here, when our observations of reality indicate that matter cannot create itself out of nothing. For me, the mark of an intelligent person is not someone who can criticize others, but one who can make his/her complicated argument clear and convincing to those who appear to possess less knowledge.

Let's leave my rhetoric out of it, I type how I like and I don't need to be arrogantly called an expert because of it. I've laid out several posts showing that my description of reality fits the bill for what is observed. In fact, I don't have to prove anything, not even that matter has existed eternally, because I am not making an affirmative claim otherwise. What is evident is that matter exists, and nobody has any logical authority to say that it HAD to have been created somehow. You are to logically accept this because matter very much exists, and there is no conceivable evidence to think otherwise (even so, Spinoza made a great proof that substance exists with about one-hundredth the paper Descartes used...)

When we rhetorically use the word "creation," we're referring to a change in physical or chemical property into something with differing ones; however, through all this, the substance (matter/energy) has remained the same, but taken a different form, orientation, lattice, what have you. Recall that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." This holds true even in contemporary physics. The confusion comes down to how the language is used and the poor disposition it puts us in for critical thinking.

[Gorilla King]

I'm not a science expert so I make very well make a fool of myself in attempting to make this point, but let me attempt to do so anyway. What we personally believe about science we believe not because we've conducted all of the experiments personally, but because enough people have done so and have come to the conclusion that it is a certain way. Do we very often question what they say, or do we take it on faith? Now with religious faith, if enough people have experienced a particular thing and I too have experienced it personally, then what reason do I have to disbelieve my own experience? I don't disbelieve gravity because I can experience it right this moment. I don't disbelieve in God for the very same reason.

[blazeofglory]

I'm not really sure if this question has been asked before in this same section, common sense tells me it has, since this is one among the many 'frequently-asked's. And yet here I am, posing this question, mainly out of curiosity to read the different insights that may appear...

I am a worshipper of science, and to be honest, I dont think one who knows or wants to know science truly can avoid believing in God, whatever the term indicates. 'God' has different meanings to different people. Science, with its ultra-fastgoing footsteps, clearly shows the universe is following a definite order. The main aim of physics now is to unify all the laws and merge them in one-- a law that governs the whole universe. This very idea seems to indicate the presence of a power, a source of all energies(or masses), a beginning. To me, God is that source of all energies.

I have often been subjected to criticisms (of types manifold) for considering God as a source of mass or energy... but is it really that bad? I believe in a beginning of time, in a source, in a cause. And I call that my "God" for general convenience. Is it really that weird a belief?

I'd like to hear ur views on topics related to this. Please open up. :)


I too beleive in a unified whole and all phenomena came of that order.
The fact that everything, and every phenomenon in nature has its origin, a source, and if you keep on asking questions we start looking for the source of this universe.

Maybe the the last source is God, but what is there behind it is yet another question even a child can answer and we will simply thrown in a labrynth or ina mazy state seeiong everywhere deadends but no exit.

I do beleive the way you do toslace myself and I can not keep on asking and searching and I have to stop somewhere and take refuge in something for a little respite.

I ask why should lonk our finding with God, for when we speak about God, it is a mythological God. Can we not name a force

A force is setting this world in motion. Whether you give it a mytholgical name or you invent a new name that is the question

[Redzeppelin]

Self-governing, as I used it, means that matter behaves according to laws, which are entirely deterministic. That is, matter produces its own physical laws by merely existing as the sole substance in the universe, thus governing itself. I explained it better in earlier posts, page 2, I think, a reply to Pendragon.

That makes sense, but inanimate objects do not establish the laws by which they "act."


I very much know what the word means, thank you. It is certainly evangelistic to come into the thread and post the Christian view of God in reply to more scientific posts without providing reasonable evidence or analysis to support your ideas. Although you didn't say explicitly that God was Christian, you described him as creating and having always existed, which I am quite sure adheres to Christian doctrine.

I don't mean to bother you, but instead I am now letting you know that such replies impedes the thread's progress by producing unsubstantiated conjecture about how God behaves and of his history. I will not discuss whether you did or did not post with the intent to take a stab at my method of thinking, so consider this section of our discourse dropped...

All fine and well, but "evangelize" has to do with preaching to convert - and I've indicated to nobody in this thread that s/he ought to be a Christian. Discussing God in terms of my Christian belief is not evangelism.



This is the post (below) I was refering to, not your very first one; I don't think I implied that your first was fallacious, and in fact did not address your original post, but instead the first one you had quoted me in. This is very messy so let's forget about this particular part of the discussion, it is irrelevant to the topic.

Fine.


I am saying that the energy didn't come from anywhere and that it has always existed, with just the same logical authority as your statement of that God has always existed. Though, the difference between them is that the existence of matter is very evident, whereas a personal God has yet to be shown with science or reason. In short, you can't convincingly say that matter couldn't have always existed but God could; even omnipotence/omniscence does not guarantee this.

Matter is evident - but that it can exist eternally is not.


Let's leave my rhetoric out of it, I type how I like and I don't need to be arrogantly called an expert because of it. I've laid out several posts showing that my description of reality fits the bill for what is observed. In fact, I don't have to prove anything, not even that matter has existed eternally, because I am not making an affirmative claim otherwise. What is evident is that matter exists, and nobody has any logical authority to say that it HAD to have been created somehow. You are to logically accept this because matter very much exists, and there is no conceivable evidence to think otherwise (even so, Spinoza made a great proof that substance exists with about one-hundredth the paper Descartes used...)

As I said - matter exists, but its existence does not predicate an eternal quality. What our observations of reality suggest is that matter comes and goes - but it is not developed ex nihilo. It comes from somewhere/something. That is inescapable - unless you wish to posit special characteristics to the universe that would allow such a thing.


When we rhetorically use the word "creation," we're referring to a change in physical or chemical property into something with differing ones; however, through all this, the substance (matter/energy) has remained the same, but taken a different form, orientation, lattice, what have you. Recall that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." This holds true even in contemporary physics. The confusion comes down to how the language is used and the poor disposition it puts us in for critical thinking.

That energy cannot be created or destroyed does not solve the problem of where it came from in the first place. All of observable reality indicates that things have a beginning and an end - matter cannot be eternal, at least based on our knowledge of reality - but if one deletes God as an option, then I guess one must entertain such an idea, because how else can one explain what we see?

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

That makes sense, but inanimate objects do not establish the laws by which they "act." Matter is evident - but that it can exist eternally is not.

They have been shown to have both these qualities.


As I said - matter exists, but its existence does not predicate an eternal quality. What our observations of reality suggest is that matter comes and goes - but it is not developed ex nihilo. It comes from somewhere/something. That is inescapable - unless you wish to posit special characteristics to the universe that would allow such a thing.

Yes, it is not very obvious that it has an eternal quality, but based on its observed behavior, it can be deduced. Matter does not come and go: Conservation of Energy - "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes forms." This concept applies in modern physics as well.


That energy cannot be created or destroyed does not solve the problem of where it came from in the first place. All of observable reality indicates that things have a beginning and an end - matter cannot be eternal, at least based on our knowledge of reality - but if one deletes God as an option, then I guess one must entertain such an idea, because how else can one explain what we see?

"Where it came from" is not a problem, but a cognitive bias caused by rhetoric. The beginning and the end you speak of is in reference to the changing forms of energy, and therefore to claim that the entire system had to come from a source is fallacious. Matter can and is eternal, entirely bsaed on our knowledge of reality. Just as I have deleted light's aether as an option, I have done so with God. I don't like the idea anymore than you do, but I prefer truth over happiness, despite the mental agony it sows.

I am curious...if you're really a "liberal arts guy" then why are you trying to use physics and philosophy to back religious literature? The only thing that connects the two is language, which is not designed to merge these two fields of study...

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, it is not very obvious that it has an eternal quality, but based on its observed behavior, it can be deduced. Matter does not come and go: Conservation of Energy - "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes forms." This concept applies in modern physics as well.

I'll respond this way: is it possible that your interpretations makes sense from within the "closed system" of our time-bound universe and limited perspective? Kind of like a fish thinking that the world outside its fishbowl is really just pictures on its walls? I understand that matter cannot be destroyed - but that doesn't mean it created itself - and all of reality speaks of beginnings and ends. The changing of energy into different forms is fine, but I'm talking about the origins of things. To say it has always existed forces one to continue going backwards looking for a beginning. Time cannot be infinite - we have a "now" so time had a beginning. If time began, then matter did too.



I am curious...if you're really a "liberal arts guy" then why are you trying to use physics and philosophy to back religious literature? The only thing that connects the two is language, which is not designed to merge these two fields of study...

Yes, I'm "really" a liberal arts guy. I'm using the tools that seem appropriate to this discussion. Literature - as much as I love it - isn't really a very handy tool to apply to this discussion.

[Dark Star]

I'm not a science expert so I make very well make a fool of myself in attempting to make this point, but let me attempt to do so anyway. What we personally believe about science we believe not because we've conducted all of the experiments personally, but because enough people have done so and have come to the conclusion that it is a certain way. Do we very often question what they say, or do we take it on faith? Now with religious faith, if enough people have experienced a particular thing and I too have experienced it personally, then what reason do I have to disbelieve my own experience? I don't disbelieve gravity because I can experience it right this moment. I don't disbelieve in God for the very same reason.

The difference here is that we 'put faith' in the scientists because science by it's very nature is an extremely conservative community; they are quite unwilling to accept new theories or developments unless they're proven true. When a paper is peer-reviewed it's essentially like throwing a piece of raw meat to a pack of hungry wolves. The goal of their peers is to do everything in their power to deconstruct it, tear it apart, and disprove it. If it can survive that sort of mauling, it's reasonable to accept that it's true.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I'll respond this way: is it possible that your interpretations makes sense from within the "closed system" of our time-bound universe and limited perspective? Kind of like a fish thinking that the world outside its fishbowl is really just pictures on its walls? I understand that matter cannot be destroyed - but that doesn't mean it created itself - and all of reality speaks of beginnings and ends. The changing of energy into different forms is fine, but I'm talking about the origins of things. To say it has always existed forces one to continue going backwards looking for a beginning. Time cannot be infinite - we have a "now" so time had a beginning. If time began, then matter did too.

The interpretations make sense exactly because I am not treating this as a closed system. In other words, there is no system whatsoever, but simply the totality of one substance. The differences between matter, its movement, and its physical/chemical properties are observed solely as a result of the observer's ignorance of that all substances are fundamentally the same; better worded, there are no differences between anything that exists, and such thinking is caused by ignorance of its true identity.

I am not saying that matter created itself; I said that the same “amount” in seemingly differing forms has always existed and there was no creation. It is just as logically cogent to say the same of God.

The concept of reality, that it necessarily includes beginning and ends...that is a result of treating matter as a closed system. Beginnings and ends only apply for systems that we define; an object moving upwards and downwards has a beginning and an end, but regardless, the object, the person, the planet to which it is falling, etc, have all existed before this particular process even took place; the entire system that we've defined is not actually closed at all, but only deemed so to better understand phenomena.

Think for a moment whether you have ever experienced something that had a beginning that was a real beginning, or rather, something that was entirely independent of the events that preceded it (for if events preceded it, that could not have been a beginning). This is precisely the fallacious thinking that language sets us up for; humans didn’t know philosophy and reason when they invented languages, and many words that are used are derived from superficial, crass and ultimately false ways of explaining things. When we give it thought, we find that beginning and end are foolish ideas.

Unfortunately, the infinite regress problem is as easily applied to God as it is to matter. Anything we claim to have always existed can be badgered with the question of "what created that, then?" The fact is, something has to have existed in itself because infinite regress is not an option, and matter is very easily shown to exist in the first place and has been demonstrated to exist in itself, or as I said before, it is fully capable of propagating the laws which govern its own behavior.

Lastly, on time, I think it again is a product of ignorance of substance. When we consider time, or perhaps what has happened in the past, we are necessarily implying that things were different then than they are now, which I think is quite untrue. As I said above, any apparent change in form, number, physical appearance, etc, are all observed only because the observer is ignorant of the fact that substance/matter is all that exists and there is no legitimate basis for comparison. Any differences one can extrapolate from objects necessarily neglects that the objects are inherently identical with respect to their composition, and if they’re stripped to their basest components, it becomes clear they are both pure energy. Therefore, if differences in size, color, shape, property, etc, are what we use to decide whether there is a time interval, and that these differences are falsely inferred in the first place, then it’s safe to conclude that time is illusory, or rather, also a product of the ignorance of substance.

I don’t make the rules.

[NikolaiI]

In one sense science doesn't exclude God because there are many scientists who are Christian. In another sense it does, the same way as it excludes everything that hasn't been discovered by it yet; intelligent alien life, other mystical beings, etc. So it is either way. But if you allow for God you allow for all other supernatural beings. God exists, and all other Gods exist - the only argument against other Gods existing, if you allow God to exist, is that you have inside knowledge of a monotheistic God, etc.


I am a worshipper of science, and to be honest, I dont think one who knows or wants to know science truly can avoid believing in God, whatever the term indicates. 'God' has different meanings to different people. Science, with its ultra-fastgoing footsteps, clearly shows the universe is following a definite order. The main aim of physics now is to unify all the laws and merge them in one-- a law that governs the whole universe. This very idea seems to indicate the presence of a power, a source of all energies(or masses), a beginning. To me, God is that source of all energies.

I have often been subjected to criticisms (of types manifold) for considering God as a source of mass or energy... but is it really that bad? I believe in a beginning of time, in a source, in a cause. And I call that my "God" for general convenience. Is it really that weird a belief?

I'd like to hear ur views on topics related to this. Please open up. :)

It's not weird and it's certainly not bad. Except I wouldn't say that God is Energy. Energy is God, but I don't consider God quite the same thing as Energy. I mean you could say it that way, but I consider God a different sort of energy.

Anyway, you might have a different view of God than anyone else. So then, it is not impossible that people of science do not truly believe in your God, but it's impossible that they would. I also have a unique view of God, which leads me to consider myself atheist as well as pantheist. Neither describes me, yet by external definitions I cannot claim to be...etc.

[Redzeppelin]

I am not saying that matter created itself; I said that the same “amount” in seemingly differing forms has always existed and there was no creation. It is just as logically cogent to say the same of God.


Unfortunately, the infinite regress problem is as easily applied to God as it is to matter. Anything we claim to have always existed can be badgered with the question of "what created that, then?" The fact is, something has to have existed in itself because infinite regress is not an option, and matter is very easily shown to exist in the first place and has been demonstrated to exist in itself, or as I said before, it is fully capable of propagating the laws which govern its own behavior.

Thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed response; unfortunately, I lack the scientific background to truly respond to many of your points. Let me address the one made above.

You are correct that God and matter can be looked at as you have suggested; the difficulty I have with that is that God - as He is descibed - needs no explanation for His self-existence: He is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing. Matter, however, cannot claim the same "powers" as God - so there is a slight difference; as well, the existence of God would easily explain the existence of matter. I see your point, but disagree with the "levelling" you have done with God and matter. One is a sentient being; the other inanimate matter. Matter must obey the physical laws; God created the physical laws. Self-existence for two such different entities cannot be put under the same category.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

You are correct that God and matter can be looked at as you have suggested; the difficulty I have with that is that God - as He is descibed - needs no explanation for His self-existence: He is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing. Matter, however, cannot claim the same "powers" as God - so there is a slight difference; as well, the existence of God would easily explain the existence of matter. I see your point, but disagree with the "levelling" you have done with God and matter. One is a sentient being; the other inanimate matter. Matter must obey the physical laws; God created the physical laws. Self-existence for two such different entities cannot be put under the same category.

Just as God needs no explanation, matter doesn't either. As Spinoza wrote, if there is only one substance, and it exists in itself, it has infinite attributes and certainly fits the bill for what we consider "God." The "powers" of God can very easily be explained with science, in fact, they may easily be considered one in the same.

It seems that the reason you can't accept it is because you simply don't want to, regardless of whether my reasoning is flawed or not. I think I am finished with this thread, it was good talking to you.

[JCamilo]

In a sense, what he is saying is : God is only explained by God.
It obviously lack evidence. It is only an argument. If I say "No." There is nothing that can be done to prove it right.

Another thing, Science is not the same as Scientists. Science is a field of knowledge, not a person who have feelings, fears, etc. Science excludes the supernatural God (which is trully the only God that matters) but Scientists do not, they are still faithful. But a good scientist keep his faith out of the laboratory because when his work is scrutinized by the scientific community, they won't have the same faith as him and will put it apart.

[JGL57]

In a sense, what he is saying is : God is only explained by God.
It obviously lack evidence. It is only an argument. If I say "No." There is nothing that can be done to prove it right.

Another thing, Science is not the same as Scientists. Science is a field of knowledge, not a person who have feelings, fears, etc. Science excludes the supernatural God (which is trully the only God that matters) but Scientists do not, they are still faithful. But a good scientist keep his faith out of the laboratory because when his work is scrutinized by the scientific community, they won't have the same faith as him and will put it apart.

I agree. I would add that a scientist keeps his faith out of the laboratory because he couldn't do science if he didn't. I.e., if said scientist factors in the possibility of miraculous intervention by god at any step of his experiment, his "science" suddenly becomes completely useless to anyone and everyone - and he becomes a laughing stock to his fellow scientists.

[blazeofglory]

I'll admit i'm not well versed in physics so i can't really discuss much into the uncertainty principle and the like. It just surprises me and delights me that the universe, despite so much discovered, is still very mysterious. Yet i will be equally as delighted if (or when) understandings are found.

But there is no limit to understanding. How far it goes and how much can you understand about this unoverse. It is vast and and a millionth part of it also can be understood. It is really mysterioyus and unexpolrable and all scientific theories and technological advances are like efforts of an ant to scale Mt. Evesrest may be for that ant it may be possiv\ble to summit Mt. Everest but fo rman it will not be possible to know the mystery of the universe

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm not really sure if this question has been asked before in this same section, common sense tells me it has, since this is one among the many 'frequently-asked's. And yet here I am, posing this question, mainly out of curiosity to read the different insights that may appear...

I am a worshipper of science, and to be honest, I dont think one who knows or wants to know science truly can avoid believing in God, whatever the term indicates.


"Whatever the term indicates" are the key words in your statement, because "God" is every believer's private fantasy often shared with a community of like-minded believers. Elsewhere hjere someone cited Einstein's belief in God as proff that there was one but one of the various things Einstein said on the subject was: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion."

Again, some posters have stipulated that some or many scientists believe in God, as if that proved anything. Scientists are as mortal as you and me and as fallible in their beliefs outside of their specialty. Science and God, ideally, have nothing to do with each other any more than do fairy-tales and mathematics. Science is a process for studying the material world; "God" is part of mythology. Nothing ever has been or probably can be advanced to prove "his" existence.

[Redzeppelin]

"Whatever the term indicates" are the key words in your statement, because "God" is every believer's private fantasy often shared with a community of like-minded believers.

My my - aren't you authoritative on topics which (apparently) don't exist (i.e. God). God is not a "private fantasy" and your minimizing of Him as such shows a clear inability to see the influence of Christianity and pre-Christian monotheism throughout the arc of history. Private fantasies do not change the world like Christianity has. The only fantasy I see here is the wish that He not be real.



Elsewhere hjere someone cited Einstein's belief in God as proff that there was one but one of the various things Einstein said on the subject was: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion."

Eintstein's acknowledgement of God is not proof He exists; it is an example of an intelligent human being acknowledging that the universe bears the mark of a designer rather than the fantasy of random forces at work.


Again, some posters have stipulated that some or many scientists believe in God, as if that proved anything.

It proves that not every scientist out there has blindly swallowed the lie of Naturalism.


Scientists are as mortal as you and me and as fallible in their beliefs outside of their specialty.

Fallible as well in their choice of philosophic frameworks through which they choose to view reality.


Science and God, ideally, have nothing to do with each other any more than do fairy-tales and mathematics. Science is a process for studying the material world; "God" is part of mythology. Nothing ever has been or probably can be advanced to prove "his" existence.

"Proving" God empirically is unnecessary because much of life that we take for granted as true and real cannot be empirically/evidentially "proven." Your comments about God reveal you know nothing about Him. When God chooses to be known and/or the seeker sincerely wishes to know Him, there is no mistaking the reality of His existence. Check your history books: science and religion used to be complementary ways to view the world; only since the Enlightenment have human beings decided that they are smart enough to explain everything without God (hence the absurdities of evolution, Darwin, Freud, etc).

[Guzmán]

only since the Enlightenment have human beings decided that they are smart enough to explain everything without God (hence the absurdities of evolution, Darwin, Freud, etc).

So science does not exclude god but god does exclude science

[PrinceMyshkin]

My my - aren't you authoritative on topics which (apparently) don't exist (i.e. God). God is not a "private fantasy" and your minimizing of Him as such shows a clear inability to see the influence of Christianity and pre-Christian monotheism throughout the arc of history. Private fantasies do not change the world like Christianity has. The only fantasy I see here is the wish that He not be real.

Your little bit of sarcasm indicates from the outset that you do not wish to discuss the question so much as to respond to what you partoically take as an attack on you yourself. If God exists he does not need you to defend him, surely?

As for the influence of fantasies - or misconceptions - on the world, hark back to the pre-Copernican concept of the universe.

And has Christianity indeed changed to world - or merely the perceptions of a great many Christians? Of the changes I am aware of, I number the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the civil war in Ireland.


Eintstein's acknowledgement of God is not proof He exists; it is an example of an intelligent human being acknowledging that the universe bears the mark of a designer rather than the fantasy of random forces at work.

Einstein acknowledges nothing more than that there is a mystery to the Cosmos. Christian and other religionists decline that mystery in favour of the pseudo-mystery of God, while on the other hand making daily if not hourly pronouncements of what "He" wants.


It proves that not every scientist out there has blindly swallowed the lie of Naturalism.

No blind swallowing here. Every discovery made by any one scientist is held in suspension until the same tests have been made by numerous others.


Fallible as well in their choice of philosophic frameworks through which they choose to view reality.

Can you demonstrate how the age of the earth and of the universe are the results of fallible philosophic concepts?


"Proving" God empirically is unnecessary because much of life that we take for granted as true and real cannot be empirically/evidentially "proven." Your comments about God reveal you know nothing about Him. When God chooses to be known and/or the seeker sincerely wishes to know Him, there is no mistaking the reality of His existence. Check your history books: science and religion used to be complementary ways to view the world; only since the Enlightenment have human beings decided that they are smart enough to explain everything without God (hence the absurdities of evolution, Darwin, Freud, etc).

Yes, that damned Enlightenment! We really should have continued with the flat earth and the geo-centric universe, of which the anthro-centric divinity is a sad, tatterred remnant.

Indeed I know nothing about God! And very likely never will. And you I assume know all too little about anything else.

[PrinceMyshkin]

So science does not exclude god but god does exclude science

Beautifully put!

[Gorilla King]

How exactly does God exclude science if He created it?

[Guzmán]

what i meant was that in his post he implies that evolution and freudianism are not science because they contradict his religious worldview, hence the comment that god excludes science

[PrinceMyshkin]

How exactly does God exclude science if He created it?

He didn't. Nor did "He" create any of the mythologizing surrounding him.

[Guzmán]

i think i should have said psychoanalysis instead of freudianism...

[Gorilla King]

what i meant was that in his post he implies that evolution and freudianism are not science because they contradict his religious worldview, hence the comment that god excludes science

I don't think you can so hastily substitute God for the beliefs of those who follow Him. Some things we just don't know...just like in science.

[PrinceMyshkin]

what i meant was that in his post he implies that evolution and freudianism are not science because they contradict his religious worldview, hence the comment that god excludes science

Of course. In the view of these believers, clinging to the flotsam and jetsam of their shipwrecked world-view, "God" excludes everything that does not attest to the existence of God. It is, to them, a delicious circle.

[Gorilla King]

Of course. In the view of these believers, clinging to the flotsam and jetsam of their shipwrecked world-view, "God" excludes everything that does not attest to the existence of God. It is, to them, a delicious circle.

Dr. Dawkins? Is that you?

You do of course realize that many believers including the entire Catholic faith believe in theistic evolution? No....of course you don't. You're too interested in being a bigot to concern yourself with facts. ;)

[NikolaiI]

How arrogant yet sadly how typical to say someone doesn't know anything about God. Surely he would know at least a little? I doubt PrinceMyshkin has any misconceptions about the different ideas of God. Basically you understand what the ideas of a theistic God are, and then you understand that people have different ideas of it - of course you can't know exactly what everyone individually believes, but you can get a pretty good idea of it.

Anyway, assuming it doesn't get this thread closed, due to your rudeness, negativity, sarcasm, and arrogance, I would say that you don't know anything about God. :) I wouldn't say that, it's just on a lot of other threads that have been closed, I've really wanted to say something like that, not that it would be received openly or...anything..

PrinceMyshkin is no bigot..

[Guzmán]

If Science had a slogan i think it should be something like:
"Science: excluding god(s) since the 19th Century"

[PrinceMyshkin]

Dr. Dawkins? Is that you?

You do of course realize that many believers including the entire Catholic faith believe in theistic evolution? No....of course you don't. You're too interested in being a bigot to concern yourself with facts. ;)

Showing your true colours now: Those who believe as you do are bound for heaven (alas, without the 70 or so virgins you'dget if you shopped at some other religion); those who do not are "bigots."

[Gorilla King]

Showing your true colours now: Those who believe as you do are bound for heaven (alas, without the 70 or so virgins you'dget if you shopped at some other religion); those who do not are "bigots."

No, you're a bigot because of the persistent animosity and hatred you display towards Christians. Occam's razor Prince. :D

[PrinceMyshkin]

If Science had a slogan i think it should be something like:
"Science: excluding god(s) since the 19th Century"


And indeed over the door to every Church, synagogue or mosque should be the banner: "Important information - if true!"

[PrinceMyshkin]

No, you're a bigot because of the persistent animosity and hatred you display towards Christians. Occam's razor Prince. :D

Towards Christians and if they were equally as dogmatic and loud and arrogant, toward fundamentalist Jews and Muslims.

[NikolaiI]

Aw, that's getting personal now, but in reality, I doubt either of you are too much of a bigot. But actually you both probably are at times. Are we satisfied? And who was really showing hatred? It's got to be the most stupidest thing, since we are part of the same world, fighting against ourselves...like my signature says, i have seen the truth! :) and it could happen at once, if only everyone wants it. :)

Ha, would actually believe I typed and deleted something almost that exact effect? That you would be rude and arrogant to someone if you saw they were that way to you? haha...


And people can change, right? if he had. And what about the love and forigveness your God has told you to adhere to? but nevermind, let's throw that out the window and start throwing insults about the others' beliefs, motives, and even integrity, character, reasoning ability and everything else imaginable. Let's even question each others' sanity. I am directing this at anyone who acts this way.

[Gorilla King]

Towards Christians and if they were equally as dogmatic and loud and arrogant, toward fundamentalist Jews and Muslims.

I've observed that when atheists are dealing with Christians, if they happen to be educated, they're arrogant and if not then they are referred to as ignorant. How quaint.

[PrinceMyshkin]

How arrogant yet sadly how typical to say someone doesn't know anything about God. Surely he would know at least a little? I doubt PrinceMyshkin has any misconceptions about the different ideas of God. Basically you understand what the ideas of a theistic God are, and then you understand that people have different ideas of it - of course you can't know exactly what everyone individually believes, but you can get a pretty good idea of it.

Anyway, assuming it doesn't get this thread closed, due to your rudeness, negativity, sarcasm, and arrogance, I would say that you don't know anything about God. :) I wouldn't say that, it's just on a lot of other threads that have been closed, I've really wanted to say something like that, not that it would be received openly or...anything..

PrinceMyshkin is no bigot..

Many thanks for your endorsement. I would quibble about you on one point though: I do not, cannot know anything about God but only about what is said about God in Scripture and the endless works of theology. I cannot really know God any more than I can know Cinderella, the Sleeping Beauty or Prince Charming, but I can know something about those who believe in God and the many diverse things they think he is.

[Dark Star]

I've observed that when atheists are dealing with Christians, if they happen to be educated, they're arrogant and if not then they are referred to as ignorant. How quaint.


They're only arrogant if they're educated and insist that their worldview is the one true one and gleefully proclaim that everyone who disagrees with them goes to hell despite a complete lack of evidence for the truth of their view.

Mind you, I'd say that falls under the ignorant category too, but I digress...

[Gorilla King]

They're only arrogant if they're educated and insist that their worldview is the one true one and gleefully proclaim that everyone who disagrees with them goes to hell despite a complete lack of evidence for the truth of their view.

Mind you, I'd say that falls under the ignorant category too, but I digress...

So you're saying if I believe what I believe then I'm arrogant? Do you believe what you believe? And please, do show me where I've skipped around singing at the prospect of people going to hell. That's a rather serious claim if you're interested in intellectual honesty.

[PrinceMyshkin]

They're only arrogant if they're educated and insist that their worldview is the one true one and gleefully proclaim that everyone who disagrees with them goes to hell despite a complete lack of evidence for the truth of their view.

Mind you, I'd say that falls under the ignorant category too, but I digress...

Desperation plus a fistfull of dogma does go a very long way, unfortunately.

[NikolaiI]

Many thanks for your endorsement. I would quibble about you on one point though: I do not, cannot know anything about God but only about what is said about God in Scripture and the endless works of theology. I cannot really know God any more than I can know Cinderella, the Sleeping Beauty or Prince Charming, but I can know something about those who believe in God and the many diverse things they think he is.

Yes, but if you knew everything included in all of those works of theology, the bible, and what all believers believe, etc. you would still be considered to know nothing about God, because you didn't believe in him, and the reason for this is because you were not seeking him with a true heart. There's so many problems with the view taken by those who tell you you know nothing about God it's hardly worth addressing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

So you're saying if I believe what I believe then I'm arrogant? Do you believe what you believe? And please, do show me where I've skipped around singing at the prospect of people going to hell. That's a rather serious claim if you're interested in intellectual honesty.

The distinction I think is that you repeat the same things over and over and call those who disagree "bigots." That's what makes you arrogant.

[Gorilla King]

Yes, but if you knew everything included in all of those works of theology, the bible, and what all believers believe, etc. you would still be considered to know nothing about God, because you didn't believe in him, and the reason for this is because you were not seeking him with a true heart. There's so many problems with the view taken by those who tell you you know nothing about God it's hardly worth addressing.

This is easy to address.

Man 1: I know Jim! We get together every Thursday for lunch!

Man 2: I read a book about Jim.

Now who knows Jim better?

[NikolaiI]

So you're saying if I believe what I believe then I'm arrogant? Do you believe what you believe? And please, do show me where I've skipped around singing at the prospect of people going to hell. That's a rather serious claim if you're interested in intellectual honesty.

No. If you don't fit the 'if' then the 'then' doesn't apply to you.

[Gorilla King]

The distinction I think is that you repeat the same things over and over and call those who disagree "bigots." That's what makes you arrogant.

The only one I've called a bigot is you.

[Gorilla King]

No. If you don't fit the 'if' then the 'then' doesn't apply to you.

If I don't believe in gravity and I jump out of a plane, does it no longer apply to me?

[NikolaiI]

The only one I've called a bigot is you.

And who else do you call a bigot when you call the least of men a bigot? ;) Hence, let's not insult each others' integrity or sanity.

[NikolaiI]

If I don't believe in gravity and I jump out of a plane, does it no longer apply to me?

No I meant, due his statement, if you do not proclaim your view that people go to hell gleefully, then the part of the statement that says those that do are arrogant, does not apply to you. It wasn't about you specifically in any way, just 'they' who say that thing 'gleefully.' I meant the 'if' and 'then' of that statement.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes, but if you knew everything included in all of those works of theology, the bible, and what all believers believe, etc. you would still be considered to know nothing about God, because you didn't believe in him, and the reason for this is because you were not seeking him with a true heart. There's so many problems with the view taken by those who tell you you know nothing about God it's hardly worth addressing.

Yes, their argument is unassailable (as used to be the case with those who argued on behalf of dialectical materialism). "If you believed then you would know" is what it amounts to.

[Gorilla King]

And who else do you call a bigot when you call the least of men a bigot? ;) Hence, let's not insult each others' integrity or sanity.

Under your line of logic, if a man who killed someone was called a murderer then the person calling the individual a murderer would be calling Jesus one. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You're responsible for your own actions whether good or bad. I'm merely noting an observation about the tone of Prince's posts.

[Gorilla King]

No I meant, due his statement, if you do not proclaim your view that people go to hell gleefully, then the part of the statement that says those that do are arrogant, does not apply to you. It wasn't about you specifically in any way, just 'they' who say that thing 'gleefully.' I meant the 'if' and 'then' of that statement.

I don't think any Christian would say that kind of thing gleefully. I think that's just something nonbelievers ascribe to them to justify their hatred.

[PrinceMyshkin]

This is easy to address.

Man 1: I know Jim! We get together every Thursday for lunch!

Man 2: I read a book about Jim.

Now who knows Jim better?

Man #1, obviously. Are we to conclude then that you and God get together for lunch every Thursday?

Otherwise I infer that you know him only from a book, a bunch of well-meaning inoctrinated other folk, and hearsay.

[Gorilla King]

Man #1, obviously. Are we to conclude then that you and God get together for lunch every Thursday?

Otherwise I infer that you know him only from a book, a bunch of well-meaning inoctrinated other folk, and hearsay.

And what if I claim that I get together with God on a daily basis? That He talks to me and I to Him? What then can you say about that? It's not scientific? I'm delusional (along with the majority of the world)? What will you say?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Under your line of logic, if a man who killed someone was called a murderer then the person calling the individual a murderer would be calling Jesus one. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You're responsible for your own actions whether good or bad. I'm merely noting an observation about the tone of Prince's posts.

Observations about "tone" - especially vis a vis the written word are notoriously subject to subjective interpretation. Cast the mote out of thine own eye.

[NikolaiI]

Under your line of logic, if a man who killed someone was called a murderer then the person calling the individual a murderer would be calling Jesus one. Sorry, doesn't work that way. You're responsible for your own actions whether good or bad. I'm merely noting an observation about the tone of Prince's posts.

First, you are not noting an observation, you are making a judgement, a value-call, on PrinceMyshkin's character, based on something he said.

Second, ah...this thread will be closed soon so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Gorilla King]

First, you are not noting an observation, you are making a judgement, a value-call, on PrinceMyshkin's character, based on something he said.

Second, ah...this thread will be closed soon so it doesn't matter anyway.

Not one thing....a series of things. Read back on the closed threads.

[NikolaiI]

I don't think any Christian would say that kind of thing gleefully. I think that's just something nonbelievers ascribe to them to justify their hatred.

What does that have to do with what I said? I said he was not calling you arrogant, you tell me...this? There is so much more hatred in 'Christians' than 'non-believers'...considering that in your definition Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, every other faith and atheists are non-believers. Further and fortunately, the terms are completely meaningless. Of course, don't let me say that where you can hear it, because to say there's no such thing as religion is an insult to people who believe different?..

[PrinceMyshkin]

And what if I claim that I get together with God on a daily basis? That He talks to me and I to Him? What then can you say about that? It's not scientific? I'm delusional (along with the majority of the world)? What will you say?

I'd say it would be interesting or at least amusing to hear a few concrete details about either the menu or the conversation.

[Gorilla King]

Observations about "tone" - especially vis a vis the written word are notoriously subject to subjective interpretation. Cast the mote out of thine own eye.

Well forgive me for not seeing how calling a group of people delusional on a consistent basis is a term of endearment.

[NikolaiI]

Not one thing....a series of things. Read back on the closed threads.

What did I say about one thing? What?

[Gorilla King]

I'd say it would be interesting or at least amusing to hear a few concrete details about either the menu or the conversation.

Well there you have it then. A priori rejection of anything supernatural.

[NikolaiI]

Well there you have it then. A priori rejection of anything supernatural.

Basically, yes.

[Gorilla King]

What does that have to do with what I said? I said he was not calling you arrogant, you tell me...this? There is so much more hatred in 'Christians' than 'non-believers'...considering that in your definition Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, every other faith and atheists are non-believers. Further and fortunately, the terms are completely meaningless. Of course, don't let me say that where you can hear it, because to say there's no such thing as religion is an insult to people who believe different?..

The difference is I don't hate Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or any other group. You call it hatred because Christianity is exclusive to those who believe in Christ as their savior, but how is this different from the exclusivity of Islam? Or even Atheism?

[PrinceMyshkin]

If I don't believe in gravity and I jump out of a plane, does it no longer apply to me?

Ah, at last you acknowledge something of the validity of natural science!

By the same token, however, would you risk leaping into the real world without your parachute of faith?

[NikolaiI]

The difference is I don't hate Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or any other group. You call it hatred because Christianity is exclusive to those who believe in Christ as their savior, but how is this different from the exclusivity of Islam? Or even Atheism?

You're randomly saying that people hate you. I'm saying there's a lot more hatred in Christianity than in 'the rest of the world', i.e., non-christendom. I'm not saying it's hatred because it's exclusive, nor am I even saying that it's hatred against other people, or people from other religions. It's just as much self-hatred and hatred of those in the family, and friends, and neighbors and strangers and the unknown and everything else, and I'm just saying it's there. Clearly I am doing something that isn't done, I am insulting the character of a people, etc., but I'm only saying this because I feel it is true. Because you say something like people hate Christianity because it is exclusive, or something confusing like that, which wasn't part of my point at all.

[Gorilla King]

Ah, at last you acknowledge something of the validity of natural science!

By the same token, however, would you risk leaping into the real world without your parachute of faith?

Last I recall, I never rejected natural science. I just think it's within a larger sphere.

I already did risk jumping into the "real world" without the parachute of faith. When I saw the ground and realized I was going to hit it I was pretty thankful that there was someone beside me with a spare parachute. Want one?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well forgive me for not seeing how calling a group of people delusional on a consistent basis is a term of endearment.

Admittedly, not a term of endearment, but when I refer to those who are locked in mental institutions as "delusional" I hope I am doing so with a measure of empathy.

[Gorilla King]

You're randomly saying that people hate you. I'm saying there's a lot more hatred in Christianity than in 'the rest of the world', i.e., non-christendom. I'm not saying it's hatred because it's exclusive, nor am I even saying that it's hatred against other people, or people from other religions. It's just as much self-hatred and hatred of those in the family, and friends, and neighbors and strangers and the unknown and everything else, and I'm just saying it's there. Clearly I am doing something that isn't done, I am insulting the character of a people, etc., but I'm only saying this because I feel it is true. Because you say something like people hate Christianity because it is exclusive, or something confusing like that, which wasn't part of my point at all.

Well if you're going to make such a claim, aren't you going to provide any evidence?

[Dark Star]

So you're saying if I believe what I believe then I'm arrogant? Do you believe what you believe? And please, do show me where I've skipped around singing at the prospect of people going to hell. That's a rather serious claim if you're interested in intellectual honesty.

That belief system itself is clearly arrogant. It states forthright "I am better than anyone else even though I have no evidence to prove it." It's rather sad when even one's holy text -- unreliable in itself -- doesn't claim that not being a Christian is an unforgivable sin yet people believe that being of the wrong *sect* of Christianity condemns you to hell. Do you not see how this is arrogant?

I never claimed you in particular like the concept of people going to hell, so please don't take that as my meaning. Perhaps you don't; you've never stated your view on the subject so I don't know, however, I've met many that do and take great sadistic pleasure in it since 'those people deserve it for not coming to God'.

Before this gets taken way the hell out of context by 'that belief system itself' I mean THAT particular brand of Christianity. I'm fully aware that there are many Christians out there who do actually follow the rule of not judging and don't feel every non-Christian goes to hell.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The difference is I don't hate Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or any other group. You call it hatred because Christianity is exclusive to those who believe in Christ as their savior, but how is this different from the exclusivity of Islam? Or even Atheism?

I believe (as I hope you do) that there are sincere, intelligent and utterly benevolent people within the Christian tent, as there are among Jews, Muslims and yes, atheists or agnostics.

Do you not think that there are as well people within each of those groups who are filled with fear or hatred of those outside their groups? who consider them, at best, misguided, and at worst demonic? Whose belief is more a matter of pathology than of thoughtful conviction?

[NikolaiI]

It's misconceptions based on misconceptions based on misconceptions, in the style of PrinceMyshkin, ad infinitum. If you just looked at the world you woulnd't see any of it, and you wouldn't think of things in such negative terms, and see negativite world-views as the necessity, nor think of people as evil or anything like that. And the biggest and most obvious error is that you think we are all somehow seperate from each other. And that error, much more so than any kind of belief in a god, is very delusional. How do they say, not insane, but if you keep going that way, insane, because an insane person is the most isolated of anyone in our society? Isolated..

[Dark Star]

The distinction I think is that you repeat the same things over and over and call those who disagree "bigots." That's what makes you arrogant.

Let's not forget claiming that 'my opinion doesn't matter' simply because my research into an issue (the historicity of Jesus in this case) hasn't been completely one sided and thus I've came to a different conclusion than him.

Yeah, that isn't arrogant at all... :rolleyes:

[Gorilla King]

I believe (as I hope you do) that there are sincere, intelligent and utterly benevolent people within the Christian tent, as there are among Jews, Muslims and yes, atheists or agnostics.

Do you not think that there are as well people within each of those groups who are filled with fear or hatred of those outside their groups? who consider them, at best, misguided, and at worst demonic? Whose belief is more a matter of pathology than of thoughtful conviction?

Naturally. But I don't think blanket statements about something you disagree with, especially when delivered in a mocking sort of way is in any way beneficial.

[Dark Star]

And what if I claim that I get together with God on a daily basis? That He talks to me and I to Him? What then can you say about that? It's not scientific? I'm delusional (along with the majority of the world)? What will you say?

If you could provide us with evidence for this, we wouldn't have to say that your delusional, no. Also, be careful claiming the majority of the world holds the point of view that when they talk to God he talks back. I know for damn sure that when I was a Christian those conversations were completely one-sided so I have every reason to be skeptical about your claim.

[Gorilla King]

Let's not forget claiming that 'my opinion doesn't matter' simply because my research into an issue (the historicity of Jesus in this case) hasn't been completely one sided and thus I've came to a different conclusion than him.

Yeah, that isn't arrogant at all... :rolleyes:

Well if I've read material that addresses what you've read and refutes it and you refuse to read that material, what else am I to say? Let me think on it more? Let me hope for amnesia over what I've read?

[Guzmán]

Last I recall, I never rejected natural science. I just think it's within a larger sphere.

I already did risk jumping into the "real world" without the parachute of faith. When I saw the ground and realized I was going to hit it I was pretty thankful that there was someone beside me with a spare parachute. Want one?

The bad thing about that parachute is that it doen't allow you to see the ground, only the heavens.
Besides atheists don't need parachutes, we always land on hay...
...obtained from all the straw men we've collected from christians.

[Gorilla King]

If you could provide us with evidence for this, we wouldn't have to say that your delusional, no. Also, be careful claiming the majority of the world holds the point of view that when they talk to God he talks back. I know for damn sure that when I was a Christian those conversations were completely one-sided so I have every reason to be skeptical about your claim.

I've had dry periods where God didn't talk to me either. One lasted two years. But I didn't abandon the faith because of a desert period. A tree in a dry land can do one of two things. It can either go deeper in search of water and in turn have stronger roots, or it can wither and die.

Obviously I can't prove in any objective way that God speaks to me. If it could be done don't you think it would have been?

[Gorilla King]

The bad thing about that parachute is that it doen't allow you to see the ground, only the heavens.
Besides atheists don't need parachutes, we always land on hay...
...obtained from all the straw men we've collected from christians.

Don't get me started on your own straw men.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Naturally. But I don't think blanket statements about something you disagree with, especially when delivered in a mocking sort of way is in any way beneficial.

True, I may have made the mistake of treating the three man God-squad on here as if they represented the whole of the Christian community, but I will make the blanket statement that your mythology cum theology is cantilevered upon previously cantilivered beliefs in an infinite regression back to a book of uncertain authorship and a narrative of which there is not a single contemporary witness.

[Gorilla King]

True, I may have made the mistake of treating the three man God-squad on here as if they represented the whole of the Christian community, but I will make the blanket statement that your mythology cum theology is cantilevered upon previously cantilivered beliefs in an infinite regression back to a book of uncertain authorship and a narrative of which there is not a single contemporary witness.

Let me challenge your claim of authorship. Which books? And what makes them uncertain? I know for a fact some are disputed, but not all.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Let me challenge your claim of authorship. Which books? And what makes them uncertain? I know for a fact some are disputed, but not all.

THe Old Testament, the whole of it. THe New Testament vis a vis the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Gorilla King]

THe Old Testament, the whole of it. THe New Testament vis a vis the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth.

I asked for books, not broad generalizations.

[NikolaiI]

http://freespace.virgin.net/sarah.peter.nelson/lazyman/lazyman.html
:)

[Gorilla King]

http://freespace.virgin.net/sarah.peter.nelson/lazyman/lazyman.html
:)

from that site:
Whatever you are doing, love yourself for doing it.

Suppose someone was in the process of killing someone else....:sick:

well, I have to go. If this isn't locked when I get back I'd be happy to continue.

[NikolaiI]

from that site:
Whatever you are doing, love yourself for doing it.

Suppose someone was in the process of killing someone else....:sick:

That is unthinkable! :)

Yeah, it kind of slowed down, but me too.

Oh, this is an interesting site, too. http://www.secondattention.org

[weepingforloman]

True, I may have made the mistake of treating the three man God-squad on here as if they represented the whole of the Christian community, but I will make the blanket statement that your mythology cum theology is cantilevered upon previously cantilivered beliefs in an infinite regression back to a book of uncertain authorship and a narrative of which there is not a single contemporary witness.

Who, precisely, is your God squad? I must assume that GK is included, and probably Red, but am I? Because I would like to remind you that I am sixteen, so my voice is probably already invalid. I believe, but could be wrong, that Red is a teacher, of what I am not sure, and I know that GK is a theology student, but that does not make THEM representative of the Church, either.

[Dark Star]

I can't speak for Myshkin but I'm guessing by the 'God squad' he means the unforgiving, unrelenting, extremists that won't budge an inch on their view even in the face of contradictory evidence; so I doubt he means you.

[Derringer]

? Because I would like to remind you that I am sixteen, so my voice is probably already invalid.

Your voice certainly matters - don't think such silly things! and listen to Bob Dylan for fun, not enough people do;)

I remember the good old days when I learned about non-christian beliefs in confirmation. Small c intended. We did neat-o tours of many synagogues, ect. I enjoyed that. Grandiose arcitecture, exquisite art, the whole two bits. Good time. Then we get back to our church, watch propagandi, convince ourselves that other religions are crazy- i got grounded for having "mormons are crazy" written in my notebook - and drink hot chocolate. Hegemonic bull. There was no love involved because we were to much of elitists to actually bother to stop and talk to anyone without out our 'you are wrong' glasses. Fear sure can do a lot of things. I always remember those days. How off topic. Maybe

Logical errors include:

- the majority is right. How easy a reference could be made to Nazi Germany. Oops.

- you know more than me. Then cite your sources. A reference to a scholar without the name of an actual scholar means absolutely nothing. Har! Something that means nothing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Who, precisely, is your God squad? I must assume that GK is included, and probably Red, but am I? Because I would like to remind you that I am sixteen, so my voice is probably already invalid. I believe, but could be wrong, that Red is a teacher, of what I am not sure, and I know that GK is a theology student, but that does not make THEM representative of the Church, either.

Actually I did have you in mind as one of the G-Squad and what does age have to do with it? Bear in mind the Jesuit saying: "Give us a child until he is seven and he will be ours for a life."

(For a "so-called" life I would have amended that statement since, once the catechisms or their equivalent have been firmly embedded, that is often the end of independent thinking - which, to me, is indispensable to life.)

[Gorilla King]

Actually I did have you in mind as one of the G-Squad and what does age have to do with it? Bear in mind the Jesuit saying: "Give us a child until he is seven and he will be ours for a life."

(For a "so-called" life I would have amended that statement since, once the catechisms or their equivalent have been firmly embedded, that is often the end of independent thinking - which, to me, is indispensable to life.)

Wow, you're absolutely right! No devoted Christian has ever managed to do anything remotely creative or anything that could be characterized as having any degree of innovative thought behind it. Us dumb hicks better just pack it up and make way for the era of the enlightened atheist Aryans....the ubermench! Hail!

[Logos]

Alrighty then :) I think this has gotten personal and off-topic enough now.