What if there was no god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

An axiom is by definition self-evident. If it's not self-evident, it's not an axiom. Your problematic would then turn to be "what is an axiom".



Your example might lead to think that your last sentence "Are the two ice cubes the same?" mean "does x = x?", but it does not, unless you explicitly imply that, for the sake of your reasoning, the two ice cubes are indeed the same. If you imply that they are not the same, then asking does "does x = x?" does not apply. x can only mean a single variable. Your reasoning is sophistic and implies that x would mean two different things.



It is pointless to discuss about this when the point above has non been elucidated, this is: the meaning of x = x. The statement x = x is a mathematical statement, and this means that you cannot apply it as you did. Your example, if you imply that the two ice cubes are not the same, is only based on your definition of what the ice cube "is". So if you say that the two ice cubes are not the same, then you would only be saying x =/= y, and wouldn't be saying that x =/= x.



Hmm explain it better, as, as it is, or as I understand it, I find this nonsequitur...

---

The problem still revolves around what makes an axiom an axiom. The salient feature is that an axiom is a postulate that is taken to be true without proof. It is NOT something derived from empirical observation (there has never been, and never could be, an observation of a mathematical point, line, or plane) and it relies for its acceptance on something vague such as "self-evidence" which by the very term itself implies a degree of subjectivity.

Once you argue that one has to take into account the circumstances there is no longer the pure self-evidence that you imply. Your argument (and your argument is correct) is that a statement such as "x = x" can be accepted without proof only within certain types of arguments. Which is precisely my position on axioms. These are not merely self-evident statements, but are statements that are taken to be "worthy" (which is the original meaning of the word) of acceptance for the sake of particular types of arguments.

Now the point of all this is that your system of gaining knowledge involves basing certain types of thoughts on statements that are accepted not because they are universally true, and not because they are demonstrable (they are not) but because they allow us to move forward. They are a starting point. We are of course allowed to jettison axioms and postulates (same thing) when they are no longer useful. A classic example is the abandonment of the postulate that parallel lines never meet, since that is not necessarily true in some interesting cases.

Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.

The true questions to ask are to what purpose we are choosing our axioms, and to what degree they allow us to pursue that purpose profitably. I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichardHresko

Once you argue that one has to take into account the circumstances there is no longer the pure self-evidence that you imply. Your argument (and your argument is correct) is that a statement such as "x = x" can be accepted without proof only within certain types of arguments. Which is precisely my position on axioms. These are not merely self-evident statements, but are statements that are taken to be "worthy" (which is the original meaning of the word) of acceptance for the sake of particular types of arguments.

---

No, no, to say "it can only be accepted in certain types of argument" is false, it can be accepted all the time. x = x is a mathematical axiom, the mathematical axiom will then only illustrate your reasoning applied to the ice cubes in a mathematical form. If your premise is that x = any ice cube, then necessarily all ice cubes are the same, at least for the sake of your argument, and therefore x = x will necessary be true for the sake of your argument. As soon as you are tempted to say x =/= x, then your statement becomes wrong, and it should be x =/= y, because one variable cannot mean two different things, x =/= x is a complete absurdity, like saying 1 =/= 1. So as soon as you postulate that the two ice cubes are NOT the same then x = any ice cube contradicts this very statement. I mean I don't know how I can explain this further...

Quote:

---

Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.

---

This is following a very sophistic reasoning I'm afraid. Putting "x = x" and "God exist" on a same foot of logical equality is stretching it quite far...

Quote:

---

I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.

---

Axioms are universally true.

It is quite useless to continue this until you have understood correctly why it is an axiom and why it is self-evident.

I wouldn't be surprised really. I'd move on to better things such as learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

If there is no God, then everything else is permitted.

---

Let me second bazarov's apt paraphrase from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Once God - the source of objective morality - is banished, then we really have no reason to prohibit any behavior whatsoever except on basis of personal preference or "might makes right." How scary is that?

This would change nothing for me, and for many others I am sure. I do not believe in a conventional sense of God, but of a power greater then myself. More specifically: I have faith in life, in being good and kind towards others simply for the satisfaction of not causing others pain, and I enjoy my life for the pure sake of the gift that it is to be living. People who are saying that they would die if there were no God, well, I'm sure your God would be horrified to hear that. If you do believe in God then he surly did not create you to have you feel that your life is so trivial.

and more specifically, the "Power Greater then Myself" that I believe in is more a way of saying, that I only believe that I am not God, or more specifically that I am such an important person, as I have found some people to immediately assume this is my opinion of myself :lol: . The Ocean is a power greater then myself, so are Elephants and Hurricanes. If there was no heaven or hell, I don't know if there is or not, it would make no difference to me, nor should it to anyone. The absence of an "After" should not mean that there is nothing to look forward to. Who knows what comes "After"? Faith should be something that you feel in your heart, and how you talk to "God" or whatever power it is you believe is more powerful then yourself, well that should be a personal thing within each individual that is unbiased against any concrete knowledge of a presence of or absence of a Deity.

I'd also like to say, that I don't care what anyone practices. Honestly, and I don't mean this in a rude way. I think that religions are great things, I think everyone is right, and everyone is wrong all at the same time. If there is a "God" then there is only one. And my concept, and yours, and everyone else's on the planet are simply individual ways to find that same point. No one should tell anyone how to have faith or to worship whoever it is they feel the need to worship.

This is a terrifically touchy topic to many people though it seems.

And also, I would truly hate to believe that if there was no God then anything would be permissible. It is a shame to have such a low view of humans, though we surly haven't done very much to prove that point otherwise. There is no God for me, and "Anything" is certainly not permissible for me in my life. Morals, though they have a strong tie to religion and the concept of a "God" and the great fear of his wrath, do not solely rely on religion. There is such a thing as simply being a "Good" person.
But again, to each his own and I value every-ones difference of opinion, so long as respect is involved of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Let me second bazarov's apt paraphrase from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Once God - the source of objective morality - is banished, then we really have no reason to prohibit any behavior whatsoever except on basis of personal preference or "might makes right." How scary is that?

---

Oh, this rhetoric... million of people had/have no God, that doesn't mean that they care about nothing or have no morality... Such a judgment would also imply that everyone acts "morally" only by fear of punishment, which might be Doestoevsky's, Bavarov's and your case, but isn't the case for everyone else.

In fact, that people believed in God hasn't stopped many of them to act contrary to the moral either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

Oh, this rhetoric... million of people had/have no God, that doesn't mean that they care about nothing or have no morality... Such a judgment would also imply that everyone acts "morally" only by fear of punishment, which might be Doestoevsky's, Bavarov's and your case, but isn't the case for everyone else.

In fact, that people believed in God hasn't stopped many of them to act contrary to the moral either.

---

But these "millions" were born and raised inside a culture that may carry - if even only latent within it - a belief in God. (As well, the Bible makes it clear that all humanity carries within it an inherent knowledge of God - they may not necessarily know that its Him - God - but they do understand that something far greater than themselves created them and the universe that they are in - and, as a result, carry within them an inherent knowledge of right and wrong - the standard to which all people appeal when making moral judgments - including moral relativists, by the way).

That many ("millions") choose not to believe is different than God truly not existing at all. Dostoyevsky's propostion simply states a philosophic truth (which you've tried to refute using a world that - for the most part - still believes in some form of God). As such, you can't use the world as it is necessarily to argue that the philosophic point is wrong.

Dostoyevsky's proposition suggests the reality of morality's force if God (the source of objective morality) doesn't exist. Without God, all morality becomes subject to (fallible and self-interested) human whim, desire, preference. Pretty scary when you look at what we're capable of justifying.

Secondly, the overcrowding of prisons worldwide is proof that threats of punishment are insufficient to convince people to do the right thing. Nobody can long serve God out of fear - he will simply come to resent God and then finally reject Him. You cannot believe in God as He is described in the Bible and then pretend that He is a God of coercion and force. Trying to hold two such ideas (if one has truly read the Bible) creates a contradiction that cannot be logical.

Ok, so you can't use a world without religion spontaneously created (in our heads) to demonstrate that belief in the absence of gods does not entail the lack of morality, but you can envision evolutionary development toward a society that does not need illogical, unprovable (untestable, without a smidgin of evidence) contstructions that, in my opinion, take the easy (and unkindly) road out.

Religion can be seen as an evolutionary stage of development requiring a human-created supernatural system (think crutches, or a small child unsteadily learning to walk), whereas a more permanent structure of moral relations between people and others (including the environment) should focus on respect for life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Il Penseroso

Ok, so you can't use a world without religion spontaneously created (in our heads) to demonstrate that belief in the absence of gods does not entail the lack of morality, but you can envision evolutionary development toward a society that does not need illogical, unprovable (untestable, without a smidgin of evidence) contstructions that, in my opinion, take the easy (and unkindly) road out.

Religion can be seen as an evolutionary stage of development requiring a human-created supernatural system (think crutches, or a small child unsteadily learning to walk), whereas a more permanent structure of moral relations between people and others (including the environment) should focus on respect for life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known.

---

This is quite well said Penseroso. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metanoia

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

---

Some of us having been living with that reality for most of our adult lives. And no, it doesn`t change the way I live. In fact the realization that life is not a dress rehearsal for anything ensures that I try to make the most of the single chance that I get at it.

Hi
I cannot see how it would be a dress rehearsal anyway,Hopefully we would not have to go through it all again. If we had to, I would rather leave out the first 30 years of my life as non consequential.
If there were a God do you expect to have another chance? In which way?
The way I see heaven if ever there is one, is as a troubble free place, where I can relax if I want to and take my well earned place for having been considerate towards others.
In reality I do not really expect heaven to be available.deep inside I know that Heaven is an unrealistic idea.It is a good one though.

the more you try to learn about God the more mysterious He becomes. If he isn't there then who's there who is controlling this universe from disintegrating?? If there was no God this Universe had been just a non- sensical assemblage of matter!

Yeah, I like FICTION too.... thats what I read, but I also read the BIBLE! So believe or don't, B/.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Il Penseroso

Ok, so you can't use a world without religion spontaneously created (in our heads) to demonstrate that belief in the absence of gods does not entail the lack of morality, but you can envision evolutionary development toward a society that does not need illogical, unprovable (untestable, without a smidgin of evidence) contstructions that, in my opinion, take the easy (and unkindly) road out.

---

I merely suggest that you can't dismiss the philosophic truth in Dostoyevsky's statement simply because there is a significant number of people who disbelieve in God and still behave. I am not claiming that a lack of belief in God leads to certain moral anarchy; I am suggesting that Dostoyevsky's statment is true: without an objective morality, why should anything be forbidden?

As far as your hyperbolic attack against religion: please. Much of what even atheists "believe" about life is "untestable, without a smidgin of evidence." There's "evidence" around, but perhaps it isn't in the form you prefer. Life is not about what can be defined, examined, conclusively proved. Life cannot be understood in its complexity and mystery by camping out inside a test tube - sorry.

What exactly are the "easy" and "unkind roads" religion takes, by the way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Il Penseroso

Religion can be seen as an evolutionary stage of development requiring a human-created supernatural system (think crutches, or a small child unsteadily learning to walk), whereas a more permanent structure of moral relations between people and others (including the environment) should focus on respect for life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known.

---

To say that the idea of God is an "evolutionary stage" is absurd. There is no reason for the blind forces of nature to engender or create within the human mind the concept of an eternal God and an objective moral law.

As far as your "more permanent structure of moral relations" - what is "more permanent" about it? Tell me, to what standard do you appeal to tell me that I should have "respect for life"? Why? A Darwinistic view would suggest that respecting the lives of others may well endanger mine (survival of the fittest and all that); an evolutionistic view would suggest that morality would be a hamper more than a help to my existence.

"Life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known" (my italics).

The greatest literature of the world (including most religious texts but not confined to them) points again and again to the sobering truth that reality may not be exactly what it seems. Check out Buddhism's fundamental ideas about the nature of reality, Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Gospel of Matthew, Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, Melville's Moby Dick, Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for a quick overview of this truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

the more you try to learn about God the more mysterious He becomes. If he isn't there then who's there who is controlling this universe from disintegrating?? If there was no God this Universe had been just a non- sensical assemblage of matter!

---

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

Tolstoi...and Does(I've seen it so many ways can't spell it) are true genius.. and I spell War and Peace, Peace & War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

---

The contention is that the laws of physics exist because God created them. The textbooks you refered simply describe the existence of laws that God created. Physics cannot explain why these laws exist at all - it can only say "here is why the universe seems to operate as it does." Knowing why something operates as it does is not the same as understanding how the way it operates came to be in the first place.

No other religion can properly account for the existence of the universe as it exists.

I'm sorry RZ..Physics is a book written by God! I'm sorry you are ill...illiterate! RZ, you know everything, but I am infinite. sorry if this insulted you ...Biaatch! B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

---

have read enough of physics and all that,,,,time for me forget most of it!

First of all let me say God has no religion. If every religion had its own god this world would have been hell much earlier!

The Universe is expanding or contracting, the question is who's making her do that?? Where did a pinch of dust come from?? If we can't create then it is fair enough to admit that there is someone, someone whom we are unable to comprehend, who is infact ''creating'' and looking after his 'creation' as well.
Nothing is automatic or spontaneous.......nothing is even accidental ,,,,you only think so !

Hi
It sound good and surely from a certain point of view possible,the problem is that it is possible the other way round too,it really depend which interpretation you want to give to it all.I think it is possible to esplain what you describe with fisics,but you are quite welcome to feel differently.
As for myself I think Fisics would do a better job in esplaining your questions but I do not have any problem in hoping that there is a bit more than fisics in everything around us.One can only hope!

Rosa

why only physics and not chemistry?? No single science is capable of explaining complete sciences so how can it explain God !

Well, it was the topic brought up, wasn't a boolkwritten about Eve? or Evolution? Or Mass Spectrometry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ..I'm sorry thats Geo Chemistry talk for every single combintation in the mix. B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

No other religion can properly account for the existence of the universe as it exists.

---

How is THIS true? Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion with an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it? The fact of the matter is, ANY religion that claims to have that sort of deity heading it can 'properly account' for the existence of the universe as it exists. Not to mention, even within those standards, you still have Islam and Judaism to deal with since they employ the same God with the same powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

The Universe is expanding or contracting, the question is who's making her do that??

---

A combination of gravity and left over energy from the big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Where did a pinch of dust come from??

---

Again, the Big Bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

If we can't create then it is fair enough to admit that there is someone, someone whom we are unable to comprehend, who is infact ''creating'' and looking after his 'creation' as well.

---

No, it is not fair enough to admit to such a thing. This is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy. "If I don't know how it works, then God must have done it".

Quote:

---

A combination of gravity and left over energy from the big bang.

---

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge ! Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen. Gravity? arnt there voids in space? Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

Quote:

---

Again, the Big Bang

---

.

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

Quote:

---

this is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy. "If I don't know how it works, then God must have done it".

---

you are only discovering what is already there, what already exists.....you don't know anything for sure in anticipation-only God does!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge !

---

And some of us are willing to admit to this and not place a deity in there simply because we don't know the answer yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen.

---

I'd like some proof of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Gravity? arnt there voids in space?

---

What sort of 'voids' are you speaking of? Are you thinking of Dark Matter? There are 'voids' of that sort but nothing that displays a complete lack of gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

---

This is an interesting question! The short answer is that a flame is in a different state of manner than an apple (think of gas vs liquid vs solid). I'll do some research later and give a more extended answer to this question since I really do find this to be something interesting. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

---

You asked about a speck of dust, not matter as a whole. ;) You're correct, though, the big bang is an expansion of a very tiny piece of matter that was there. Why? I don't know, but I don't think you can simply posit a super-being behind it all (in particular since this begs the question of where that super-being came from) as an explanation.

there are certain things that cannot be proved by reason. For example no one can explain why people think and act differently. However, it at times be required that we tried to understand a certain thing such as God without rejecting its existence. Inductive and deductive logic may perhaps give us some answer in case of God;s existence. Sometimes mere guess also tends to work as it did with Einstein who, as said, had just squared the speed of light by dint of his imagination and which ultimately proved true for itself.

I think you may have to employ inductive as well as deductive logic to assess the impact of God's existence rather than just denying it without reason.

well the others were the hard ones actuallly, the gods of today are the astronauts, argonauts, and olympians...the ones who dare go where no man has gone before....with a smile on their face, Cheers B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge ! Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen. Gravity? arnt there voids in space? Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

---

wow, what a logic! Is it dark at night because someone shuts the lights? Nothing happens on it's own, isn't it? Everything that happens has to have "someone" that makes it happens... This really reminds me early levels of Piaget's child psychology... You talk about not being able to see further than gravity (that gravity and leftover kinetic energy are the cause of the general movement of the universe is quite well demonstrated as a theory) and then you come and tell us that it cannot be that "someone" has to do it... come on, is this really looking "further"?

Quote:

---

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

---

Energy created matter, the Big Bang would then be the cause of the transformation of some of the energy to matter.

But I'm not sure what people are trying to achieve in arguing against scientific, well documented theories that they don't really know anything about. Really you can argue about the existence of God, but I would suggest not to go in the waters you are going into, as really, if you ever intend to disprove the Big Bang or any other well-respected scientific theory, you will never have credibility (and in act you will only look like a fool) if you do not do it in an academic, well-documented and serious way. Not by undocumented and quite naive judgments on an obscure forum (Virgil, if you read this, don't take offense please).

Well, even if God didn't exist, then he would exist through the actions of believers. But since reality is something that all of us make up, he does exist, then, in all of us. He exists as a source, and I truly believe anything is possible. I've felt his presence, for the first time, and many times after that, though I can't necessarily always feel it.

RZ, if you said that quote I saw Dark Star quote, that is badly mistaken. A better creation story if for no other reason than it is more imaginative, and more elaborate, is the idea that the material creation was created by Visnu in his Visnu expansions. He called all the souls into being, etc. and everything is part of His mind...if I have this badly understood, my apologies.

To go back to my first point. God exists as infinity. It's quite as simple as that. We can't comprehend infinity, but we should realize it exists. To comprehend infinity is impossible, yet it makes sense, it is reasonable, it exists. And in this infinity, impossible things are possible. If there is finite good, there is infinite good. If there is finite being, there is infinte being.

well said, Nik. Cowbell to you... B

Thanks. Did you ever look back over my article? I also put a link there to where I posted it on Deviantart...and on there I put a whole bunch of commentary on it, too. Very interestingly I dreamt about it! I think it's a good idea for anyone to write out in words as complete an article they can on what they think is most true, and what their reasons for it are. If it's complete, then they can read over it, and that way they won't forget, and it'll be in their minds more, so they can mull it over more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metanoia

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

---

The only absolute certainty is that another baby was just born, I don't know where, but it was.

Anyway, it would change the way I live---because if there's no god then I'm going to be very upset with that bible. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Etienne

But I'm not sure what people are trying to achieve in arguing against scientific, well documented theories that they don't really know anything about. Really you can argue about the existence of God, but I would suggest not to go in the waters you are going into, as really, if you ever intend to disprove the Big Bang or any other well-respected scientific theory, you will never have credibility (and in act you will only look like a fool) if you do not do it in an academic, well-documented and serious way. Not by undocumented and quite naive judgments on an obscure forum (Virgil, if you read this, don't take offense please).

---

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace. the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

that God created the universe is a fact. everything we know was created or else it wouldnt exist. if something is not created it does not exist in this universe. if something is not created how can it exist. i exist because i was created. so who created me? the creator created me and this creator is God.

God is not a created being. God is exalted above that which He created. God is not limited by time and space which He created.

God is non corporeal and extratemporal - this is why He is God.

God Rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iorix

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace. the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

that God created the universe is a fact. everything we know was created or else it wouldnt exist. if something is not created it does not exist in this universe. if something is not created how can it exist. i exist because i was created. so who created me? the creator created me and this creator is God.

God is not a created being. God is exalted above that which He created. God is not limited by time and space which He created.

God is non corporeal and extratemporal - this is why He is God.

God Rules

---

Ah, gotta love contradictions. Yep you are correct the Big Bang theory is a theory - the one that makes the most sense scientifically. Not fact because it can not be definitively proved. BUT, you do manage to get into a horrible tangle when you claim God as fact, despite it not meeting the criteria you state in your earlier post for being fact i.e

"the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced."

Replace Big Bang with God, still reads the same. The issue of scientific viability is a very slippery slope for believers to go down, it generally doesnt go well.

the fact that God exist is proven by common sense. what exists was created. nothing can exist without being created. to be created requires a sujbect of the verb "to create" this creator is God.

everyday people create things. proof that what exists was created.

it is a fact that what exists was created. Time and space were created by Mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iorix

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

---

You're talking through your hat here.

Quote:

---

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace.

---

Absolutely not.

Quote:

---

the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

---

... "I exist" is a proposition. "The sky is blue" is a proposition". "God exist" is a proposition". Anything can be a proposition, it only depends on the context. And Big Bang is not considered a fact, but a theory, just like I named it in my posts above, therefore I don't know what you are arguing against here.

Quote:

---

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

---

And Big bang is a theory. Your point is?

Quote:

---

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

---

No it's not "pure speculation" read again my post you quoted, I'm not going to explain you the Big Bang, I'll let you do the research (one searching clue: residual light, for example)

Quote:

---

that God created the universe is a fact.

---

Oh! You've tested it in laboratory? Ok, I stop here, I see I'm really wasting my time...

EDIT: I just read you last post too, what do you mean by "everyday people create things"

No, the fact that things exist in no way proves God exists. The fact is that things do exist. That is the only definable fact.

Everything else is supposition as to how it was created, some believe it was created by god; others that it was the Big Bang; others that we are a experiment by aliens. None of these are facts, but some of them have far better basis in science for their acceptance.

people shouldnt teach big bangism as though it is a scientific fact, neither is evolution a scientific fact.

the claim that the earth is old is also just a claim, but evidence proves otherwise.

God created the world for a specific purpose. God has sent prophets into the world and a lot of people are rebellious against God's authority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iorix

the fact that God exist is proven by common sense. what exists was created. nothing can exist without being created. to be created requires a sujbect of the verb "to create" this creator is God.

everyday people create things. proof that what exists was created.

it is a fact that what exists was created. Time and space were created by Mind.

---

You Know....some say there is a science for this...some call philosophy, some call