- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 25 2010,20:31) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 25 2010,12:53) I responded to one post addressed “To all”. That is all I will care to do because I simply feel that debating the origin of the universe is a monumental waste of time.
I don't think you have been paying attention KJ.It's not so much about debating that, but that knowing all three options are ludicrous, you cannot just write off one of the three options because you don't like it. Especially when one of them has to be true and given that alone, that is a whopping 33% chance being thrown away due to bias or arrogance.
If you write off the existence of a creator then you better have a good reason or alternate theory, otherwise if you don't have a clue, then it is unreasonable to go around saying that you know for sure there is no creator and ridiculing any mention of it as Stu seems to spend his time doing.
Comprehendo?
So if the wind is blowing your boat over to atheism which wouldn't actually surprise me, then I expect that you too will give a full reason why or a feasible theory that shows that it was nothing or something non-living that caused the universe.
Otherwise I can take it that you won't be unreasonable as to write off the creator option. Unless of course you are happy to be just outright and straight up unreasonable and prove that it is just a plain dislike for God or the idea of a God that makes you write it off. At least that way you remain honest and then we can all move on.
They have both already said they detest the very concept of God. They hate God so much that they both wish God didn't exist.They have the Atheist Disease which is why no amount of evidence large or small is acceptable to them, even when you just presented them both with a reasonable debate they would rather fold than to argue their points.
I could argue their points better than them and I'm not remotely an atheist. In-fact I will pretend to take their view and argue the point just for fun.
1) God/Creator
2) Something (non-living)
3) Nothing (absolutely nothing)Okay just for the sake of exercising your strong spiritual muscles, here we go.
The first thing is your 3 alternatives are not exhaustive there could be a fourth option such as something(living)
The fact that something is living doesn't preclude that it is God/Creator i.e. you are living and you are not God.Quote Looking at the idea that 'something' was the possible cause of the universe, seems ludicrous to me too. How can something non-aware that supposedly caused the universe, come up with life or awareness of itself? If you admit that this something was itself living then we are back to the God option. Once again you assume that something living and aware must preclude that it be God but you are both living and aware and you are not God and neither am I.
being living and aware is not exclusive to God, is it? So what would be exclusive to God in which a Universe could be created?
No I am assuming that whatever caused/created the universe was alive. Therefore it was done by intelligence. The other 2 options rule out intelligence. If an intelligence caused the universe by his intelligence, then it was created and therefore he is the creator.
T8,
O ye of little imagination.
Option 5: The universe does not have a beginning (in the sense that you mean it). Perhaps the universe is part of a larger N-dimensional system that has multiple universes that expand and collapse continuously, without beginning or end.
Now before you claim that this multiple universe must have a beginning, answer this question: Does your god have to have a beginning? If not, what quality does this god possess that could not be ascribed to the “multi-verse” that I am describing?
Option 5b: Perhaps our specific universe had a beginning within this larger “multi-verse”, but the cause would not be limited to the three choices that you described – unless you would described this theoretical “multi-verse”, and all that it contains, as non-living.
Now, I demand that you prove that it did not happen in one of these two ways. (Actually, I don't because that would be silly. But, so is your demand that Stu pay more attention to your pet theory without any evidence.)
I am sure that if I thought about it long enough I could come up with a few more options, so let's dispense with the idea that the existence of the universe proves that your god exists. After all, even it is shown that someone created the universe, it could just as easily be lifeforms alien to us as it could be your god, (as Bodhitharta has pointed out).
So where is your evidence that your god did it? Where did he leave his unmistakable signature?
In other words, is the question that you pose really relevant as to whether or not your god (or any god) exists, or is it just a sideshow for the real reasons that you believe in your god, (i.e. the bible)?
I have thought about a universe where the big bang was simply the universe being ejected from a huge Black Hole in a bigger construct. Some scientists believe that Black Holes have White Holes and it is a sort of like a big suck and then a big bang. (NOTE: not trying to be rude). So our Big Bang was simply the other end of a Black Hole in a bigger universe.
But if the true Universe is a bigger construct, then it too must have been caused by something, or a creator. We can't dodge the question by making the universe bigger. It eventually comes back to the 3 options.
If the universe always existed then you could say that it is the nothing option or even the something option, but I think that it could be a legitimate 4th option. However, an option as ludicrous as the other options.
So this brings us to the question, if the universe is not eternal and forever, then why should God be? Or who created God so to speak?
Well this can be answered with Mathematics. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. If the universe had a beginning; then the universe has a cause. The universe requires a cause if it had a beginning. God, however had no beginning, so he does not need a cause.
Einstein's general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he must also be the creator of time and thus is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in that which he made, because he precedes it and is not defined by it.
It is like explaining a finite number and an infinite one. If you quote any whole finite number you will theoretically be able to count backwards to zero one number at a time (if you live long enough). If you quote an infinite whole number, you cannot count back to zero one number at a time. There would never be enough time to count back to zero.
So if God is infinite and without beginning as it is written, then you could always draw a line into the past and God will always be there. If the universe had a beginning, then at some point when you look backward so to speak, the universe is not there.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,07:14) o where is your evidence that your god did it? Where did he leave his unmistakable signature?
I have covered this point on a number of occasions.First off, we have 3 or 4 options that cover every possibility and they are all ludicrous or truly bizarre to our experience of things, yet it has to be one of them.
So faith is needed in order to believe in any of the options.
I believe in God not because I am backing it like a horse in a race, but because I have had unmistakable evidence between God and me. It is not evidence that will convince anyone else because they have not experienced what I have experienced and will probably find my experience hard to believe anyway.
Faith in scripture is defined as EVIDENCE NOT SEEN, and I have evidence. The other beliefs are without evidence so they are in a sense BLIND FAITH.
Now I am not as arrogant to think that anyone should believe in God based on my experience and faith in God, but I am saying that if you truly seek, (like I did), you will find. If you don't like the idea that there is a God, then you will not seek and you hence you will not find. You will then be left with the 3 options and if you believe in any of them, it would be by blind faith.
BTW, I think that some people who believe in God do so from a blind faith, just the same as some believe by blind faith that everything came from nothing, or that everything has always existed for all time in some form.
But there are people that have evidence of things not seen, and with that, they know which option to choose. It is only knowing God on a personal level, that allows for faith as evidence of things not seen. All other options require blind faith.
T8,
Did you miss, or purposely ignore, this question:
Quote Now before you claim that this multiple universe must have a beginning, answer this question: Does your god have to have a beginning? If not, what quality does this god possess that could not be ascribed to the “multi-verse” that I am describing? Your response seems to indicate that you have.
By the way, see the following for reference:
Time is the 4th dimension. An N-dimensional multi-verse, (10 dimensions in the above video), would encompass time.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,10:31) T8, Did you miss, or purposely ignore, this question:
Quote Now before you claim that this multiple universe must have a beginning, answer this question: Does your god have to have a beginning? If not, what quality does this god possess that could not be ascribed to the “multi-verse” that I am describing? Your response seems to indicate that you have.
By the way, see the following for reference:
Time is the 4th dimension. An N-dimensional multi-verse, (10 dimensions in the above video), would encompass time.
I thought I covered this. Unless you missed my post.It doesn't make any difference how big the universe is, if it has a beginning, then it has a cause. It makes no difference how many dimensions there are, because it is possible that to exist outside of those dimensions theoretically.
The point is that if you are saying that the universe has always existed instead of God, then I am saying that this option is as ludicrous as the others and will always require blind faith as you will never have the proof.
So lets imagine that the universe has always existed in some form. And now we see it in its current form, but it could have been a soup or an energy or another universe/big bang in another time or dimension.
So think about that. The universe has always existed fits into the something category. That something caused the latest form and that something was something else, and so on forever. It is ludicrous. Amazing design all spawned forever with no guidance from intelligence at all.
The idea that the universe is much bigger than we can imagine and it has existed forever, is ludicrous. Why? Chances favour nothing, but we know that nothing is not an option because we are aware that we exist. So why is there this ordered universe that has always existed and just happens to be ordered as a system that creates galaxies and life. That is ludicrous and requires blind faith.
For me the only reasonable explanation is there is a creator who is eternal. No one made him because he is eternal. Yes that is ludicrous, but I have evidence for this and I don't have a problem having to believe in the ludicrous because ludicrous is the only option on the table.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2010,07:10) Quote No I am assuming that whatever caused/created the universe was alive. Okay, but are you confusing “being” alive with motion? Aren't you saying “something moved”? Can something move without being alive?
Quote Therefore it was done by intelligence. Why?
Quote The other 2 options rule out intelligence. What does intelligence have to do with formation? In other words things are formed by means other than intelligence, right? Piles of rocks that broke off a mountain are not formed by intelligence, right?
Quote If an intelligence caused the universe by his intelligence, then it was created and therefore he is the creator. Yes, that is true but you assert this saying “if”, If all the options you provided “were” possible then anyone could be possible. Can you show any of the three to be impossible?
Note: To everyone else keep in mind that I am only making these arguments to show that atheists lack imagination and to allow T8 to fully flex his spiritual muscles.
Quote Okay, but are you confusing “being” alive with motion? Aren't you saying “something moved”? Can something move without being alive? If it creates it is a creator. If it causes by movement and no creativity, then it is something. That is 2 of the 3 options.
Quote Yes, that is true but you assert this saying “if”, If all the options you provided “were” possible then anyone could be possible. Can you show any of the three to be impossible? If nothing can do or cause anything, then it is something. We are now left with something dead or non-aware, or something aware (alive). This equates to the options something and someone.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,07:14) Quote T8, O ye of little imagination.
Option 5: The universe does not have a beginning (in the sense that you mean it). Perhaps the universe is part of a larger N-dimensional system that has multiple universes that expand and collapse continuously, without beginning or end.
Then you would be referring to “the N-dimentional system” and not the Universes themselves and you have already described that system as one with beginnings and endings.
Quote Now before you claim that this multiple universe must have a beginning, answer this question: Does your god have to have a beginning? No, Just Exist!
Quote If not, what quality does this god possess that could not be ascribed to the “multi-verse” that I am describing? Inherent Capacity and Consciousness which regardless of the System or Multi-verses the Capacity to at any point lead to sentient beings in any of these universes reflect inherent consciousness throughout All Universes. The Capacity for Consciousness to effect Causality as we humans do on earth are an reflection of inherent power and consciousness pervading the Universe or what we call “God” whom we can easily call a “Being” as Consciousness is awareness of being.
Quote Option 5b: Perhaps our specific universe had a beginning within this larger “multi-verse”, but the cause would not be limited to the three choices that you described – unless you would described this theoretical “multi-verse”, and all that it contains, as non-living. Everything that “MATTERS” or becomes matter is due to decay, Therefore God does not “Matter” God makes everything else Matter so from the living comes both the living and the dead. The substance is never the issue it is what substantiates that is always the issue. God “Happens” and hence Motion is in inherent and noticed in Conscious life. If something moves it is controlled by a force and if something moves itself it is “Self-Controlled” All the Multi -Verses you describe in any system are moved and controlled within that System but the System cannot have control as Self-Control requires Inherent Consciousness i.e. whatever moves does so because of force except in cases where a “Self” can control a force
Quote Now, I demand that you prove that it did not happen in one of these two ways. (Actually, I don't because that would be silly. But, so is your demand that Stu pay more attention to your pet theory without any evidence.) You never described what happened, you described the outcome of additional Universes as an assertion whereas T8 asserted 3 premises
Quote I am sure that if I thought about it long enough I could come up with a few more options, so let's dispense with the idea that the existence of the universe proves that your god exists. You haven't actually come up with any options so to dispense with the Idea that an inherently Conscious Being controlled the forces that Created the Universe or Multi-verses does indeed prove that God exists.
Quote After all, even it is shown that someone created the universe, it could just as easily be lifeforms alien to us as it could be your god, (as Bodhitharta has pointed out). What is alien to us could have indeed created this planet and life on it but it would not escape the fact that even they would have been subject to forces except where a Being could assert “Self-Control” which can only Occur in Conscious Beings, now keep in mind God is referred to as THE SUPREME BEING in otherwords God is inherently Self-Conscious and Aware, therefore BEING AWARE GOD HAPPENS and whatever is Happening God is aware of it “being” done
Quote So where is your evidence that your god did it? Where did he leave his unmistakable signature? If we say “your” God, we miss the point completely as we are talking about the Creator of All the Worlds and we are not aware of all the things this creator does nor do we have full knowledge of the UNSEEN but what we can know is that our knowledge gives us EVIDENCE of Conscious Intelligence inherent in the Universe, for nothing can be constructed (Including reality) without its components.
Quote In other words, is the question that you pose really relevant as to whether or not your god (or any god) exists, or is it just a sideshow for the real reasons that you believe in your god, (i.e. the bible)? The question was posed as relevant as to whether or not God exists or if Atheists are “BEING” UNJUST and BIAS. an Atheist must be a “Being” that is unjust and bias pertaining to God because One must be positive about “not being able” to prove a negative and therefore a negative is PROOF of a “Being having Power” to prove what is positive or negative.
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2010,05:46) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,10:31) T8, Did you miss, or purposely ignore, this question:
Quote Now before you claim that this multiple universe must have a beginning, answer this question: Does your god have to have a beginning? If not, what quality does this god possess that could not be ascribed to the “multi-verse” that I am describing? Your response seems to indicate that you have.
By the way, see the following for reference:
Time is the 4th dimension. An N-dimensional multi-verse, (10 dimensions in the above video), would encompass time.
I thought I covered this. Unless you missed my post.It doesn't make any difference how big the universe is, if it has a beginning, then it has a cause. It makes no difference how many dimensions there are, because it is possible that to exist outside of those dimensions theoretically.
The point is that if you are saying that the universe has always existed instead of God, then I am saying that this option is as ludicrous as the others and will always require blind faith as you will never have the proof.
So lets imagine that the universe has always existed in some form. And now we see it in its current form, but it could have been a soup or an energy or another universe/big bang in another time or dimension.
So think about that. The universe has always existed fits into the something category. That something caused the latest form and that something was something else, and so on forever. It is ludicrous. Amazing design all spawned forever with no guidance from intelligence at all.
The idea that the universe is much bigger than we can imagine and it has existed forever, is ludicrous. Why? Chances favour nothing, but we know that nothing is not an option because we are aware that we exist. So why is there this ordered universe that has always existed and just happens to be ordered as a system that creates galaxies and life. That is ludicrous and requires blind faith.
For me the only reasonable explanation is there is a creator who is eternal. No one made him because he is eternal. Yes that is ludicrous, but I have evidence for this and I don't have a problem having to believe in the ludicrous because ludicrous is the only option on the table.
At least you are admitting that your position is equally ludicrous. As you have already indicated, the real reason why you believe that your god created the universe is that you already believe in that god. That makes this whole debate moot.O ye of limited imagination.
What if consciousness is a fundamental property of this “multi-verse”? What if our universe is consciously evolving?
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the following and report back to the class:
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,15:48) O ye of limited imagination. What if consciousness is a fundamental property of this “multi-verse”? What if our universe is consciously evolving?
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the following and report back to the class:
Once again Consciousness would not be subject to the multi-verse as it would be the other way around. What I mean is we find that life substatiates a substance not the substance itself.As I said forces would control this “Multi-verse” therefore is could not be conscious itself. Also it must be understood that Consciousness itself does not evolve it is simply “discovered” you know what I mean? Uncovered. Consider that in ignorance consciousness seems far away(knowledge seems far away) Knowledge feels like an evolution but in reality there is no increased data just an increased awareness of the data.
Biblically speaking consider someone immersed in God that can say perform Miracles. Now Jesus said that those he was talking to could do the Miracles he did and even more but the fact is they were ignorant of what they could do. He told them to apply FAITH to “discover” what is already true.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,07:14) T8, So where is your evidence that your god did it? Where did he leave his unmistakable signature?
Hi WhatIsTrue,I have documented His Signature Click Here
God Bless
Ed J
http:/www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,15:22) At least you are admitting that your position is equally ludicrous. As you have already indicated, the real reason why you believe that your god created the universe is that you already believe in that god. That makes this whole debate moot.
In short, it is not moot if you understand the point. I will try and spell it out for you. You must have missed it.I said that all positions were ludicrous and that those who say that they don't believe in God because it is ludicrous are ignoring the fact that the truth has to be ludicrous because it will be so far removed from our everyday experience of life.
So of the ludicrous options, a creator is the most feasible as it fits all the evidence. The fact that many including myself have experienced the creator on a personal level proves it for us and for us alone. I merely make the point that God invites those who want the truth to seek it, and they will find it.
The actual point with this whole debate is that it is unreasonable to say there is no God. You can hedge your bets and back atheism as if it were a race horse and hope it wins, but you cannot reasonably say that there is no God. It makes it worse when such a person ridicules belief in God. As scripture says, the fool has said in his heart that there is no God, so the finger comes right back.
I have pointed out a good argument for why it is foolish to say there is no God. Atheists gamble their soul for a belief that there is no God and no eternal accountability. So if it is foolish to gamble your next mortgage payment on the pokies, then how much worse to gamble your soul?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,15:48) O ye of limited imagination. What if consciousness is a fundamental property of this “multi-verse”? What if our universe is consciously evolving?
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the following and report back to the class:
Oh great one of magnificent imagination, I am not worthy to even make this comment. Please forgive me your highness in advance.The idea of a conscious evolving multi-dimensional universe that is growing still requires a cause. If not, then nothing was the cause and it fits into the nothing option.
Nothing, means no thing. So how come there is some things?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 26 2010,11:14) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Feb. 26 2010,15:48) O ye of limited imagination. What if consciousness is a fundamental property of this “multi-verse”? What if our universe is consciously evolving?
Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, read the following and report back to the class:
Once again Consciousness would not be subject to the multi-verse as it would be the other way around. What I mean is we find that life substatiates a substance not the substance itself.As I said forces would control this “Multi-verse” therefore is could not be conscious itself. Also it must be understood that Consciousness itself does not evolve it is simply “discovered” you know what I mean? Uncovered. Consider that in ignorance consciousness seems far away(knowledge seems far away) Knowledge feels like an evolution but in reality there is no increased data just an increased awareness of the data.
Biblically speaking consider someone immersed in God that can say perform Miracles. Now Jesus said that those he was talking to could do the Miracles he did and even more but the fact is they were ignorant of what they could do. He told them to apply FAITH to “discover” what is already true.
Did you do your homework, or are you commenting out of ignorance?Let me help you out.
Quote Physics is in the business of modeling reality. General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and currently String Theory have all unsuccessfully tried to produce an overarching model of our objective reality. In the physics community, these one-theory-explains-all reality models are called TOEs. This particular TOE is “Big” because it successfully integrates metaphysics and physics into a single unified big-picture view of our larger reality. The My Big TOE trilogy provides a rational, logically consistent Theory Of Everything, develops the required new paradigms to support that theory, constructs a solid scientific foundation for future explorations to be built upon, and explains the interfaces and connections between newly derived knowledge and the existing database of scientific and personal experience. It subsumes physics, redeems philosophy, and explains many objective as well as subjective phenomena. Within My Big TOE, the physical universe and consciousness are fully integrated into a single scientific, tightly logical exposition that encompasses the subjective as well as the objective, the normal as well as the paranormal, the whole of your experience – body, mind, and spirit. The My Big TOE reality model will help you understand your life, your purpose, all of the reality you experience, how that reality works, and how you might interact most profitably with it. It doesn't have to be true to be a possibility, but you can't just make things up about it and pretend that it doesn't offer an alternate explanation.
T8 wrote:
Quote I said that all positions were ludicrous and that those who say that they don't believe in God because it is ludicrous are ignoring the fact that the truth has to be ludicrous because it will be so far removed from our everyday experience of life. T8 then wrote:
Quote The actual point with this whole debate is that it is unreasonable to say there is no God. Should I get out of the way and let you finish debating yourself?
Let's clarify this once and for all. Is it or is it not ludicrous to believe that god created the universe without any other evidence including personal experience? (Hint: a 'yes' or 'no' should suffice.)
If 'yes', then why would an atheist be foolish not to believe in god if he has had no personal experience with god?
T8 wrote:
Quote The idea of a conscious evolving multi-dimensional universe that is growing still requires a cause. If not, then nothing was the cause and it fits into the nothing option. Fine. Doesn't the idea of god creating the universe equally require that god have a cause? If not, doesn't that put him into the 'nothing' category too, since 'nothing' made him?
Oh wait. I forgot that you wrote:
Quote No one made him because he is eternal. Alrighty then, why can't the “multi-verse” be eternal?
Remember what you wrote:
Quote …the truth has to be ludicrous because it will be so far removed from our everyday experience of life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
