The Universe

[Killing Frenzy]

I found this article very interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5051818/

So whats everyone think about this? I really think the part of seeing the earth in the past is very interesting. Share your thoughts.

[ekim]

I found this article very interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5051818/

So whats everyone think about this? I really think the part of seeing the earth in the past is very interesting. Share your thoughts.


I cant image how big 156 billion light years is. But, if the universe ends, what is beyond that? So many thoughts on the subject running through my head right now and I dont know how to put them down. It just... boggles my mind.

That is really cool about the seeing early earth through the hall of mirrors effect. I feel like waving up at the sky right now so if something is watching earth a billion years from now through the hall of mirrors, I can say my hello. And maybe finally someone will see a real live dinosaur. All that is just too cool. Too bad its just a theory at this point, that would be cool to see.

[Galron Kincaid]

My reflections about the universe have brought me to one, simple conclusion.


Everything is casual.


Me, you, the fact that we are writing in a forum, in English, with a keyboard, a monitor, and ten fingers. The words "forum" "monitor" "keyboard" "fingers" themselves are a case too.


The fact that i'm thinking all of this is, too, a mere case.


The sky, the sea, the land, the birds chirping outside my window, the airplane buzzing in the distance, my cat purring on my knees, the very presence of life and thought on earth, and earth itself.......all casual.


I feel sick whenever i think of it.

[Essex]

yeah it makes you feel very very very very very very very very very very very small...

also it pretty much tells you that there HAS to be life on another planet because surely somewhere in 156 billion light years of space there is another planet that had the same condtions we did.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Very interesting article indeed. I'm glad that the author pointed out time necessarily had a beginning.




The fact that i'm thinking all of this is, too, a mere case.

I feel sick whenever i think of it.

Out of curiousity, I was wondering where you got the idea that your thinking was another case of causality (I'm assuming you misspelled cause by stating "case").

[TheDagdaMor145]

couple of things. ekim, they were saying that the whole 'hall of mirrors' effect was not found. the study attempted to find it by looking at CMB, but the findings suggest that it is not possible.

AoA, i dont think the author pointed out that time neccissarily had a beginning. only that the universe had a beginning. whether time could have started before the universe or not is a question best left to philosophers, and im an engineer (though i do enjoy a good philisophical/psychological discussion).

cheers :drink:

[Bhs Crew]

My reflections about the universe have brought me to one, simple conclusion.

Everything is casual.

Me, you, the fact that we are writing in a forum, in English, with a keyboard, a monitor, and ten fingers. The words "forum" "monitor" "keyboard" "fingers" themselves are a case too.

The fact that i'm thinking all of this is, too, a mere case.

The sky, the sea, the land, the birds chirping outside my window, the airplane buzzing in the distance, my cat purring on my knees, the very presence of life and thought on earth, and earth itself.......all casual.

I feel sick whenever i think of it.

I have no idea what you just said.

[Essex]

what I thought galron was going for was that there was no great importance to anything we do on this planet since the universe is so gigantic and we are so insignificant

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA, i dont think the author pointed out that time neccissarily had a beginning. only that the universe had a beginning. whether time could have started before the universe or not is a question best left to philosophers, and im an engineer (though i do enjoy a good philisophical/psychological discussion).

cheers :drink:

The author mentions specifically "the beginning of time". Further, time is a measurement of corporeeal movement, which gives the universe definition. As such, time would have to begin necessarily with matter.

[ekim]

couple of things. ekim, they were saying that the whole 'hall of mirrors' effect was not found. the study attempted to find it by looking at CMB, but the findings suggest that it is not possible.



I know. It would be cool to see though.

[Havard]

Theoretically, doesn't the universe HAVE to be finite? Since we can get from "point A" to "point B", we know that "infinite divisability" doesn't work. If the universe isn't infinitely divisible, then it must be finite. Right?

[Galron Kincaid]

No you guys have misunderstood my point.

I mean that everything we know, feel, think about.....it all happened, and came to be.....by mere chance.

[Havard]

What did you mean by a "case"?

[TheDagdaMor145]

hehe, of course that assumes that there is nothing but the physical world that we know.

but in any case, there had to be matter before the big bang. otherwise the theoretical 'infinitely dense' point where the big bang originated from would have had a mass of 0, and thus could not be infinitely dense. so even if you accept that time is only the measurement of corporeal movement, then you would have to accept that there was 'time' before the big bang, because there had to be matter before the big bang.

unless the 'creation of matter' was indeed the big bang itself. in which case there was never an infinitely dense point, just a point from where matter spewed forth without having matter itself.

my attitude on the whole coming about by mere chance issue is that i will be dead before i 'know' the difference. so whether there was reason or an accident, or there is fate or freewill, etc, all is irrelevant because we cant do anything about it either way. mine as well not worry about it.

[DeadSquirrel]

Most of the actual theories on the universe, revolve around the Big Bang theory.
Personally, I don't believe in the big bang. While such a huge explosion most probably happened in the past, I doubt it's the "creation" of our universe.

When you look at how atoms work, how planets work, and how galaxies work, it would be very very probably that there's some form of enevelope surround all our galaxies, and that there's a billion more of these envelopes, then these billions of envelopes would be yet again enveloped together etc...

The human species is too stupid to even imagine how time and matter could of "started". It's a bit pretentious of them to give the "unviverse" an actual size.

What we manage to calculate from our planet, is probably not even the atom of the tip of the iceberg....
For all we know, our galaxies could be part of an "atom" that is in turn part of a living being.

It's impossible for the universe to be infinite, since infinite, by definition, is inexistant.
Yet if the universe were finite, what would be outside of the bounds of the universe? There can't be just nothingness...
We'de probably have to wait for humans to evolve into another species with a more developped imagination, before clearing the matter :p.

The only possiblity I can live with right now, is repeativity. A shapeless universe... (while impossible to truly imagine, you can still imagine a fragment of it.)
Envelope our universe in a sphere of mirrors... but on the other side of these mirrors, it's not just a reflection, it's a continuation.
The universe would have no size and no limits... it would just be a "shapeless". Being infinite through repeativity.

[Eiger]

Uh oh - I can see where this is going....

[Dementor]

I figured out the universe years ago. Every time some physicist comes running out of his lab saying some crap like this I'm just like "duh."

Then I usually go and make myself a couple of Hot Pockets, and play video games for several hours.

I know how the universe is, I just don't care.

[Booms]

Oh no, please don't turn this into another Big Bang thread.

Which will lead to another God thread.

I hate you all.

[DizzyPenguin]

I think god invented hot pockets for us to eat and get our minds off of how big the universe is. mmmmm hot pockets

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yay - another God thread J/K :p

Galron - To see the manifold, perfectly structured universe and all within it as coming to being by mere chance is laughable.


my attitude on the whole coming about by mere chance issue is that i will be dead before i 'know' the difference. so whether there was reason or an accident, or there is fate or freewill, etc, all is irrelevant because we cant do anything about it either way. mine as well not worry about it.

Granted, we can't change reality as it is. But, what would it mean if things were one way, rather than another? What's at stake in terms of the way we live?

[Spensdawg]

Galron - To see the manifold, perfectly structured universe and all within it as coming to being by mere chance is laughable.


Well Galron doesn't seem to think it's laughable. Perhaps you could explain to him and us why such an assertion is laughable, you owe him that much if you feel it necessary to call his comment "laughable".

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No prob. Yet, I believe the answer to that can be found in the single sentance I've presented. Namely, the "perfectly structured universe". Is that clear enough, or do you require further explanation?

[BlueMage]

Yet if the universe were finite, what would be outside of the bounds of the universe? There can't be just nothingness...

Bah. Nothingness is perfectly able to exist in some form. The only thing preventing you from realizing that is that you can't. The human mind isn't built for such things. We need something visual to be able to imagine it. Since both infinity and nada is impossible to actually 'see' we get scarred, piss our pants and go running home to our mommies.

I mean, big deal if three of our dimensions turn out to be limited. We still have the fourth. That's our friend. I buy it beers.

B'sides, my dad can beat your dad. :thumbsup:

[Bhs Crew]

No prob. Yet, I believe the answer to that can be found in the single sentance I've presented. Namely, the "perfectly structured universe". Is that clear enough, or do you require further explanation?

who says its perfectly structured?

[BlueMage]

Age of Abnegation did.

[Spensdawg]

No prob. Yet, I believe the answer to that can be found in the single sentance I've presented. Namely, the "perfectly structured universe". Is that clear enough, or do you require further explanation?

Well clearly I was asking for further explanation.


You said:


To see the manifold, perfectly structured universe and all within it as coming to being by mere chance is laughable.

And I said


Well Galron doesn't seem to think it's laughable. Perhaps you could explain to him and us why such an assertion is laughable, you owe him that much if you feel it necessary to call his comment "laughable".


(the bold word in that quote was added by me for emphasis)


I think in the plainest of words I was asking for further explanation.

[Galron Kincaid]

It all happened by mere chance, i tell you.

And i really don't understand how can you see the universe as "perfectly structured", perfection does not exist.


My vision is pretty mechanicistic, but it can't be otherwise.


Was it Albert Einstein who defined humanity as a "bizarre cosmic incident" ?


Whoever it was, i agree.


This way of thinking of course fully admits the presence of other civilizations in the universe.


Even if one says "ha! there's one chance in a billion"......well.....that still means billions of worlds being inhabited.

[TheDagdaMor145]

Granted, we can't change reality as it is. But, what would it mean if things were one way, rather than another? What's at stake in terms of the way we live?

hehe, absolutely nothing. if anything, the only thing at stake is how much time we spend worrying about it. the only effect it will have on us is our existence after we die, which we wont know about until we get there.

btw, even if einstein said that humanity was a "bizarre cosmic incident", he didnt really mean it. he was very devout in his belief of God.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Spensdawg and Bhs - pay attention :uhhuh:.


And i really don't understand how can you see the universe as "perfectly structured", perfection does not exist.


By structure, I mean to say that all things in reality can be defined (to define something is to state its limits). I find it exceedingly hard to believe that I have 3 posters, who I believe to posess more than a modicum of intelligence, stating that the world has no structure. I really should not even have to take the time to type this out - it is so self evident. An example (among millions) for instance would be the human body - each of its parts serve the greater whole. Things naturally "work together" in our world. It would seem strange, even to the casual observer, that nature in its grand design would just "appear" as a "cosmic accident".


My vision is pretty mechanicistic, but it can't be otherwise.


Even if your vision was mechanistic, it would assent to the laws of mechanics. Cosmic accidents do not. Any mecanics obeys inherent laws, which are instilled by a creator.


Oh, and BTW Bhs, nobody has to "say" that the universe is structured, it's self evident. But, if you require further "empirical evidence", try this text: "The evidential power of beauty" - Thomas Dubay.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehe, absolutely nothing. if anything, the only thing at stake is how much time we spend worrying about it. the only effect it will have on us is our existence after we die, which we wont know about until we get there.

btw, even if einstein said that humanity was a "bizarre cosmic incident", he didnt really mean it. he was very devout in his belief of God.

Ok, I won't turn it into another "God thread". But my point was.. if it were the case that the universe was created and sustained by a God, what would that mean for our relationship to God, things, and one another. But that's been discussed in other threads.

[DeadSquirrel]

Bah. Nothingness is perfectly able to exist in some form. The only thing preventing you from realizing that is that you can't. The human mind isn't built for such things. We need something visual to be able to imagine it. Since both infinity and nada is impossible to actually 'see' we get scarred, piss our pants and go running home to our mommies.
totally agree with you, "nothingness" comes out as a lot of "white stuff" in my mind ;)...
but even if there were "nothingness", this nothingness would have to spread to infinite, wouldn't it? So might as well believe the universe to be infinite, the "nothingness" being part of this universe hehe...
and since infinite doesn't exist.... :scratch:

As for finding the universe to be "perfect", the universe is all we get, so of course we see it as perfect...
When you study biology, then go futher out into astronomy... you realise how awfully chatoic everything really is.
The "perfection" we see is a simple consequence of all the random happenings through billions of trillions of whoknowshowlong of years.
Since everything that's "unperfect" quickly vanishes, eaten by the harsh enviroment that surrounds us, after so many years, what is left to be seen, can only be "perfect".

Take it as you will, but I find it extremely impressive to see everything around us as a consequence of a random "incident".

[Galron Kincaid]

Abnegation, did i say that the Universe has no structure? If so please quote it.

Don't put in my mouth words i didn't say.


EVERYTHING has a structure, it is self-evident as you said, but i still think that structure is the result of mere chance.

[BlueMage]

You're saying that I'm not destined to walk the earth?!? :surprise:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Abnegation, did i say that the Universe has no structure? If so please quote it.

Don't put in my mouth words i didn't say.


EVERYTHING has a structure, it is self-evident as you said, but i still think that structure is the result of mere chance.

Thanks for the clarification. I am saying that structure cannot be a result of chance. I'll give more later if you wish., I'm at work.

[Galron Kincaid]

sure i wish. :)

[Havard]

Hey, :howdy: does anyone have any insight into my question (post #11)? I am not saying that the infinite divisability theory is ironclad, but I don't see a clear refutation of it. (Infinite is infinite, so if you can't go infinitely small, how can you go infinitely big?)

[Bhs Crew]

Sure things have structure. But I don't see anything that is perfectly structured. The various parts of a human body work pretty well together because humans who's bodies don't work well, don't survive and therefor don't reproduce. The fact that there is some structure in this world doesn't mean that it didn't come about by a coincidence of events.

[DeadSquirrel]

Hey, :howdy: does anyone have any insight into my question (post #11)? I am not saying that the infinite divisability theory is ironclad, but I don't see a clear refutation of it. (Infinite is infinite, so if you can't go infinitely small, how can you go infinitely big?)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by infinite divisibility.
You can in theory go infinitly small, but you cannot reach something that is infinitely small, same for the infinitly big.
Take a number, divide it by 2, divide the result by 2 again... and again, and again etc... you can do this forever, "infinitly", never reaching 0.

Imagine if there universe were infinitly big, that would mean there would be an infinite number of planets... if there's an inifinite number of planets it would also mean that there are an inifinite number of planets with life as evolved as ours, and another infinite number of planets with life much much more evolved then ours.
Within these infinite number of planets with extremely evolved beings, there's an infinite number of them that have "perfectionned" space travelling, and an infinite number of them have been space travelling for billions of years now.
Consequence:
There's an infinite number of chances that super evolved beings have managed to reach our planet and invade us. An infinite number of chances results in a probability of 1.
Yet... there are no super evolved beings invading us, so the universe cannot be infinite ^^.

[Graav Wolfsong]

How do you know there are no aliens invading us? Maybe theyre all in disguise. That would explain French people. :lol:

Or what if we are the invading aliens? Maybe we just forgot it somewhere along the line as we evolved from our invading alien forms to what we are now. :idea:

[Echod16]

Yay - another God thread J/K :p

Galron - To see the manifold, perfectly structured universe and all within it as coming to being by mere chance is laughable.




Granted, we can't change reality as it is. But, what would it mean if things were one way, rather than another? What's at stake in terms of the way we live?

us not living

what's beyond the universe would probably be best described as empty space, in our terms

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Yet... there are no super evolved beings invading us, so the universe cannot be infinite ^^.

They don't have to invade us yet, assuming that is assuming that the creatures HAVE to be warlike. We are constantly being contacted by other beings, but their purpose is only to study us by stick metal rods into our anus.

*puts on tin foil hat*

[Spensdawg]

Spensdawg and Bhs - pay attention :uhhuh:.



By structure, I mean to say that all things in reality can be defined (to define something is to state its limits). I find it exceedingly hard to believe that I have 3 posters, who I believe to posess more than a modicum of intelligence, stating that the world has no structure. I really should not even have to take the time to type this out - it is so self evident. An example (among millions) for instance would be the human body - each of its parts serve the greater whole. Things naturally "work together" in our world. It would seem strange, even to the casual observer, that nature in its grand design would just "appear" as a "cosmic accident".




Even if your vision was mechanistic, it would assent to the laws of mechanics. Cosmic accidents do not. Any mecanics obeys inherent laws, which are instilled by a creator.


Oh, and BTW Bhs, nobody has to "say" that the universe is structured, it's self evident. But, if you require further "empirical evidence", try this text: "The evidential power of beauty" - Thomas Dubay.

The main thing I was taking issue with was your out-of-hand dismissal of Galron's view of the universe.

With that being said I share a similar view with Galron in that I beleive what you are calling structure can come about by way of chance. What you say is "naturally working together" I say came about after billions of years of chaos and evolution. What you see as structure in how the human body works has only been around for the tiniest fraction of this planet's existance. Of course what I'm getting at boils down to another God debate, but i thought I'd give a brief explanation as to why 3 intelligent posters (at least in my case) don't share your beleif in a higher purpose of existance and structure.

[Masamunae]

No prob. Yet, I believe the answer to that can be found in the single sentance I've presented. Namely, the "perfectly structured universe". Is that clear enough, or do you require further explanation?
How is the universe perfect? Doesn't seem to perfect to me when an asteroid hit earth and killed all the dinosaurs. Seems a little more haphazard and chance ridden to me. And further more I would say that believing there is some giant disembodied head who has nothing better to do than create a universe and **** with my life even more laughable than the entire universe being created by chance. I'm sure there is some explanation out there as to how and why it all started, but you won't find it in the bible.

[Havard]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by infinite divisibility.
You can in theory go infinitly small, but you cannot reach something that is infinitely small, same for the infinitly big.
Take a number, divide it by 2, divide the result by 2 again... and again, and again etc... you can do this forever, "infinitly", never reaching 0.


What I mean is since you cannot go infinitely small, or since you can reach places (not just approach limits) in real life (not theory), then there is a finite limitation on divisability. The theory I am concerned about is since we know that there is a finite limit (on smallness), the universe cannot be infinitely large either.

The reason is because anything that is infinite in size cannot be limited in either sense... small or large... therefore the universe must be finite.

[Killing Frenzy]

Why does the universe have to be finite just because you cannot go infinitely small? And if the universe is finite then whats beyond the universe? How do you define the end of the universe? Just thinking about all of this makes my brain hurt :cheesy: One theory I have is that somehow the universe is connected to itself by looping. Don't ask me how cause I don't even know.
To much thinking, need more beer :drink:

[Havard]

Because you cannot place limitations on infinite. If the universe is infinitely large, you would not be able to "take a finite slice out of it and measure it." This is because, doing so would not affect the state of an infinite universe in theory. But taking a portion out would affect the universe in reality.

What is beyond the universe? Probably a garden with rainbows and ponies and cotton candy :lol:. I have no idea.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Judging the size and nature of the universe is still way beyond humankinds capabilities. I'm sure there are things we can not comprehend, like maybe alternate dimensions, planes of existence and such that make up the ... hmm ... omniverse.
But to believe the universe is finite seems to me a little like when people believed the earth was flat. What happened when we found the edge? Would we just fall off?
If the universe is indeed finite, maybe when reaching the edge you enter a new universe. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes connected like a patchwork quilt.

But then again, if the universe is infinite, how could it be expanding? Something infinite can not get larger.

These are questions we are hundreds or maybe thousands of years away from answering, 50$ say we'll never get to the point where we can either, because we will have rendered the earth uninhabitable before we have figured out a way to get off it in order to find a new planet able to support us and we will all face a terrible doom. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

us not living


Good answer :thumbsup:.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The main thing I was taking issue with was your out-of-hand dismissal of Galron's view of the universe.


Certainly. The norm around here is usually posters reacting to my tone, not my content. Then again, we haven't debated before.


With that being said I share a similar view with Galron in that I beleive what you are calling structure can come about by way of chance.


I'm calling you now to a deeper understanding. Namely, any eventuality that you see as chaotic, which would allow for a "structured" environment or dynamic, is in itself structured. As such, your err is revealed in your definition of order and chaos. I believe right below you, someone else (the guy with a blademaster avatar), mentioned that the world cannot be perfect because an asteroid may hit it. Perfect in accord with what definition, or more importantly, who's definition? Humans labeling what is perfect and what is not is humans playing God. That, after all, is the essence of the original sin of the proverbial adam and eve. If you believe that something is chaotic or imperfect, is it truly? The way out of this is by means of reason - which can discover objective norms of structure and perfection.


What you say is "naturally working together" I say came about after billions of years of chaos and evolution.


Again, this is answered by the above. If it were chaos and evolution, it was a structure that builded upon itself to bring about the structure you would attest to now.


What you see as structure in how the human body works has only been around for the tiniest fraction of this planet's existance.


A tiny structured part of the universe must follow from the universe as a whole, which precipitates an environment to allow for this small piece of order.


Of course what I'm getting at boils down to another God debate, but i thought I'd give a brief explanation as to why 3 intelligent posters (at least in my case) don't share your beleif in a higher purpose of existance and structure.

And I just showed you how you are incorrect.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

How is the universe perfect? Doesn't seem to perfect to me when an asteroid hit earth and killed all the dinosaurs. Seems a little more haphazard and chance ridden to me.


Refer to my reply to spensdawg above. I referred to your post there.


And further more I would say that believing there is some giant disembodied head who has nothing better to do than create a universe and **** with my life even more laughable than the entire universe being created by chance.


Well if you want to believe in the giant disembodied head, you can stick to your guesswork and get nowhere. However, if you wanted to learn some philosophy and develop innate reasoning skills, you would be much better off with some certainty.


I'm sure there is some explanation out there as to how and why it all started, but you won't find it in the bible.

So there is an answer - good thing you assent to that, but why discard the scriptures?

[Spensdawg]

Certainly. The norm around here is usually posters reacting to my tone, not my content. Then again, we haven't debated before.


Quite correct, although you failed to mention there that you responded to my request for further information by asking if I required further explanation.


I'm calling you now to a deeper understanding. Namely, any eventuality that you see as chaotic, which would allow for a "structured" environment or dynamic, is in itself structured.


Thank you for prefacing your statement by calling your own perception a deeper understanding than my own. But continuing...

That last sentence there seems to make no sense to me. You are saying that if something can be chaotic that it allows for a structured environment and therefore chaos itself is structured? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself or perhaps you just need to be mroe clear. To help you along let's say that my definition of chaos is the lack or absence of structure.

As such, your err is revealed in your definition of order and chaos.

My definition of choas and order is of course simply my opinion based on what I know. I would not call it the definitive opinion nor would I think less of someone simply for disagreeing.


I believe right below you, someone else (the guy with a blademaster avatar), mentioned that the world cannot be perfect because an asteroid may hit it. Perfect in accord with what definition, or more importantly, who's definition? Humans labeling what is perfect and what is not is humans playing God. That, after all, is the essence of the original sin of the proverbial adam and eve. If you believe that something is chaotic or imperfect, is it truly? The way out of this is by means of reason - which can discover objective norms of structure and perfection.


Indeed, the term perfection is thrown around all too often. Then again I wasn't the one saying this.



A tiny structured part of the universe must follow from the universe as a whole, which precipitates an environment to allow for this small piece of order.


You are saying that structure came about by some form of divine plan, correct? Perhaps you could elaborate on what evidence there is that we were created instead of simply coming to be. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any empirical data to suggest this, but of course you are entitled to argue on a fundemental or spiritual level.


And I just showed you how you are incorrect.

Classy way to end an argument.

[Havard]

Spensdawg, is that your picture in your avatar?

[Echod16]

we don't have to be a debate over this...it's never ending considering what we know on the topic

talk about something we're have complete knowledge over, like politics ^^

[Killing Frenzy]

I feel some tension bulding in here! :scared:

Lets talk about the forming of atoms. In the article somewhere it mentions about the matter cooling enough to form atoms, does anyone in here have knowledge to expand upon this more?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Thank you for prefacing your statement by calling your own perception a deeper understanding than my own. But continuing...


Based solely on your text, it was qualified.


That last sentence there seems to make no sense to me. You are saying that if something can be chaotic that it allows for a structured environment and therefore chaos itself is structured? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself or perhaps you just need to be mroe clear.


Then more clear I will endeavor to be. I am saying that the chaos you see is not truly chaos. What could characterize something as chaotic? Something out of our control? Then yes, since we cannot control the universe, it is indeed chaotic in that sense. Yet, it is not chaotic for its creator and sustainer, the prime mover - God.
To reiterate the previous post, for a structured world, such as this, to come from chaos... This "chaos" would have to be ordered in some fashion to be a prerequisite for the emergence of the world commonly seen as being structured. Thus, the error you make is namely in the definition of something chaotic. I hope I have been clear enough.


To help you along let's say that my definition of chaos is the lack or absence of structure.


Ok. As above. Let's go deeper with that, by defining what is the absense of structure. How is this structure, or lack thereof, perceived?


My definition of choas and order is of course simply my opinion based on what I know. I would not call it the definitive opinion nor would I think less of someone simply for disagreeing.


I am however bold enough to lay out an objectively valid definiton that can be used in any and all cases. I think that you may well do the same, if you carry this notion far enough.


You are saying that structure came about by some form of divine plan, correct?


At the moment, I am only considering structre per se - let's not jump ahead of the flow of the argument. But I would be hesitant to use the term "plan", as that implies God thinking about something. I would say that God does not think per se (an operation of reflection, composition, and division in time), but that he "wills" these things. In short, I would characterize the universe as a vehicle of motion, with God as its unmoved mover.


Perhaps you could elaborate on what evidence there is that we were created instead of simply coming to be.


I would say that "creation" and "coming to be" are the same thing.


I think you would be very hard pressed to find any empirical data to suggest this, but of course you are entitled to argue on a fundemental or spiritual level.


Considering the above, you and I have the same amount of evidence.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

Lovely.. this is going to become another God thread any time now.. Oh well.

Age - I'm 15 years old and or course most of what you are saying isn't very easy to comprehend for me, but I have to agree with Spens on this one (I suppose that makes 4 people that you can't understand why they think this way?)

I do believe in the Big Bang Theory and I also believe that it was an accident. Which would imply that most things afterwords were accidents as well.

I will leave it at that because I don't want to go into religion.

~Soujirou~

[BlueMage]

My mother once told me that I was an accident... :(

[SoujirouTheTenken]

My mother once told me that I was an accident... :(

I've been told that as well.. except that I'm the true definition of an accident.

When my real dad found out that my mom was pregent with me, he left her (and they weren't married). I think that makes me the text book definition of a B@st@rd? :hanky:

~Soujirou~

[Echod16]

God.


oh gosh darnit, this is a scinece thread >_< no mentions on relgion allowed.....please :P

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Out of curiosity, why? Sooner or later, any and all heavy subject matter threads will touch on it eventually to complete the topic.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

Out of curiosity, why? Sooner or later, any and all heavy subject matter threads will touch on it eventually to complete the topic.

Because every single one can't be ended. There are too many different points of view and belief.

~Soujirou~

[Booms]

Out of curiosity, why? Sooner or later, any and all heavy subject matter threads will touch on it eventually to complete the topic.

Because we've got one for threads below this one? :lol:

[Graav Wolfsong]

AoA, here you are again, pushing your 'wisdom' on the poor posters on this board. And frankly, its becoming slightly annoying.

I would be A-OK with you views if you did not present everything as fact. As truth. As a greater insight that only you and your likeminded equals posess.

It would be nice to -just once- leave God out of an otherwise interesting discussion. Just once, all these God debates are the same over and over again. Would be nice to keep it in one place and not let it spill over into _EVERYTHING_ that can be twisted into a religious issue.

Basically your arguments boil down to everything being structured because God wills things to happen and things that happen have a purpose, things do not happen by mere chance, so it can not be chaotic.
And you base all this on -your interpretation- of scripture and your own reflections on the world. You base it on the belief that there is a God who created and controls the universe.
And yet you present this as not a subjective opinion, but as fact. In a "I'm right and youre wrong. Neeneerneeneerneeeeneeeer." sort of way.
This may be 'truth' for you but not for others.
This, coupled with the way you dismiss other peoples views as 'laughable', makes it very hard to take any of your arguments seriously at all.

Considering the above, you and I have the same amount of evidence.

What Spensdawg and (most) others says is pretty much the same thing the majority of the scientific community says. As such, his 'proof' are the theories and findings of alot of scientists.
Your 'proof' is scripture and subjective opinion passed off as fact.
I dont think your 'proof' measures up.

In the end, it boils down to yet another 'religion versus science' debate.
Dont think I have to specify what side I've taken. :)

It would be nice if we could forget the religious angle of the origin and nature of the universe and just stick with the facts and theories provided by our scientists. :grrr:

Damn, I need a beer. :drink:

[SoujirouTheTenken]

That was a mouth full.. Here's another beer. :drink:

I'm gald there's someone that can put there thoughts into words better than I can. :D

~Soujirou~

[Bhs Crew]

Then more clear I will endeavor to be. I am saying that the chaos you see is not truly chaos. What could characterize something as chaotic? Something out of our control? Then yes, since we cannot control the universe, it is indeed chaotic in that sense. Yet, it is not chaotic for its creator and sustainer, the prime mover - God.
To reiterate the previous post, for a structured world, such as this, to come from chaos... This "chaos" would have to be ordered in some fashion to be a prerequisite for the emergence of the world commonly seen as being structured. Thus, the error you make is namely in the definition of something chaotic. I hope I have been clear enough.

So things that we think are choas are not chaos because they are not out of the control of God. So if we believe in God we can see no choas because everything is in his control. And because there is no chaos, the world must have been created by god.
And since everything is under god's control there is no chaos
and because there's no chaos everything is created by god
and since everything is created by god there is no chaos
etc.

This "chaos" would have to be ordered in some fashion to be a prerequisite for the emergence of the world commonly seen as being structured.

The world is commonly seen as structured? Who commonly sees the world as structured?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Because every single one can't be ended. There are too many different points of view and belief.


The point of the thread is to cull out these choices. Otherwise, it becomes a useless opinion thread.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA, here you are again, pushing your 'wisdom' on the poor posters on this board. And frankly, its becoming slightly annoying.


The only poor poster is you, when I get through with you for posting this rediculous tirade. I don't know where you got "pushing wisdom" - correct me if I'm wrong, but I asked these "poor posters" why they disliked threads concerning "God". Their bias, as well as yours, could be why you take those threads so lightly, at least as indicated in your posts!


I would be A-OK with you views if you did not present everything as fact. As truth. As a greater insight that only you and your likeminded equals posess.


Of course you would. That way, the tone would indicate that they have no inherent value, other than just my opinion. From that it follows that you would not have to pay any attention to it, because any opinion is as good as any other, practically speaking. But tough shyt, I will continue to present my points in this fashion, and even moreso in your case from now on. You're a whiner, not a thinker. Pull up your socks and get with it. Then, you could appreciate someone like me.


It would be nice to -just once- leave God out of an otherwise interesting discussion. Just once, all these God debates are the same over and over again. Would be nice to keep it in one place and not let it spill over into _EVERYTHING_ that can be twisted into a religious issue.


Conversely, it would be nice if your arguments would assent to God, or a creator, etc. But, they cannot. Why? Because they do not hold God as a foundational reality. Simply put, my metaphysical arguments (and that of ANY metaphysician, spanning the last 3000 years), will tell you the exact same thing - all is traced back to one source, and we can call that God. Ironically, things move in that direction only when some poster whines about how he hates christianity, or what not. You get what you ask for.


Basically your arguments boil down to everything being structured because God wills things to happen and things that happen have a purpose, things do not happen by mere chance, so it can not be chaotic.
And you base all this on -your interpretation- of scripture


If you're going to start paraphrasing, let's make sure you have your shyt together. I hardly, if ever, quote scripture, as most of you see it as foolish dogma. I stick to texts of philosophy. If you want to use your minds to argue your points, I will meet you. Where is your content? All I've been hearing for the past week was whining and squabbling over tone. BTW, you should really read all of my posts in more detail, as that description of my position hardly encompasses the eloquence I gave it.


and your own reflections on the world.


Ok, and where did these come from? The same place yours did? What is the difference between a philosopher and a sophist? Do you know what a sophist is? Go check it out in the webster's dictionary. Intelligent people use their reason to arrive at solid conclusions. Others choose to lean on mere opinion.


You base it on the belief that there is a God who created and controls the universe.


Again, where did this notion come from? I do believe that, but if I started with that position as a foundation, I would be a dogmatist, not a philosopher. I've been trying to show you how that is possible from the ground up. Some would say "you have not showed me", well dig the shyt out of your ears and look up all the past threads over the last 3 months touching on these subjects, and you just may get educated a bit.


And yet you present this as not a subjective opinion, but as fact. In a "I'm right and youre wrong. Neeneerneeneerneeeeneeeer." sort of way.


Absolutely, and I will continue to do so. For posters who can think properly, such as Bartleby, Andarcel, and Havard for instance, they need no correction. Yet, I'll take on whiners anyday.

You see my tone as arrogant because you judge my thinking to be the same as yours is. If you took the time and energy that I do in this, you would inexorably come to the same position, and very likely the same tone (you may be a bit softer but w/e). This is my life's work, not mental masturbation.


This may be 'truth' for you but not for others.


So you're a relativist? No truth for all huh? Then there is no truth. Would you say what you believe is "true for you"? If so, is it really true? Does opinion have the same "truth value"? To say there is no absolute truth is affirm the denial - you already acknowledged the notion of absolute, and the concept of truth in one. Good job. This is what I mean by irrational sophistry.


This, coupled with the way you dismiss other peoples views as 'laughable', makes it very hard to take any of your arguments seriously at all.


This is the only section of redeeming value in your post. I agree that to meet posters here, a gentler approach would be useful. Yet, I am true to my bad self. You know I'm human by the fact that I have a short fuse. Hence, I tell posters who engage me to just stick to the content, and disregard the tone if it's rancid. Yet, what enhances that tone is posters who simply do not read the points as presented, and walk away numb. In my early days here, I would have next to no tone at all. I would post a page or so of this or that, and I'd have my detractor post almost the same question as before in different words, completely disregarding my text. One thing for sure - I'm sure as hell not going to tone it down for a small parade of naysayers.. I'll get a fu-king megaphone.


What Spensdawg and (most) others says is pretty much the same thing the majority of the scientific community says.


Than you are sadly misinformed my friend. There are a cavalcade of scientists and doctors who will "laugh" at the positions posited earlier by my detractors, a few of which I know personally. I offered a text to begin with ["the evidential power of beauty" by Thomas Dubay], and I have more on the way if you so desire. It's time to update your periodicals kiddo!


As such, his 'proof' are the theories and findings of alot of scientists.


Empirical evidence serves us well for what it does - discovers norms in nature.


Your 'proof' is scripture and subjective opinion passed off as fact.
I dont think your 'proof' measures up.


Again, where did I prove anything from scripture? And furthermore, where did you get subjective opinion in all my posting on objectivity and reason? Read my posts. I also went on to say I could not "prove" God's existence, but I can give clear evidence by means of beginning with empirical evidence, which is the beginning of our knowledge found by scientists - yet to go beyond that, one needs to use reason in conjunction with the findings.


In the end, it boils down to yet another 'religion versus science' debate.
Dont think I have to specify what side I've taken. :)


If that's the way you see it, you are mistaken. Science cannot be contrary to truth, it can only affirm it. The side you have taken is an incomplete science, or rather blatant scepticism by failing to take the lead that science has provided. If science has discovered the big bang for instance, what would an intelligent person do? Just shrug his shoulders and say "..oh, so thats it...". No, an intelligent person would put his nose to the grindstone and start getting serious about the causes of this and that, and using specualtive reason where empiricism ends.


It would be nice if we could forget the religious angle of the origin and nature of the universe and just stick with the facts and theories provided by our scientists. :grrr:


Get your foot out of your mouth, seriously. Religion is never tackled until the argument goes in that direction. Read the threads if that's problematic for you. I don't start threads, but I will finish them. What you need to see is the integrated picture. You have this idea of science as the key to everything - if you're so certain, why do you simply lean on opinion as the only way to go? Science is a red carpet to a greater reality, but if you end at science alone, you will end in scepticism concerning anything necessarily beyond it.
[/QUOTE]


Damn, I need a beer. :drink:

You sure you haven't been drinking already? You'd best take things in stride from now on, instead of blowing your load all over this thread.

[Bhs Crew]

well all of these arguements hinge around whether god exists so we would have to resolve that first.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So things that we think are choas are not chaos because they are not out of the control of God.


Sure.


So if we believe in God we can see no choas


Hold yer horses.. Since when did our perceptions have anything to do with understanding things the way they are? You got the first statement correct, but this seems to be a reversal. Sometimes I look out my window for instance, and think about my life, and it seems anything but ordered. There are days when I think it's all a chaotic swirl. Yet, my years of philosophy have tempered that gut reaction, and I can rest in the knowledge that this world is truly structured properly. (please read aristotle's physics and metaphysics to start - all you AoA naysayers :uhhuh: ). Alot of people believe in God and see chaos. Chaos is defined by the individual. It would be chaotic if an asteriod hit your city wouldn't it? Yet, this motion is perfectly feasible in the universe we inhabit. The laws of nature are the same, wether you believe being struck by a rock is cool or not. Chaos is defined by our own hearts as far as the corporeal world is concerned.


because everything is in his control. And because there is no chaos, the world must have been created by god.
And since everything is under god's control there is no chaos
and because there's no chaos everything is created by god
and since everything is created by god there is no chaos
etc.


Woosh! That was a mouthful :p. For God, I don't believe there could be any chaos. But for ourselves, certainly. (yet, we are concentrating on the objective).


The world is commonly seen as structured? Who commonly sees the world as structured?

You do. You live that structure everyday, and by every keystroke you're about to make. Cause, effect, schema.. Call it what you will. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

well all of these arguements hinge around whether god exists so we would have to resolve that first.

Enthusiastically agreed. One step at a time.

[Bhs Crew]

please read aristotle's physics and metaphysics to start - all you AoA naysayers

I would love to but I'm in the middle of finals week.
Could you summerize the main points? Demonstrating God can't be THAT hard.

[Masamunae]

So there is an answer - good thing you assent to that, but why discard the scriptures?
Because they're ********

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I would love to but I'm in the middle of finals week.
Could you summerize the main points? Demonstrating God can't be THAT hard.

Hehe.. ain't it the truth. "The Philosopher's" (Aristotle) main argument is the one I keep repeating - the prime mover. I've got some online texts which I can paste for you. Aristotle is very technical in his language, which is something that Booms among others do not like, so I will paste this "general idea". I'm almost hesitant because he sounds like he is instructing gradeschoolers, but it may be of help. I can provide the nuances later on if need be. So, the argument begain in Aristotle, and was emphasized later by Aquinas, arguably one of his greatest disciples.

First Cause

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.



If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.



If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.
Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.
Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.
There is a single common logical structure to all four proofs. Instead of proving God directly, they prove him indirectly, by refuting atheism. Either there is a first cause or not. The proofs look at "not" and refute it, leaving the only other possibility, that God is.

Each of the four ways makes the same point for four different kinds of cause: first, cause of motion; second, cause of a beginning to existence; third, cause of present existence; and fourth, cause of goodness or value. The common point is that if there were no first cause, there could be no second causes, and there are second causes (moved movers, caused causers, dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.

How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic? Here are four ways in which different philosophers try.

First, many say the proofs don't prove God but only some vague first cause or other. "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of philosophers and scholars", cries Pascal, who was a passionate Christian but did not believe you could logically prove God's existence. It is true that the proofs do not prove everything the Christian means by God, but they do prove a transcendent, eternal, uncaused, immortal, self-existing, independent, all-perfect being. That certainly sounds more like God than like Superman! It's a pretty thick slice of God, at any rate—much too much for any atheist to digest.
Second, some philosophers, like Hume, say that the concept of cause is ambiguous and not applicable beyond the physical universe to God. How dare we use the same term for what clouds do to rain, what parents do to children, what authors do to books, and what God does to the universe? The answer is that the concept of cause is analogical—that is, it differs somewhat but not completely from one example to another. Human fatherhood is like divine fatherhood, and physical causality is like divine causality. The way an author conceives a book in his mind is not exactly the same as the way a woman conceives a baby in her body either, but we call both causes. (In fact, we also call both conceptions.) The objection is right to point out that we do not fully understand how God causes the universe, as we understand how parents cause children or clouds cause rain. But the term remains meaningful. A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect. If no creator, no creation; if no God, no universe.
Third, it is sometimes argued (e.g., by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause, but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks "Who made God?" is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: the argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.
Fourth, it is often asked why there can't be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can't time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and soon. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.
If this argument is getting too tricky, the thing to do is to return to what is sure and clear: the intuitive point we began with. Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."


As a special treat, I have added a secton on "design", once again by the same author. Easy reading. Enjoy.





Design

The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

When the first moon rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the rocket? Then why do you think it's a good explanation for the universe? There's much more design in a universe than in a rocket. We can design a rocket, but we couldn't design a whole universe. I wonder who can?" Later that day the two were strolling down a street and passed an antique store. The atheist admired a picture in the window and asked, "I wonder who painted that picture?" "No one," joked the believer; "it just happened by chance."

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God.

There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plane and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that program it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?



You can't get more in the effect than you had
in the cause.

Another specially strong aspect of the design argument is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is something like one in a trillion trillion. Add together each of the chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

[Bhs Crew]

Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe's coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.
The alternative to an independant first cause is there being no first cause because the universe has always existed to an extant and always been in motion. That seems just as likely as an independant first cause.
-------

Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.

Everything can die, but new things are also born. As long as new things are born at the rate that things die then there never will be eternal death. This does not require a god. It just requires matter to exist that cannot be created or destroyed. The universe can always have existed without there being universal death because the universe is not moving towards universal death. It is self sustaining.
---------

Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.
The ranking of good or valuable is entirely subjective. A loaf of bread is valuable to a starving man because he can feed himself with it. My existance half way around the world is not valuable to this man because I don't affect his life. However my existance is valuable to me because I wish to live. Perfection itself is just a single person's ideal. What might be perfect to one person, could mean nothing to another. If value is subjective then a perfect being is not required.
------------

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It's called God.
The chance of existing doesn't matter because if we didn't exist we wouldn't be here discussing it. A man wins the lottery and his friend says that it the chance of that happening is so small that it can't have happened. If he had pointed out the man's chances before that man bought a ticket, his friend would've had a point. After something has already happened it doesn't matter what the chances of it were, because it is already here. If there were alternate universes it could be that for every one of ours there could be a trillion where there is no life, but that doesn't matter because in all of those trillion lifeless universes there isn't a single person to wonder about the odds of life not happening.
----------

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Natural selection is an integral part of evolution. The idea being if you have genes and you don't have kids, you wont pass on those genes to your kids. It is simple logic. If you accept the idea that genes exist and are passed on to the offspring, then natural selection is a given.

[Galron Kincaid]

AbA, you will excuse me for not reading all of the above, but what you said about God suffices.


"God", intended as "the unmoved mover", maker of all things..... can't scientifically exist.


(i don't want to seem rude or anything, but i really hoped you could backup your points without resorting to a God).


I believe in the big bang, that's when everything (in the true and complete sense of word) began.

And my apocalypse is the earth, orbiting downwards straight into the sun, a few billion years from now (humanity won't last that long).


I couldn't agree more with BHS: Things do exist, things do die, things are born..... but there's no need for a God in all of this.


If we follow the big bang theory, before the universe ever existed there was this so-called "primal egg" (uovo primordiale in Italian, wich means "primal egg", dunno how you call it :) ), wich in turn exploded.....slowly giving "birth" (meant only as beginning, not creation) to the universe we know.


What was there before this "egg", we cannot know..... but certainly not a God......at least not "God" as we conceive it.


The primal egg is the closest thing to God i can admit in my way of thinking.


Humanity and all life on earth follows the same course: we (intended as ALL the living beings on this world) are an amazing result of evolution, not a "divine creation".


we *Began*, we were not *Created*. And this applies both to the smallest insect and to the greatest blue gas giant up there in space.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

The point of the thread is to cull out these choices. Otherwise, it becomes a useless opinion thread.

It becomes a useless thread becuase you keep coming back to the same topic: God.

~Soujirou~

[SoujirouTheTenken]

AoA - I can't say you and I have ever talked that much so we don't have much to against each other.. but you really need to cool down.

In your post responding to Graav Wolfsong, you were extremem rude and sacaistic. Which in my opinion was uncalled for.

If you don't want posts like his to come about then don't act per say "High and mighty". You really do post like you are better than everyone else, which isn't true at all. You may have knowledge of philosophy more than that of some other people, but just because of that you can't act better than them..

~Soujirou~

[Echod16]

i forgot the topic of the thread..

[DeadSquirrel]

Sigh, I was starting to like this thread. Can we keep religion to seperate threads? Since to believers, religion is omnipresent, it means any debate can turn into a god/religion debate. And I'm sure the majority don't want that.

Harvard,
What I mean is since you cannot go infinitely small, or since you can reach places (not just approach limits) in real life (not theory), then there is a finite limitation on divisability. The theory I am concerned about is since we know that there is a finite limit (on smallness), the universe cannot be infinitely large either
Being able to reach area doesn't have anything to do with divisability.
If you only took divisability into account, it would be impossible to reach any area. But there's also subtraction in our movements.

A----(10km)----B:
You're at point A... in order to reach point B, you subract 10km to your distance, it's not division.
If you were to only divide...say by 10. Then 10 = 1 = 1/10 = 1/100 = 1/1000 etc.... until 1/infinity. You would never ever be able to reach a destination.



xxxDragonxxx:
They don't have to invade us yet, assuming that is assuming that the creatures HAVE to be warlike. We are constantly being contacted by other beings, but their purpose is only to study us by stick metal rods into our anus.
But there's an infite number of these guys that managed to reach our planet, so among these infinite number of super beings, there's an infinite number of them that would be warlike. ;)
You're going to need more then just one tin foil hat :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The alternative to an independant first cause is there being no first cause because the universe has always existed to an extant and always been in motion. That seems just as likely as an independant first cause.


Motion cannot be eternal, as if it were, it would no longer be considered motion. Eternity does not contain any definition (as is the case with corporeal objects). You or I cannot prove or disprove the eternity of the universe, but we can demonstrate its finitude by means of the definitions of time and eternity. In eternity, a thing is complete in itself, not moving to a certiain state, as the universe is in motion to a state. Aristotle calls this potentiality and Actuality (metaphysics1-3). So, If the universe were eternal, it would be unmoving, insubstantial, and objects therein would be indistinguishable from each other.



Everything can die, but new things are also born. As long as new things are born at the rate that things die then there never will be eternal death.


We speak here of the death of a particular thing, not so much the death of a species. Yet, death of a species is entirely possible.


This does not require a god. It just requires matter to exist that cannot be created or destroyed.


Matter per se needs a creator. It is the definition of matter per se to be neither created or destroyed, as this definition is one of its property, not its essence. The essence defines it as a created medium.


The universe can always have existed without there being universal death because the universe is not moving towards universal death. It is self sustaining.


THis has been answered by virtue of the above.


The ranking of good or valuable is entirely subjective. A loaf of bread is valuable to a starving man because he can feed himself with it. My existance half way around the world is not valuable to this man because I don't affect his life. However my existance is valuable to me because I wish to live.


As I mentioned earlier, values can be arbitrarily assigned, but what is salient here is your reference to you or another person as the assigner of a given value. Objective values stem from truth, good, beauty. (nichomachean ethics, Summa theologica prima pars for further reference)


Perfection itself is just a single person's ideal. What might be perfect to one person, could mean nothing to another. If value is subjective then a perfect being is not required.


An inherent quality or notion of a hierarchy of perfection, capable of being assigned by someone, is indicitative of a value ordering in that person's mind. This implies an inherent desire or movement towards an ultimate good, which is subjectivized by that person's free will and experience of the world.


The chance of existing doesn't matter because if we didn't exist we wouldn't be here discussing it. A man wins the lottery and his friend says that it the chance of that happening is so small that it can't have happened. If he had pointed out the man's chances before that man bought a ticket, his friend would've had a point. After something has already happened it doesn't matter what the chances of it were, because it is already here. If there were alternate universes it could be that for every one of ours there could be a trillion where there is no life, but that doesn't matter because in all of those trillion lifeless universes there isn't a single person to wonder about the odds of life not happening.


Laying out the possible helps us to perceive the actual with more clarity.


Natural selection is an integral part of evolution. The idea being if you have genes and you don't have kids, you wont pass on those genes to your kids. It is simple logic. If you accept the idea that genes exist and are passed on to the offspring, then natural selection is a given.

I have no problem with that kind of natural selection per se.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AbA, you will excuse me for not reading all of the above, but what you said about God suffices.


Well, in order for it to suffice, reading the entirety of the posts is strongly encouraged - then, your questions may already be answered. As much as I enjoy doing this, it IS time consuming... :uhhuh:


"God", intended as "the unmoved mover", maker of all things..... can't scientifically exist.


What do you mean by "scientifically exist"? On a side note, not all proofs need be grounded in empirical premises. God cannot for instance.


(i don't want to seem rude or anything, but i really hoped you could backup your points without resorting to a God).


What point should I back up? In my reply to Gravv, I mentioned that certain points demand reference, or lack of reference to certain foundational maxims, some of which include reference to God. Does the notion of God rub you the wrong way? In truth, I'm glad this notion gets under people's skin. Makes things more authentic.


I believe in the big bang, that's when everything (in the true and complete sense of word) began.


I also believe the big bang to be a viable beginning.


And my apocalypse is the earth, orbiting downwards straight into the sun, a few billion years from now (humanity won't last that long).


heh.. Who knows.


I couldn't agree more with BHS: Things do exist, things do die, things are born..... but there's no need for a God in all of this.


How else are they what they are? Everything needs a creator, even the building blocks for what you see now. Pretty self-evident, we don't need the philosophers to tell us this (even though they have, in a very technical way).


If we follow the big bang theory, before the universe ever existed there was this so-called "primal egg" (uovo primordiale in Italian, wich means "primal egg", dunno how you call it :) ), wich in turn exploded.....slowly giving "birth" (meant only as beginning, not creation) to the universe we know.


Never heard of this egg.. But if there were an egg, it would have to come from somewhere (as it still has definition, unlike God)



What was there before this "egg", we cannot know..... but certainly not a God......at least not "God" as we conceive it.


God is our label for the one who started it all (and sustains it).


The primal egg is the closest thing to God i can admit in my way of thinking.


Well, start to come up with some of the attributes of this egg.


Humanity and all life on earth follows the same course: we (intended as ALL the living beings on this world) are an amazing result of evolution, not a "divine creation".


Even if evolution were a correct maxim, this would have to begin somewhere.


we *Began*, we were not *Created*. And this applies both to the smallest insect and to the greatest blue gas giant up there in space.

I'd say both are the same thing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It becomes a useless thread becuase you keep coming back to the same topic: God.

~Soujirou~

Useless because an atheist and/or many agnostics have a notion of "God" in their own minds that is already a defeated notion. Perahps you could remove the labels and ideas you have of God.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

Useless because an atheist and/or many agnostics have a notion of "God" in their own minds that is already a defeated notion. Perahps you could remove the labels and ideas you have of God.

Only if you remove your labels and ideas of God. :D And yes I'm an atheist.

~Soujirou~

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA - I can't say you and I have ever talked that much so we don't have much to against each other.. but you really need to cool down.

In your post responding to Graav Wolfsong, you were extremem rude and sacaistic. Which in my opinion was uncalled for.

If you don't want posts like his to come about then don't act per say "High and mighty". You really do post like you are better than everyone else, which isn't true at all. You may have knowledge of philosophy more than that of some other people, but just because of that you can't act better than them..

~Soujirou~

My reply to him was spurred by the blanket notion that I'm just spinning my wheels on this thread. That and a few other insults have earned him that tone. I have a right to defend myself, and I will do so if it happens again.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Only if you remove your labels and ideas of God. :D And yes I'm an atheist.

~Soujirou~

The purpose (let us hope) of any thread dealing with "God" is to ascertain the correct language and attributes we can assign to the godhead. You will never see me stating any attributes strait-off, but rather I will state attributes that naturally follow from what is evident in the world around me, and what follows from reason.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

AbA, you will excuse me for not reading all of the above, but what you said about God suffices.


"God", intended as "the unmoved mover", maker of all things..... can't scientifically exist.

(i don't want to seem rude or anything, but i really hoped you could backup your points without resorting to a God).


I wanted to jump in here now and cut this off at the head. If you choose to debate someone, yet refuse to read the content of their posts, then what is your point in being here? If you have no idea what the person is saying, then what are you going to debate.

Now, as to people resorting to God, think about that for a second. Your stance is that the universe is created of random events, so what would the ONLY logical detraction to that be? A creator. You cannot fault AoA and others for speaking of God when that IS the arguement to your point. You also cannot fault someone for stating their beliefs, if you don't agree with them, punch a hole in them and debate them. Simply writing someone off because they mentioned the G-word is folly.


I believe in the big bang, that's when everything (in the true and complete sense of word) began.

Everything? True and completely began? Then where did that giant ball of mass atoms come from before it exploded? Obviously the big bang theory, known fully well to those who preach it, it not the full answer. They openly admit they have no reason for the cause of that matter compressing into the giant mass nor where the matter itself came from. That mass had to come from somewhere? So where exactly becomes the next question.

If we follow the big bang theory, before the universe ever existed there was this so-called "primal egg" (uovo primordiale in Italian, wich means "primal egg", dunno how you call it :) ), wich in turn exploded.....slowly giving "birth" (meant only as beginning, not creation) to the universe we know.

What was there before this "egg", we cannot know..... but certainly not a God......at least not "God" as we conceive it.

So here then you admit that something caused the "egg", yet are quick to dismiss the idea of God without having any other possible explanation as to where the "egg" came from? Why couldn't it be a God? What are your other choices?

One choice is that matter spontaniously forms around us without our knowledge, and that is somehow the nature of matter. We'll call it Spontanious Formation. So, matter, over a period of billions of years continued forming and was pulled together by the other matter until they formed a ball. But wait, right away we have our first issue, gravity pulls smaller bodies to larger bodies not two objects of similar size. One object MUST be larger in order for it to exert enough force on the smaller to "incorporate" it into the larger body. So, not only do we have Spontanious Formation now, we also are forced to accept that the matter can magically appear in different sizes. We also have as fact that no person has ever seem matter spontaniously form. So it is safe to say that Spontanious Formation is not a viable option.

There are others out there, I would invite you to explore them.
I'm not saying you have to choose god as the source, but I would much prefer that you found an explanation that you could agree with rather than just saying the matter was simply always there.

The primal egg is the closest thing to God i can admit in my way of thinking.

.......? Well, it is safe to say that the "egg" didn't create itself, so *something* created it.

Humanity and all life on earth follows the same course: we (intended as ALL the living beings on this world) are an amazing result of evolution, not a "divine creation".

we *Began*, we were not *Created*. And this applies both to the smallest insect and to the greatest blue gas giant up there in space.

Let's touch on evolution real quick. To believe in evolution is to believe that all life as we know it formed from simple ocean dwelling single-celled organisms. Yet, how did life go from a single-celled oceanic organism to a land walking organism? The science in evolution has no explanation. Most books you read will say something to the effect that "eventually these organisms began living on the land"... how? Single celled organisms are incapable of movement without something to move "in", therefore they could not make the transition to land. In order for evolution to occur, there needs to be reason for the creature to evolve. Humans grew hair to fight the cold. We have less hair now because of clothing. Why would the oceanic organism need to evolve to living on the land? Everything it needed was in the ocean. Again, evolution offers no explanation for that.

I'm at work now, so I better just leave this as it is. I got to go. :lol:

[Eiger]

Let's touch on evolution real quick. To believe in evolution is to believe that all life as we know it formed from simple ocean dwelling single-celled organisms. Yet, how did life go from a single-celled oceanic organism to a land walking organism? The science in evolution has no explanation. Most books you read will say something to the effect that "eventually these organisms began living on the land"... how? Single celled organisms are incapable of movement without something to move "in", therefore they could not make the transition to land.

In order for evolution to occur, there needs to be reason for the creature to evolve. Humans grew hair to fight the cold. We have less hair now because of clothing. Why would the oceanic organism need to evolve to living on the land? Everything it needed was in the ocean. Again, evolution offers no explanation for that.


Uh oh, evolution again. Anyway, regarding the second paragraph - I'd say that evolution (this also depends on whether you're talking about incremental change or quantum leap type change - I'll assume incremental for this) can be a process of random chance mutations alone or in concert with other mutations. If it turns out that one of the mutations happens to give a reproductive fitness advantage and so the number and % of individuals with that trait increases in the gene pool.

So I'd say there aren't reasons for the mutations as much as there are advantages used. But then you could also call it perspective.

[SoujirouTheTenken]

The purpose (let us hope) of any thread dealing with "God" is to ascertain the correct language and attributes we can assign to the godhead. You will never see me stating any attributes strait-off, but rather I will state attributes that naturally follow from what is evident in the world around me, and what follows from reason.

I only come to the "god" threads because I'm cuious why people believe in him.. but it ends up just frustrating me because I never get anywhere with my arguments.

But enough of that.

~Soujirou~

[Havard]

Being able to reach area doesn't have anything to do with divisability.
If you only took divisability into account, it would be impossible to reach any area. But there's also subtraction in our movements.

A----(10km)----B:
You're at point A... in order to reach point B, you subract 10km to your distance, it's not division.
If you were to only divide...say by 10. Then 10 = 1 = 1/10 = 1/100 = 1/1000 etc.... until 1/infinity. You would never ever be able to reach a destination.


First off, thanks for responding to my question. :thumbsup: However, I don't think that the subtraction explanation solves the problem. You see, if we can subtract 10km, that just means that that particular unit of space is finite. It goes back to the divisibility thing: there cannot be universies inside of universes inside my thumbnail. If that were possible, then 10km = infinite. If that were true, subtraction wouldn't be possible. See what I'm getting at?... The universe must be finite.

[Bhs Crew]

Motion cannot be eternal, as if it were, it would no longer be considered motion. Eternity does not contain any definition (as is the case with corporeal objects). You or I cannot prove or disprove the eternity of the universe, but we can demonstrate its finitude by means of the definitions of time and eternity. In eternity, a thing is complete in itself, not moving to a certiain state, as the universe is in motion to a state. Aristotle calls this potentiality and Actuality (metaphysics1-3). So, If the universe were eternal, it would be unmoving, insubstantial, and objects therein would be indistinguishable from each other.
The universe is expanding currently. This means at one time it was small. However the fact that we can trace the universe back to a specific point doesn't mean that it didn't exist before that point. It could easily have been another force that eventually made the universe contract into the small point that eventually exploded. Motion can exist forever as long as the matter involved can't be created or destroyed. There are so many factors about the universe that we don't even know or understand yet from our tiny vantage point. As we discover more we will learn more about what the universe was and what it could be.

We speak here of the death of a particular thing, not so much the death of a species. Yet, death of a species is entirely possible.

Yes, many species on this earth have died out, but because new species can split off from existing species, the life on this planet is self sustaining and is not required to move towards universal death.

Matter per se needs a creator. It is the definition of matter per se to be neither created or destroyed, as this definition is one of its property, not its essence. The essence defines it as a created medium.

Or a medium that always existed.

As I mentioned earlier, values can be arbitrarily assigned, but what is salient here is your reference to you or another person as the assigner of a given value. Objective values stem from truth, good, beauty. (nichomachean ethics, Summa theologica prima pars for further reference)

That only is true if objective values exist. For that to happen there would need to be one being more powerful then everything else who had its own value system. Just based on this world I have never seen a value that isn't subjective.

An inherent quality or notion of a hierarchy of perfection, capable of being assigned by someone, is indicitative of a value ordering in that person's mind. This implies an inherent desire or movement towards an ultimate good, which is subjectivized by that person's free will and experience of the world.

Yes. The value ordering in that person's mind is different for every person.

Laying out the possible helps us to perceive the actual with more clarity.

True, but it the odds of something happening don't prove the validity of something that already happened.
-------
The other theory is that there is a God who did create the first movement and that was it. God created all matter and set it in motion and then has nothing more to do with any of it.

This would mean that even though God exists and did make the first push, we are entirly on our own. He has no plans for us or any concepts of one truth because he exists outside of all that. We were an eventual effect of the rules and motion set into play, but we were not any kind of goal and God doesn't really care if we exist or not.

This would mean that even though God created everything and set up the rules he no longer exerts any power over his creation. This would make any search for objective truth or the meaning of life just as pointless as if God did exist. This fits the whole first mover argument but makes the search for the meaning of life, or one truth pointless.

It also could fit that we are entirly creations of matter, matter God created, but matter none the less. This life could be all that there is because God has no plans for the world and sure didn't conjur up some afterlife for us.

[TheDagdaMor145]

I will state attributes that naturally follow from what is evident in the world around me, and what follows from reason.

hehehe, do we need to go into how 'reason' is always tainted? sorry, couldnt resist.


havard, i have read over your logic many times, but im just not following it. most of the volume of an atom is empty space, which is why you dont have universes in your thumbnail. that and the fact that there probably is a lower limit to the size of what makes up matter (quarks or smaller, etc). but just because matter is not infinitely divisible, does not mean that empty space is not. you just end up talking about distance because most of the space has no matter within it at all. and any distance can be divided an infinite number of times.

it feels like i am reading your statements wrong or something.

cheers :drink:

ps to everyone: stop saying 'per se' so much or i will stick a gnome on you to steal your underpants for life. arrrrgh!

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Uh oh, evolution again. Anyway, regarding the second paragraph - I'd say that evolution (this also depends on whether you're talking about incremental change or quantum leap type change - I'll assume incremental for this) can be a process of random chance mutations alone or in concert with other mutations. If it turns out that one of the mutations happens to give a reproductive fitness advantage and so the number and % of individuals with that trait increases in the gene pool.

So I'd say there aren't reasons for the mutations as much as there are advantages used. But then you could also call it perspective.

I suppose it would take alot more study into the subject, or perhaps I've missed a particular portion of the theory of evolution. The way I've come to understand it is the mutations weren't necessarilty by chance, but were done to help the organism cope with changes in its environment. Random mutations, while they occur, are just that... random. Being born with a third arm, a fish with a third eye, a man with 3 nipples. These mutations are not usually passed around on a large scale and usually just die off with the person who had the mutations, the organism doesn't normally pass it off to its offspring.

I can see an event where organisms in the ocean growing steadily bigger eyes due to the fact that over time the water level rises where they are from rain, therefore those organisms live deeper and deeper in the water needing larger eyes to catch larger amounts of limited sunlight that gets through.

On the other hand I don't see an oceanic organism growing legs or even the ability to breathe surface air though the process of a random mutation and then this creature passing this trait along to enough of its ilk to create an entire sub-species who can now walk along land when the process was not needed.

As I said, perhaps I missed the part where such a thing was actually proven to have happened. If so please direct me to some info, if the internet has it handy(not much free time to make a run to the library, as I like to learn when I'm wrong about something. I would most certainly be interested in seeing that.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

The other theory is that there is a God who did create the first movement and that was it. God created all matter and set it in motion and then has nothing more to do with any of it.

This would mean that even though God exists and did make the first push, we are entirly on our own. He has no plans for us or any concepts of one truth because he exists outside of all that. We were an eventual effect of the rules and motion set into play, but we were not any kind of goal and God doesn't really care if we exist or not.

This would mean that even though God created everything and set up the rules he no longer exerts any power over his creation. This would make any search for objective truth or the meaning of life just as pointless as if God did exist. This fits the whole first mover argument but makes the search for the meaning of life, or one truth pointless.

It also could fit that we are entirly creations of matter, matter God created, but matter none the less. This life could be all that there is because God has no plans for the world and sure didn't conjur up some afterlife for us.

A third theory, another that leans towards religion to an extent: The universe as we know it is a test of us by God, and the big bang theory flows into it like this - We have all been here before. From the time that first mass of matter exploded creating our universe, to the day we began evolving from single-celled organisms, to our present day, and even into our future. The universe is expanding and scientist speculate that it is expanding more slowly now than it was thousands of years ago. That means at some point it will eventually stop expanding, and then, we begin the contracting. Everything in the universe will steadily contract until we are all once again a part of that original large mass of matter. Odd way to die eh?

The theory behind it is God is continually watching us and studying his "creations", our race continues on until the contracting is finished. The ball of matter is re-created, and the entire process starts over again in an endless cycle. Ideally, everything that happens in the world does not always happen the same way.

Just have always though this theory was interesting, thought I would bring it up in case someone hasn't heard of it.

[Spensdawg]

ps to everyone: stop saying 'per se' so much or i will stick a gnome on you to steal your underpants for life. arrrrgh!

Only me and Dragon get to sick gnomes on people like that :D

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Only me and Dragon get to sick gnomes on people like that :D

Bingo!

*readies his razor sharp teeth attack... OF DOOOOOM!!!*

[Havard]

...but just because matter is not infinitely divisible, does not mean that empty space is not. you just end up talking about distance because most of the space has no matter within it at all. and any distance can be divided an infinite number of times.

it feels like i am reading your statements wrong or something.

I think you're reading them right, maybe I'm not communicating what I'm trying to say very clearly. I know that there has been writing on this question, so I think I'll look into it and post later on, after I get a better sense of how to present it.


cheers :drink:

Don't mind if I do! :buddies:

[Booms]

A third theory, another that leans towards religion to an extent: The universe as we know it is a test of us by God, and the big bang theory flows into it like this - We have all been here before. From the time that first mass of matter exploded creating our universe, to the day we began evolving from single-celled organisms, to our present day, and even into our future. The universe is expanding and scientist speculate that it is expanding more slowly now than it was thousands of years ago. That means at some point it will eventually stop expanding, and then, we begin the contracting. Everything in the universe will steadily contract until we are all once again a part of that original large mass of matter. Odd way to die eh?

The theory behind it is God is continually watching us and studying his "creations", our race continues on until the contracting is finished. The ball of matter is re-created, and the entire process starts over again in an endless cycle. Ideally, everything that happens in the world does not always happen the same way.

Just have always though this theory was interesting, thought I would bring it up in case someone hasn't heard of it.

If the universe is continually expanding and contracting, over and over again, why keep God in the picture?

The main argument against an eternal universe IS the Big Bang theory, but if the universe just "bangs" over and over again, God is not needed to begin the movement for the movement has always been.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

The main argument against an eternal universe IS the Big Bang theory, but if the universe just "bangs" over and over again, God is not needed to begin the movement for the movement has always been.

As for the first part, I don't know. Not my theory, just one I find interesting.

But surely at some point there had to be an original "bang", it still doesn't make sense that it just has always been that way. It doesn't have to be God, but it had to start somewhere.

***

Another thing I would LOVE to have answered is as our world is contracting or extending, what is outside of the universe after it contracts? What is our universe expanding INTO? What hold the universe? How many licks does it really take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The universe is expanding currently. This means at one time it was small. However the fact that we can trace the universe back to a specific point doesn't mean that it didn't exist before that point. It could easily have been another force that eventually made the universe contract into the small point that eventually exploded. Motion can exist forever as long as the matter involved can't be created or destroyed. There are so many factors about the universe that we don't even know or understand yet from our tiny vantage point. As we discover more we will learn more about what the universe was and what it could be.


Listen Bhs, this notion is beginning to vex me. I would hope that by the arguments I forwarded, and Dragon's input, you would clearly come to the conclusion that there must be a regress-stopper eventually. You can continue this endless chain of causality till the cows come home, but you will not get anywhere. There must be a beginning. Your post is demonstrative of the circular reasoning of the skeptic (sextus empiricus ref.).


Yes, many species on this earth have died out, but because new species can split off from existing species, the life on this planet is self sustaining and is not required to move towards universal death.


Honestly, this is the last time I'm replying to this argument - I swear I've heard it a thousand times. No matter what kind of system the universe is, it needs a creator. If it created itself, or formed itself by its own components, these components would have need in themsevlves of a creative principle.


The other theory is that there is a God who did create the first movement and that was it. God created all matter and set it in motion and then has nothing more to do with any of it.


THat's called "deiism". THis is foolish, as God must be aware of all existence, and must necessarily continue to will it to be. God is willing you into existence, right NOW.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

hehehe, do we need to go into how 'reason' is always tainted? sorry, couldnt resist.


LOL.. you actually believe this. Reason is to be distinguished from the direction of reasoning. When the process of reason stops short on an incomplete premise or conclusion, that's whrere reason would seem to err. Yet, it is not reason itself that errs, it is rather the extent to which it is employed in an operation.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Booms - in light of Dragon's point (and hopefully my own), why NOT keep God in the picture?

[Killing Frenzy]

Oh no, I didn't realize how much trouble I was going stir up by starting this thread.

Ok, just to let everyone know I only posted this thread was because I was very interested in peoples scientific opinions. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should rule out that God has something to do with the bigger picture, I'm just saying that God should be left for debate in other threads. Lets just pretend that weather people believe that God has a roll in it all or not is up to that person, and we can just discuss the actual physical properties of things. Its far to easy to end every explanation with something to do with god. I'm not saying that God does or doesn't have something to do with it, I'm just saying there is a scientific reason for everything to, so lets talk about that aspect of things.

Ok, now can we play nice people? Lets just all cool it just a bit, and become good forum friends again ok? :thumbsup:

Heres a beer for everyone on me just so we can all loosin up a bit
:buddies: :buddies: :buddies:

[Booms]

Booms - in light of Dragon's point (and hopefully my own), why NOT keep God in the picture?

It seems to me that there are two ways to look at this.

A) The Universe is finite. It began, and once it collapses back in on itself its over. Done. This idea needs a God to create a beginning.

B) The Universe is eternal. It expands, contracts, expands, contracts, for ever and ever and ever. It always was and always will be.

There are two different ideas employed to explain how things happened, neither of which seems as if it can be proven. You've got God in point A, being the prime mover. You've got the idea of infinity in point B, with the Universe expanding and collapsing for all eternity.

B seems to make more sense to me. Rebirth can be found all over the Earth (a flower grows, dies, and its nutrients create another flower, which grows, dies, etc.), so why not on a much larger scale?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Frenzy - Disagreement is not to be feared. Our arguments may seem heated, if not downright rancid at times, but that need not entail a relationship of malice between the posters. In truth, any solid friendship will be based on open honesty, otherwise one settles for mediocrity.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok. Here is an argument I can work with.


A) The Universe is finite. It began, and once it collapses back in on itself its over. Done. This idea needs a God to create a beginning.


Thank you for your honesty.


B) The Universe is eternal. It expands, contracts, expands, contracts, for ever and ever and ever. It always was and always will be.


Ok then, so this issue is the one we must tackle to settle on an understanding if possible. I have posted that the universe cannot be eternal by its very essence. This is because of the principles of motion, and definition. By motion in that the continuous movement of corporeal things must have had a beginning. By definition, in that corporeal things by nature HAVE definition - meaning they are of limited species and magnitude. As such, it is not the nature of a finite corporeal thing to have the innate property of an eternal disposition, as it is subject to change, and also because its limits per se demand an end in itself. I believe you understood this by positing the cycle of generation and corruption, as described in terms of flowers (as below), and the notion of expansion and contraction. Yet, my paragraph below will treat of this.


There are two different ideas


No, there can be only one idea. Any corporeal aspect, even by virtue of its own self-sustaining properties, still requires a creator to give it definition. If you would assent to a self-preserving system or universe by its nature expands, contracts, and reproduces itself in its operation, you MUST give assent to an intelligent designer. This is why I gave the demonstrations by means of "design", as well as the foundational demonstration of "motion" earlier on.

[Bhs Crew]

THat's called "deiism". THis is foolish, as God must be aware of all existence, and must necessarily continue to will it to be. God is willing you into existence, right NOW.
Why? You just said that the universe requires a creater. Deiism gives it one. There is no reason that matter must require the continous will of god. As matter is not created nor destroyed it only requires one first cause or first push.

Why does the first cause have to be aware of all existance or endlessly will it to be?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why? You just said that the universe requires a creater. Deiism gives it one.


Technically, no, deism does not give the universe a creator in the truest sense of the word. THe reason for this is because the attributes of a creator, according to the immutible laws of metaphysics, demand that a creator be omnipresent, or "containing all within it", and thus is in and through all corporeality. Deism holds that God would be like an alien of sorts, or another limited being that created the earth, as you or I would create a sand-castle. We've been through the folly of that position earlier.


There is no reason that matter must require the continous will of god. As matter is not created nor destroyed it only requires one first cause or first push.


I see where you're coming from. Perhaps will wasn't the best choice of words. Will in this case would be "in agreement with".


Why does the first cause have to be aware of all existance or endlessly will it to be?

As above. The nature of the first cause demands omnipresence, as well as omnipotence. Powers of apprehension, and operation are only divided in terms of corporeal beings (for instance, human beings being composed of body, and soul). In incorporeal beings, again by the demands of metaphysics, must have no differentation in apprehension and power. Thus, a creator, as being the prime mover and designer, must also by necessity contain all things within itself, and thus, "wills" these things continually.

[Bhs Crew]

Ok fine. Lets for the moment say that all of your laws about the world are correct.
Why does the creater have to have a purpose for us or set of truths?

Why would an all powerful being that exists outside of time and space, have a purpose for each human being that happened to come along? If one the greater scheme of things we are but ants, and we are, why would this all powerful being care what we do? And most importantly why would he come down to earth to reveal himself a couple thousand years ago as Jesus?

It seems to me that an all powerful being that is not constrained by time, would not bother with a few creations over on this particular planet.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok fine. Lets for the moment say that all of your laws about the world are correct.
Why does the creater have to have a purpose for us or set of truths?


They're not "my laws", but OK. This too has to do with the nature of the creator. Existence demands purpose, otherwise we would arrive at what you were saying earlier (i think it was you), about things simply "coming to be", and we refuted that before. As you pointed out correctly waaay back, you mentioned that a complete being could not be added to by creation, which is emphatically correct. Yet, we must take it further by stating that this creator must have a purpose for creating something other than himself.


Why would an all powerful being that exists outside of time and space, have a purpose for each human being that happened to come along?


As above. Every person that "came along", did not come along by chance, but by the will of the creator, which is enmeshed in the movements of the corporeal universe. Existence and essence are one (which is in refutation to Sarte, which preached nihilism (existence preceeded essence) till his deathbead conversion :p )


If one the greater scheme of things we are but ants, and we are, why would this all powerful being care what we do?


His creation of us demands that God be a God of love. This is because, as we have assent to earlier, a complete God would have no need to create anything imcomplete, or apart from himself. Thus, love, being a positive, creative aspect, must be an attribute of God. And yes, he cares for ants too, but the care and love of God is received in accord with the mode of the receiver - as the human aspect is more capable by virtue of its being than an ant is for comprehending the love of God.


And most importantly why would he come down to earth to reveal himself a couple thousand years ago as Jesus?


Jesus came as a result of the chaos you live now. In essence, Jesus became part of the human aspect, and returned to God. In this action, we are absorbed into the Godhead, yet we need only be receptive to the "spirit" of God. This requires further explanation, and a single paragraph doesn not do it justice. I will continue only if/when you accept the preceeding argumentation.


It seems to me that an all powerful being that is not constrained by time, would not bother with a few creations over on this particular planet.

As above, a being that is outside of time and space is not limited by corporeal dimensions, so, any and all aspects of the corporeal are considered at once.

[Bhs Crew]

His creation of us demands that God be a God of love. This is because, as we have assent to earlier, a complete God would have no need to create anything imcomplete, or apart from himself. Thus, love, being a positive, creative aspect, must be an attribute of God. And yes, he cares for ants too, but the care and love of God is received in accord with the mode of the receiver - as the human aspect is more capable by virtue of its being than an ant is for comprehending the love of God.

If God is all-powerful he would have no need to create anything incomplete or apart from himself. But he did. If he is all-powerful he wouldn't have any atributes like love. Having an emotion like love would mean that God is not an all-powerful being beyond time and space. Having emotions or goals makes God imperfect as those are human characteristics.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Having an emotion like love

Your argument is offset by the definition of Love. It is not an emotion, but a choice. In God's case (since choices are made between variables), it would necessarily have to be an inherent disposition.

[Bhs Crew]

Based on the information we currently have you can make logical arguments that demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful God. The existence of an all powerful god solves all the questions of the universe.

If you make that assumption you can use it to answer any argument because any random events or chaos becomes part of God's plan. The problem is that these pat arguments are used all the time to prove things that turn out to be different than we thought. Newton's theories were considered proven until relativity came along.

There are so many things that we don't know about this world and the universe, which means that any answer that provides for all them leaves us dangerously closed to other possibilities. My concern is that your argument is iron-clad and provides answers to every question. Instead of trying to answer every question in the universe, we need to continue searching for new information that may modify what we believe.

We keep discovering new things about the universe that were previously incomprehensible. Black holes and the warping of time were things considered to be impossible until it was discovered that they existed. We must leave our options open as new information is always being discovered that can radically modify our beliefs.

It worries me that when you have a perfect argument it must be the one and only truth. The problem is that new information could end up proving your one truth incorrect in the future. For us to abandon our searches for happiness on the basis of your arguments isn't worth it, as while the arguments may be very logical at the moment, new information could prove them flawed in the future.

Meanwhile I choose to be happy and healthy. While you're searching for the one truth, I'm going to have a long happy life. As long as your search makes you happy, it won’t matter if it turns out to be for nothing. However, that same search would not make me happy, and so if I spent my life searching for the one truth and it turned out that the one truth was an illusion. Then I would've not lived my life to the fullest and that would've been for me, a wasted life.

[Killing Frenzy]

Anyone have any scientific views on the forming of atoms or the hall of mirrors. You know, something that doesn't have to do with God? I posted this article in hopes of expanding my knowledge of the universe, and I really like the topic. But now God has been thrown in the mix. *sigh* I'm not really interested in God. This article is about the universe, not about God. I don't believe it mentions one thing about god in the article. All you scientist! Nows the time to jump in and start argueing about scientific knowledge! Keep in mind people, we're not trying to have an answer for the universe, just some educated guesses.

Hmmm. One question, even though it may seem stupid or something. If there is a God, then where did he come from or start?

Man its friday night and once again I'm not out getting wasted with hot chicks..... *sigh*

[Bhs Crew]

Anyone have any scientific views on the forming of atoms or the hall of mirrors. You know, something that doesn't have to do with God? I posted this article in hopes of expanding my knowledge of the universe, and I really like the topic. But now God has been thrown in the mix. *sigh* I'm not really interested in God. This article is about the universe, not about God. I don't believe it mentions one thing about god in the article. All you scientist! Nows the time to jump in and start argueing about scientific knowledge! Keep in mind people, we're not trying to have an answer for the universe, just some educated guesses.

Sorry about the whole God thing, these things tend to happen in threads like these. If you can just try ignore us as we argue.
I can't help you about the forming of atoms or the hall of mirrors, sorry.

[Galron Kincaid]

Xxxdragon, "how did life turned from single-celled organisms to complete beings?"


duh? By EVOLUTION of course! Evolution is purely scientific (unlike that Adam and Ivy childrens tale), and if you try to cram a GOD in it, that's just ridicolous.


(what are you going to say next? God created Atlantis?)


And about the "yaddayadda you didn't reads all his post yadda whats your point being here yadda".

First, i'm here because i want to.

Secondly, i avoided reading all his writings because i already knew what theory he was backing up: God being behind cosmic facts that were discovered by science and science alone. How primitive.


It's SELF EVIDENT as you so lyrically point out that the Egg did not come from nowhere....... there was *something* before it..... but does this *something* HAVE to be a God?


God here God there....... we have the human intellect unleashed, we have science...... who needs a God?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Based on the information we currently have you can make logical arguments that demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful God. The existence of an all powerful god solves all the questions of the universe.


Indeed. God as founding principle.


If you make that assumption you can use it to answer any argument because any random events or chaos becomes part of God's plan. The problem is that these pat arguments are used all the time to prove things that turn out to be different than we thought. Newton's theories were considered proven until relativity came along.


Let's not stray from the solid argumentation we've been engaged with for the last bit. This could only be the case in dogmatism. A foundational principle will naturally sort itself out in the premises it will accept or reject, based on its own structre. In ref. to Newton, his philosophy was deemed as "self evident", as it was gleaned in an age that held true philosophy as naturally self evident - the cusp of rennisance and enlightenment philosophies. Just as in the early 20th century, everyone listenend to Bertrand Russel. Newton's era was largely an era of experimentation, which bounced between complete rationalism, and complete empiricism. Kant sorted it out though, IMO. Newton's structure was already nixed long before Einstein came along, before the dawn of the 19th century by Kant's logical structures. Though, some elements were preserved. Regardless, that last paragraph of yours sounds like someone saying "you can use statistics to prove anything". In this case, you seem to be upset because the notion of God explaining "everything" seems much too convenient or simple. Yet, it's all about simplicity. The eternal is the eternally simple, and greater complexity arises when one moves away from the eternally complete, into modes of further definition.


There are so many things that we don't know about this world and the universe, which means that any answer that provides for all them leaves us dangerously closed to other possibilities.


Sure there is. I'd like to know more of the mechanics of how things are, etc. This requires different "methodology". Science is of great help in determining aspects of the universe, as is reason. Remember, lack of knowledge is not the true problem, as it will sort itself out in time. Rather, it is the direction of knowledge.


My concern is that your argument is iron-clad and provides answers to every question.


As above, not "every" question is answered. Be mindful of the "type" of question.


Instead of trying to answer every question in the universe, we need to continue searching for new information that may modify what we believe.


Certainly, continue in knowledge. Yet, we will find that our new discoveries must necessarily agree with the laws of metaphysics. The approach is not to be a dogmatic one (ie. the rejection of anything that seems to oppose them), but one of free discovery. It takes more time and work, but in the end, the faculties coincide.


We keep discovering new things about the universe that were previously incomprehensible. Black holes and the warping of time were things considered to be impossible until it was discovered that they existed. We must leave our options open as new information is always being discovered that can radically modify our beliefs.


As above. The good thing about reason, is that it is incorporeal, as I assented to earlier. Further, since the incorporeal encompasses all corporeal, laws of metaphysics contain all laws of physics. This would have to be so, for the laws of physics to continue in operation.


It worries me that when you have a perfect argument it must be the one and only truth. The problem is that new information could end up proving your one truth incorrect in the future.


Again, as above. Metaphysics sets out the chassis that is filled by the corporeal. Matter gives a thing form. New knowledge must be apprehended by (and can only be apprehended by) the same means of acquiring previous knowledge.


For us to abandon our searches for happiness on the basis of your arguments isn't worth it, as while the arguments may be very logical at the moment, new information could prove them flawed in the future.


Rejoyce. I'm offering you a tool that will allow you to journey more effectively. Knowledge of metaphysics does not cancel out new knowledge whatsoever, but rather gives you tools in which to sort out what is apprehended by the senses.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Galron - I'll let Dragon take the helm in dealing with your post, I've gotta run to work.

[DeadSquirrel]

There's one thing I find funny with the Big Bang argument, and the "God" argument, regarding the start of the universe.
What's funny, is that these two "arguments" don't solve the problem, at all.
It's just pushing away the problem...

Universe is the name that we give to everything that surrounds us, no matter what it is.
Even if there WAS infinite nothingness around us, this infinite nothingness would be part of the universe...

So if there was a Big Bang that created our galaxy and all others surrounding us... that's great and all.... but what was before? what created the compressed matter as big as a nail's head, that's the origin of the big bang?... all these things are ignored by such theories.


Same with God. Ok, let's say Atum created us.... Atum created us all and he created life, he created the universe!
Before Atum appeared, there was only "Nu", a watery world.... then an island appeared, on this island was an egg, out of this egg came Atum, who fornicated with his own shadow and woudn up spitting out his son, and vomitting out his daughter.
Son and Daughter fornicated to give us all the gods that created our world and our universe....
That's nice and all... but where did all the water from "Nu" come from? What created "Nu"?

Same thing with the christian god... where did this Jeovah come from? He poofed out of nowhere?
Might as well say that matter poofed out of nowhere, this way we solve the problem without having to use an excuse like "God".


So matter poofed out of "nowhere"... what was this "nowhere", where did this "nowhere" come from?
Because "nowhere" or "nothingness" is still all part of our universe.
Universe is not only planets, stars and "black matter", it's whatever that holds us, created us....

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

First of all, I'm not saying it has to be God who created everything, I am merely refuting your points and allowing you to make up your own mind in what it means. Who knows, we might arrive at an answer that tells us an evil race of super mutants created the universe and is simply toying with us. It is up to you to make you mind up, but any points you type into a debate are going to be debated. That being said:

Xxxdragon, "how did life turned from single-celled organisms to complete beings?"


duh? By EVOLUTION of course! Evolution is purely scientific (unlike that Adam and Ivy childrens tale), and if you try to cram a GOD in it, that's just ridicolous.

Buy you seem to have completely ignored the paragraphs detracting the evolution of a single celled organism evolving for no reason. I'm sorry, but you're gonna need something better than "Evolution is purely scientific" because that line explains nothing. Do you know how they evolved? Please re-read my original post and explain to me why without need an entire sub-species would have evolved to what was no gain to the species at the time.


(what are you going to say next? God created Atlantis?)

And about the "yaddayadda you didn't reads all his post yadda whats your point being here yadda".

First, i'm here because i want to.

Right... are you here to debate or argue, if it is the latter then I'll quit talking now and let you go over to the battle.net forums where such debating is more common. However if you can stay friendly while backing up your points then I will continue.

Secondly, i avoided reading all his writings because i already knew what theory he was backing up: God being behind cosmic facts that were discovered by science and science alone. How primitive.

Primitive? I'll say that I don't agree with everything AoA stated, but alot of his points have merit. He also did a damn fine job in my opinion of putting up a like between God and the creation of the universe, one that isn't foolproof and can be debated, but it would be folly to simply pass the ideas off of some type of religious rhetoric because it certainly isn't.

Now, you do of course realize that for thousands of years science and religion went hand in hand? Just as there were men studying life and the universe to disprove the existence of God, there were those who studied the exact same thing to prove the opposite. Science itself is not athiest. Hate to break it to you, but there was a long time that the religious right in europe all but controlled scientific thought, and most of the theorys at that time have stayed strong even up to today.

It's SELF EVIDENT as you so lyrically point out that the Egg did not come from nowhere....... there was *something* before it..... but does this *something* HAVE to be a God?

Which I said in my original post to you, as I also said it doesn't have to be God. BUT, I would take a creator vision of the universe over "it just has been that way" anyday. Science currently does a great job at suggesting an explantion for the universe, but it falls apart because it offers no explanation as to how the universe came to be in the first place. No explanation as to why our universe is contracting and expanding, no explanation as to what fired off the Big Bang, no explanation as to where the original matter before the bang came from nor how it formed together, no explanation for what existed before that matter formed together.

Am I saying science can't explain these things? Not at all. But it had better come up with a much better explanation than "for some reason this mass was formed from absolutely nothing and simply exploded creating everything we see today". "For some reason" just doesn't cut it for me.

In closing, again, I don't care what answer we arrive to in this debate or what the true answer is as long as it is an answer. Because right now I could tell you that we all live in a creative studying cell made by a race of super beings and my theory would hold an equal amount of water as "the matter formed from nothing", and if that is what we find to be true than great, it is an answer so I'll be satisfied. It is a small hole in the Big Bang theory, but no one can deny that that one little hole is the biggest part of the theory itself. How can we explain that the universe exists because of this ball of matter but can't explain where the heck the matter came from. That is why the Big Bang theory is still a theory and will never be scientific law, there is one friggin huge flaw in the theory.

God here God there....... we have the human intellect unleashed, we have science...... who needs a God?

We need to at least allow for the possibility of God because frankly, while we have science, science doesn't prove anything being discussed here.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Granted AoA, my post earlier came off a bit more 'cant you just shut up for a while' than originally intended.
My annoyance with the God subject came from the fact that we had an interesting scientific discussion about an interesting scientific article and then you delighted in turning the whole thing into a God thread that all but killed of the original interesting thread in spite of several posters voicing their wish to keep this strictly scientific.

So in recent weeks I have mentioned in 2 different posts: your tone(wich happens to be very disrespectful at times), the way you present your ideas and that I did not want this otherwise interesting thread to become yet another God thread. If that makes me a 'whiner', so be it. I know I'm not the only one here who saw where this thread was heading after a while and sighed and said to myself "here we go again".

Would it be so hard to keep the God issue in a single thread? You obviously liked the debate brewing here, how about taking up the subject in an exisiting God thread and let a scientific thread stay a scientific thread.

OK, /whine over.

Your references to metaphysics leads me to a better understanding of your point of view. I dont agree with it, but I understand it.
But metaphysics cover great deal of different views and opinions, even materialists and naturalists are considered metaphysicians. So your mention of the rules of metaphysics dont necessarily add up. The only real thing all the branches of metaphysics have in common is the search for an all encompassing decievingly simple truth that can be applied to everything.
You obviously side with mysticism since you talk about the God who is love. Or unity with the ultimate.

Metaphysics is ultimately not much more than a set of theories and guesswork, personally I prefer to stick with the physical realm where we can scientifically prove things.

But enough about that, I'm not that into metaphysics so I'll stop commenting on it.

What I wanted to point out is that this 'universal truth' you allude to does not exist(wich in your case is the existence of God as the creator and mover). At least not in a sense humankind can comprehend. The beginnings of the universe or even the true extent of God is something beyond human ability to comprehend.

We can not reason ourselves to a universal truth as someone mentioned earlier, reason is tainted. Well, reason in itself is not tainted but it is tainted by the human mind.
You can offer the same set of information and suggestions to every human being on the earth and everyone will reason their way to a different conclusion. This conclusion will then be their 'truth'.

So yes, truth is a relative thing, someting we deem as truth with the knowledge we posess may not be truth at all but it is truth to us.
Just like it was once true that the earth was flat. Or that is was true that humankind came from Adam and Eve, not evolved from apelike creatures. It was once true that flight was impossible.
What we deem as truth now may be shattered by new revelations provided by science.

So your truth is that the all mighty God created and moves the universe. We are all here beause he wills us to be here. This becomes the fundemental principle that everything else is based off of.

But what about people who do not believe there is a God? Naturally your truth does not work for me since there is no God that could have created the universe. I am not willed into existence by God, I'm just here. I am. Simple as that.
Heres where it gets tricky, if I dont have the truth of God, what is my truth?
I dont know, without resorting to God to explain the tough questions, alot of questions remain unanswered because humankind simply does not know.
What is the purpose of life if it is not given by God? Are we here simply to pass on our genes and die?
These are things I would like to find the answer to scientifically, without resorting to a God we can not prove the existence of.

So in effect, I agree with most of what Bhs said. Like him I am content with just existing. For now, until we find out more.

Edit: One question. Evolution is basically made up of trial and error. For every mutation that works out there are an unknown number of mutations that does not work out. The mutations that enhances a species ability to sustain itself and adapt to changes (like climate) is kept and intergrated into the gene pool. This is how evolution works.
So if everything is willed into existence by God, does he will these failed mutations into existence? In that case, why? An omnipotent God would surely create a perfect being right away, not a flawed one that has to endure flawed mutations in order to evolve.

[Galron Kincaid]

Thanks Graav, those God-fans are driving me nutz!

[Graav Wolfsong]

I want to touch on the expanding universe theory a bit.

There has long been a theory that the expansion of the universe will slow to a halt and then contract into the same thing that created the big bang.
In a sense the universe will come full circle and everything will begin anew, like many have stated before in this thread. An endless cycle of rebirth.

However, I remember reading on several different occasions (most recently with the landing of the Mars rover) that it had there are indications (or have even been established) that the universe expansion is not slowing, rather, its speeding up, moving faster and faster, thus defying our notion of gravity.
So the theory is that in a few billion years time, we wont even be able to see the stars with the naked eye.

If this is indeed so, what if the universe is finite? What happens then when it reaches it limits? Will it expand to the point where it cant stretch anymore, and tear the fabric of space-time?
Or is the universe infinite and planets will just drift apart until we are lightyears away from the closest planet?

I'll look for a link or two concerning this later, dont have time to play internet-sherlock right now.
But thoughts on that?

[TheDagdaMor145]

LOL.. you actually believe this. Reason is to be distinguished from the direction of reasoning. When the process of reason stops short on an incomplete premise or conclusion, that's whrere reason would seem to err. Yet, it is not reason itself that errs, it is rather the extent to which it is employed in an operation.


however, precious few things have been completed with 'reason'. certainly nothing science has produced. history has shown us repeatedly that everything science has shown us so far will eventually be proven to be incorrect.

if you want to take 'reason' in its purest form, fine. but its not something that humans are capable of outside of (possibly) math.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Thanks Graav, those God-fans are driving me nutz!

Edit: [removed text] Reason: I really don't like having pointless arguements. If you are grouping me with your "God Fans" you have a serious reading problem. Just know that people who debate in your method drive me nutz as well. We'll call it even then.

If this is indeed so, what if the universe is finite? What happens then when it reaches it limits? Will it expand to the point where it cant stretch anymore, and tear the fabric of space-time?
Or is the universe infinite and planets will just drift apart until we are lightyears away from the closest planet?

I'll look for a link or two concerning this later, dont have time to play internet-sherlock right now.
But thoughts on that?

Even better, if the universe is finite, what is on the outside of what is finite? To suggest that it is finite means either the universe can only expand so far, or that *something* will stop its expansion. What I am most curious about is if the universe can only expand to a certain degree, what is on the outside of what it is expanding into?

Or, if the universe runs into something that stops its expansion, what does it run into? When it hits it, are we in for a shockwave that would undoubtably be more powerful than any earthquake we could ever imagine.

I know the common belief if that our universe just "is" and there is nothing beyond it, but I can't bring myself to believe that. If the universe is expanding, it HAS to be expanding into something. I believe there is something out there beyond what we know as our universe, something greater and bigger than anything on time here on earth could prepare us for. I guess what I mean is we are a small part of something greater. What exactly, I have no idea.

[Bhs Crew]

Any thing has unknowns in it. The farther we get outside of earth and the larger the scale the more unknowns we encounter. Right now we're talking about the entire universe and what is outside it. It is possible to make logical conclusions about it, but with the sheer amount of unknown information-much of it dealing with things we never would've thought of- any conclusions drawn are going to be educated guesses at best.

You often ask questions about how anyone could not believe in an all powerful god. You arrive at the basic conclusion that anyone who doesn't is an idiot who hasn't spent enough time with the problem.
All I am saying is because so much of what we are dealing with is unknown; there is no way to prove anything. Your logical statements could turn out to be correct, or there could be some other principle at work which makes many parts of them wrong and brings us to an entirely different conclusion.

I'm not saying you should abandon your search. I'm saying that any answer about the universe, despite it making perfect logical sense, is probably flawed by some rule that we can't even comprehend yet. What I'm asking for is acceptance of the idea that people who are not willing to accept your conclusions may not be the stubborn ignorant simpletons that you assume them to be.

I'm not saying we can't debate the universe. We can and it is often informative. However, it is a debate of things which cannot be truly known with the information we have. When you try to ram down people's throats that you're theory is absolute fact and to believe differently makes you an idiot, it closes all possibilities of floating ideas. Because you have already taken your logical conclusion to be absolute truth it closes the debate to all the possibilities that could still be true, they just don't make perfect sense with the small amount of information we currently have.

[Benjamin_Blackheart]

(unlike that Adam and Ivy childrens tale)

Wow. First of all, if you call something a children's tale, at least get the names right. It is Adam and Eve . Second, when you ask

who needs a God?

when we have science and intellect! Obviously, even the most intellegent person cannot find out how we came to exist, and probably won't until Judgement Day. You can either believe that there is a God, or you believe that there isn't. Because, if you think about, the only way we'll ever find out if we are right is if we die. But, if you ever do happen to die, please post a messege telling me what happens, I'd like to know. :thumbsup:

[Bhs Crew]

And about the "yaddayadda you didn't reads all his post yadda whats your point being here yadda".

First, i'm here because i want to.

Secondly, i avoided reading all his writings because i already knew what theory he was backing up: God being behind cosmic facts that were discovered by science and science alone. How primitive.

There is no way I can be called a "God fan" so I hope you'll listen to what I have to say.

First, you are allowed to be here if you want to. No one is going to stop you. It does make me wonder why you are in this debate though. You aren't going to convince anyone by attacking the other side like that, so I can't understand WHY you are still here.

Secondly, you have no idea what theory he was trying to back up, because you didn't read the writing. He went out of his way to copy and post that stuff because I, among others, couldn't take the time out of my finals to find and read it. His logic and reasoning are far from primitive. The text goes through numerous facts and possibilities and examine each one.

If you weren't going to take the time to read his arguments then there is no point to responding to him. You have already made up your mind what his entire belief system is. However, every time you post against him it is painfully obvious that you don't even know what his positions are let alone how to refute them.

You will never learn anything if you aren't willing to open yourself up to new ideas and learn new things. Here a man went out of his way to provide you with a summarized version of many of his arguments and you spit on it. You won’t read his arguments and instead you spend your time arguing against a specific set of beliefs that isn't even held by anyone here.

My suggestion is that you either read the text and come back with your own points and questions, or find some other thread to post it. What you are doing here is nothing but a waste of your time and everyone else's.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Would it be so hard to keep the God issue in a single thread?


This could only be considered if God were a concept like any other. Being God (all encompassing), its by necessity that it be brought up in any given topic.


Your references to metaphysics leads me to a better understanding of your point of view. I dont agree with it, but I understand it.
But metaphysics cover great deal of different views and opinions, even materialists and naturalists are considered metaphysicians. So your mention of the rules of metaphysics dont necessarily add up.


The text in this section indicates that your understanding is indeed very limited. Materialists and naturalists are NOT metaphysicians, and the content we are dealing with here cannot be opinion - otherwise you reject logic. That was one of the more rediculous sentances I've seen to date.


The only real thing all the branches of metaphysics have in common is the search for an all encompassing decievingly simple truth that can be applied to everything.


Read Aristotle's metaphysics a few times and see if you can honestly repeat that statement.


You obviously side with mysticism since you talk about the God who is love. Or unity with the ultimate.


While I admire the neo-platonists, I'm no mystic.


Metaphysics is ultimately not much more than a set of theories and guesswork, personally I prefer to stick with the physical realm where we can scientifically prove things.


Guesswork?? Woah.. Aristotle would roll over in his grave. Did you not read ANYTHING I posted regarding metaphysics? It depends on the corporeal to feed the logical structure. There is absolutely no guesswork required.


But enough about that, I'm not that into metaphysics so I'll stop commenting on it.


Well there you go. I suggest you "get into it" before posting absurd definitions of the aforementioned.


What I wanted to point out is that this 'universal truth' you allude to does not exist(wich in your case is the existence of God as the creator and mover). At least not in a sense humankind can comprehend. The beginnings of the universe or even the true extent of God is something beyond human ability to comprehend.


Certainly, not under the microscopes of empirical study. Methodology is key. If you wanted to look for something in a dark room, would you not do something to mitigate the darkness like turning on a light? Or, would you fumble in the darkness? The correct method of doing a task will elicit the proper results. Just ending with empiricism will leave you a skeptic in the areas of reason - look what happened with the 17th century empiricists..


We can not reason ourselves to a universal truth as someone mentioned earlier, reason is tainted. Well, reason in itself is not tainted but it is tainted by the human mind.


Please read Immanuel Kant's "critique of pure reason". Actually.. I'll give you a small text that addresses this exact issue if this "tainting" you speak of. Look for it online - it may be there. Another one by Kant - "On a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy". This will directly deal with that issue you presented. It's only a few pages too :).


You can offer the same set of information and suggestions to every human being on the earth and everyone will reason their way to a different conclusion. This conclusion will then be their 'truth'.


Man.. you're all over the spectrum. First you're an empiricist, and now you're an extreme rationalist. The folly of the rationalists was that their positions made no use of empirical content. Yet, metaphysics, as Kant demonstrated, takes what we see, and deducts (and inducts), logical, immutible norms.. man Gravv, I wish this was clear to you. Ref. Ernst Cassirer "the philosophy of the enlightenment".


So yes, truth is a relative thing,


Affirming the denial. If truth were relative, there would be no truth, yet, to say there is no absolute truth is an absolute truth statement. Good job.


someting we deem as truth with the knowledge we posess may not be truth at all but it is truth to us.
Just like it was once true that the earth was flat.


Nope. It was never objective true that the earth was flat. It was "believed to be true".


Or that is was true that humankind came from Adam and Eve, not evolved from apelike creatures.


lol.. I will post on another thread about how that is utter bull$hit.


It was once true that flight was impossible.
[QUOTE]

Flight was never impossible - birds flew. Humans only lacked the means at that time. Truth is universal, but our participation in it can vary.

[QUOTE]
What we deem as truth now may be shattered by new revelations provided by science.


Laughable. Science only affirms what is true, provided it stays the course of investigation and remains objective.


So your truth is that the all mighty God created and moves the universe. We are all here beause he wills us to be here. This becomes the fundemental principle that everything else is based off of.


The starting principle is the sand beneath your toes, not God as prime mover. Clean the $hit our of your ears.


But what about people who do not believe there is a God?


What about them?


Naturally your truth does not work for me since there is no God that could have created the universe. I am not willed into existence by God, I'm just here. I am. Simple as that.


Truth is not subject to ownership.


Heres where it gets tricky, if I dont have the truth of God, what is my truth?


You don't OWN truth, nor do I. You however, can participate in it.


I dont know, without resorting to God to explain the tough questions, alot of questions remain unanswered because humankind simply does not know.


Even by resorting to God, alot remains unanswered. We know what we are capable of knowing by virtue of our faculties and powers. Yet, for every question, there is an answer, and we have the power to enter into these answers provided our faculties allow, and pending on our desire to know.


What is the purpose of life if it is not given by God?


Good question.


Are we here simply to pass on our genes and die?


hahah.. another good one.


These are things I would like to find the answer to scientifically, without resorting to a God we can not prove the existence of.


Thank you for answering your own question earlier in that science per se is a method cabable of answering certain types of questions. Learn from the metaphysician :uhhuh:.


So in effect, I agree with most of what Bhs said. Like him I am content with just existing. For now, until we find out more.


Yep, Bhs has potential. If he sticks with it, he may yet become a philosopher.


Edit: One question. Evolution is basically made up of trial and error. For every mutation that works out there are an unknown number of mutations that does not work out. The mutations that enhances a species ability to sustain itself and adapt to changes (like climate) is kept and intergrated into the gene pool. This is how evolution works.


I'd be inclined to affirm Dragon's position on causal evolution.


So if everything is willed into existence by God, does he will these failed mutations into existence? In that case, why? An omnipotent God would surely create a perfect being right away, not a flawed one that has to endure flawed mutations in order to evolve.

Everything corporeal lacks God's inherent perfection. Who are you to say what is perfect, and what is not? That's like fat girls thinking themselves unworthy because they do not look like twiggy.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This one's a ripe plum waiting to be plucked.. :uhhuh:

however, precious few things have been completed with 'reason'.


What kind of completion are you looking for?


certainly nothing science has produced. history has shown us repeatedly that everything science has shown us so far will eventually be proven to be incorrect.


What is proven or disproven is done so by the method used in precipitating the conclusion to begin with. You cannot appy scientific method to speculative principles, but you CAN apply their empirical data as fuel to reason by.


if you want to take 'reason' in its purest form, fine. but its not something that humans are capable of outside of (possibly) math.

I'm glad you mentioned math. That's something that is always inherently true, and thus I will apply that against your above statement. You're another poster that must read I. Kant. Alot of people fall into the extreme empiricist camp, or the extreme rationalist camp. You need an integrated dosage of both, to make sense of it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'll assume you're adressing me.

Any thing has unknowns in it. The farther we get outside of earth and the larger the scale the more unknowns we encounter. Right now we're talking about the entire universe and what is outside it. It is possible to make logical conclusions about it, but with the sheer amount of unknown information-much of it dealing with things we never would've thought of- any conclusions drawn are going to be educated guesses at best.


The scale of empirical data is of low importance in dealing with metaphysics. I'd still say that Aristotle's metaphysics, written about 2400 years ago, is the most accurate text on metaphysics I've come across - it's airtight. By necessity, the same laws in operation on our earth must be present in other parts of the universe. This includes anomilies such as black holes, and so forth. The principles are simple really. For stability int he universe, constants must be conrete and in continual operation. As such, motion, no matter in what form, is characteristic of all parts of the cosmos.


You often ask questions about how anyone could not believe in an all powerful god. You arrive at the basic conclusion that anyone who doesn't is an idiot who hasn't spent enough time with the problem.


Some I call idiots, definitely. In my definition, as you hinted at, the direction of knowledge is the issue, not the lack of knowledge. Time and work is critical - and this is predisposed by desire. An "Idiot" is one who would posit opinions, yet who lacks the desire to know and learn over time. A good example is posters who just write off arguments, without reading the text. As such, I could not call you an idiot. Yet, time will tell how far you're willing to travel.



All I am saying is because so much of what we are dealing with is unknown; there is no way to prove anything.


You judge these variables by "data", not reason. Start using reason as the text I provide suggest. I can also offer texts that are contrary to my positions, and in time, you will uncover their folly.


Your logical statements could turn out to be correct, or there could be some other principle at work which makes many parts of them wrong and brings us to an entirely different conclusion.


This problem was found in the rationalists - Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz for example. They begain with a foundation based on reason per se, and not touching on empirical content. They, by their systems, came up with different results. Yet, once you read Kant, you will see otherwise. There really is only ONE WAY of looking at this, as there is only one reason, and one universe we can draw sensibility from. Once you discover this, concepts will come easy to you.


I'm not saying you should abandon your search. I'm saying that any answer about the universe, despite it making perfect logical sense, is probably flawed by some rule that we can't even comprehend yet.


"some rule".. Let's get straight on the rules we do know first :uhhuh:.


What I'm asking for is acceptance of the idea that people who are not willing to accept your conclusions may not be the stubborn ignorant simpletons that you assume them to be.


You are the only one assuming here. I answered that above.


I'm not saying we can't debate the universe. We can and it is often informative. However, it is a debate of things which cannot be truly known with the information we have.


Rather, it cannot be truly known with adherence to empricial methodology alone.


When you try to ram down people's throats


? If a tone of surety is to be compared with tyranny, than that would be because the arguments have a grip on the reader, which elicits a reaction. If that position id contrary to their own.


that you're theory is absolute fact and to believe differently makes you an idiot, it closes all possibilities of floating ideas.


Let's leave the assumtions of judgment out of it. Just deal with the content plz.


Because you have already taken your logical conclusion to be absolute truth


Would you agree that 2 + 2 = 4? When you find a lost object you've been looking for, why keep looking? People who consider themselves thinkers and fall into scepticism by "forever searching", really undermind their own status. There is an end of the tunnel. There is seemingly no limit to the amount of data we can accrue, but there are immutible laws in which we can assent to, that no amount of "searching" will ever change. We can however use these laws to discover inherent structures in corporeal aspects however, so our search for knowledge can be nigh infinite in that way.


it closes the debate to all the possibilities that could still be true, they just don't make perfect sense with the small amount of information we currently have.

As above.

[Bhs Crew]

His creation of us demands that God be a God of love. This is because, as we have assent to earlier, a complete God would have no need to create anything imcomplete, or apart from himself.
Wouldn't an all powerful being that includes everything in the universe be complete? Why would a perfect being create anything imperfect of apart from himself?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Wouldn't an all powerful being that includes everything in the universe be complete? Why would a perfect being create anything imperfect of apart from himself?

THis, I believe, I posted at the very beginning. Since creation exists and is sustained in existence, and given its finitude and degrees of perfection, it demands that the attribute of "love" be assigned to the Godhead. As we both agree, it would be pointless for a complete being to create incompleteness. Yet, the very fact that we are here demands that God not be an impersonal system of sorts, but a being with sentient will, and a positive creative and sustaining aspect that we can call love. As to the exact reason why God created this particular "mode" of existing is unknown to me, but the fact that there is a mode, demands the attribute of love to be assigned to the Godhead.

[Havard]

Wouldn't an all powerful being that includes everything in the universe be complete? Why would a perfect being create anything imperfect of apart from himself?

My question is, why would God create anything perfect apart from himself? Anything perfect by nature would then be a mere extension or replica of God. Imperfect creatures have moral choices to make, and thus are capable of identities. They seem more logical creations to me.

[Echod16]

here's another question..

assuming God is in existence, by what means was he able to create such things as matter (which inherently i guess is positive and negative particles or varying size and degree, with laws of attraction)

and what about other-dimensional matter?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

here's another question..

assuming God is in existence, by what means was he able to create such things as matter (which inherently i guess is positive and negative particles or varying size and degree, with laws of attraction)


The attribute of existing cannot be ascribed to God, as the property "to exist" can only be defined in terms of its opposite, which is not to exist. Thus, God being beyond both concepts, it stands that God just "is", and the modes of existing are governed by him.


and what about other-dimensional matter?

Essentially, it would be the same thing, as matter, regardless of where it is, or in what mode, is still an aspect of creation. I don't know where the term "dimension" comes from ('cept teenage mutant ninja turtles lol), but any realm of existing is necessarily beneath God and his governance.

[Bhs Crew]

THis, I believe, I posted at the very beginning. Since creation exists and is sustained in existence, and given its finitude and degrees of perfection, it demands that the attribute of "love" be assigned to the Godhead. As we both agree, it would be pointless for a complete being to create incompleteness. Yet, the very fact that we are here demands that God not be an impersonal system of sorts, but a being with sentient will, and a positive creative and sustaining aspect that we can call love. As to the exact reason why God created this particular "mode" of existing is unknown to me, but the fact that there is a mode, demands the attribute of love to be assigned to the Godhead.

Either that, or it's a flaw. It seems that a perfect being would not create an imperfect system regardless of whether he had love or not. If he's a perfect being it would be logical for him to create a perfect system.

[Bhs Crew]

My question is, why would God create anything perfect apart from himself? Anything perfect by nature would then be a mere extension or replica of God. Imperfect creatures have moral choices to make, and thus are capable of identities. They seem more logical creations to me.

Well the most logical thing would be for God to create nothing, for he already would be a perfect being that contained every possibility in the universe. To create something, perfect or imperfect, would be a pointless task for a perfect being.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Either that, or it's a flaw. It seems that a perfect being would not create an imperfect system regardless of whether he had love or not. If he's a perfect being it would be logical for him to create a perfect system.

Sure. Thus, with any attribute of God, it must be part and parcel of the essence. This is to be differentated from human attributes, which we can take on, or remove with experience. In that case, it would seem logical that God would create things.

[Havard]

Well the most logical thing would be for God to create nothing, for he already would be a perfect being that contained every possibility in the universe. To create something, perfect or imperfect, would be a pointless task for a perfect being.

A pointless task? Don't you mean "To create something, perfect or imperfect, would be an unnecessary task for a perfect being." There is a difference. God may not need anything, but what if God wants something?

We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to his interests. The doctrine that God is Love and that He delights in men are positive doctrines, not limiting ones.

[Bhs Crew]

A pointless task? Don't you mean "To create something, perfect or imperfect, would be an unnecessary task for a perfect being." There is a difference. God may not need anything, but what if God wants something?

We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to his interests. The doctrine that God is Love and that He delights in men are positive doctrines, not limiting ones.

To create an imperfect world and watch little creatures try to succeed against hundreds of other dangerous and distructive factors hardly seems like something a perfect being would bother with. Wouldn't a perfect being want his people to be happy? Why would he create disease and famine?

[Bhs Crew]

Sure. Thus, with any attribute of God, it must be part and parcel of the essence. This is to be differentated from human attributes, which we can take on, or remove with experience. In that case, it would seem logical that God would create things.

Why would it be logical that God would create things? And if it is why would it be logical for God to create imperfect things?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why would it be logical that God would create things? And if it is why would it be logical for God to create imperfect things?

I already told you, and you continue repeating the same question. By virtue of our own existence, which is composed in limitation, the nature of the Godhead MUST be one of love. As for the imperfect - it would be the only thing that could come under the definition of "the created", as the perfect would be part of God, and would be inseparable.

Ironically, the next point comes as a reply to your post against Havard. God created this milieu to draw it back into himself - such is the incarnation of Christ. Christ became one with humanity, and returned to God. Thus, we too shall be absorbed into the Godhead by the reception of his spirit.

[Bhs Crew]

I already told you, and you continue repeating the same question. By virtue of our own existence, which is composed in limitation, the nature of the Godhead MUST be one of love. As for the imperfect - it would be the only thing that could come under the definition of "the created", as the perfect would be part of God, and would be inseparable.

Explain how the love concept works.
I don't see how god being a god of love changes anything.

Ironically, the next point comes as a reply to your post against Havard. God created this milieu to draw it back into himself - such is the incarnation of Christ. Christ became one with humanity, and returned to God. Thus, we too shall be absorbed into the Godhead by the reception of his spirit.
Why create something just to absorb it? What is the point? Us being created and then absorbed back in changes nothing in the end.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Explain how the love concept works.
I don't see how god being a god of love changes anything.


The stumbling block you've come across has to do with the modern definition of love. A while back, you mentioned love was an emotion, and I proceeded to give you some greek definitions that outlined a few different conceptions of love. Also, in terms of God, as we discussed the attributes of God, we held that any attribute of God must by necessity not be as a conglomerate of traits that can be added, subtracted, or even lending itself to description - as we ascend the ladder in being - moving away from the easily descriptive corporeal aspects, our language looses hold - almost like gravity fades, and our traction on the surface is lessened. However, we know that a complete, simple being such as God must necessarily have one essence that contains all within it AS ONE. Thus, the quality of a lover must be intrinsically bound into the being of God, just as the concepts of power, completeness, and omnipotence, in which we agree. In order for creation to be able to take place, God must be more than just a complete system - unthinking - impersonal.


Why create something just to absorb it? What is the point? Us being created and then absorbed back in changes nothing in the end.

This also has to do with the nature of the Godhead. It really is amazing how much we CAN know about these things - we're more powerful than we realize. Following from the creative, loving attribute of God, which is intrinsic in his being, we must conclude that God must be "dynamic". Now, if God were a static perfection - such as a statue can have a static perfection in terms of its own purpose, there could be no creation. However, a dynamic Godhead precludes love and creation. In terms of creation and absorbtion, I could have been more clear. The change is only in that which is created.

Since we've climbed so high, I'm running out of air lol.. reason will explain most things, but not all - so I cannot explain revelation in terms of solid reasoning (yet I can describe its structure). Revelation attests that Jesus (one part of the trinity), became one with the human essence, and returned to God, thus taking those who desire the Father with him, to become joined in the eternal dynamical relationship of the Godhead. Why he has done this is beyond me. We think in terms of measurement, and composition and division, whereas God does not think at all, like we do. His I gather are eternal "wills". One stumbling block for me is the notion of a finite humanity, or the # of humans to join with him. Yet, what I have attested to earlier, I am concretely sure of. While the numbers may not add up, it also demonstrates that GOd is not bound by any laws or norms, which, considering the past points, is entirely staggering - as I mentioned, there is no inherent reasoning as to why God chose this particular mode of existing. Take what you can from here and ask me more if you like.

[Bhs Crew]

Well I've learned a lot and I definitely have some stuff to think about.
It's nice to have a discussion like this; it’s been a long while since I had a worthwhile one.

If I think of anything else I'll let you know.

[Echod16]

So, God created, essentially, positive and negative particles with certain properties...that lead to use being created some billion years later to follow him

or was it bing bang boom we're here

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs - anytime my friend.

Echod - It probably could have happened either way.

[Echod16]

Bhs - anytime my friend.

Echod - It probably could have happened either way.

it just seems so farfetched, if it would be true that God waited billions of years for us to come into existence, then he either has...plenty of patience, created other races or has multiple species in different parts of the galaxy worship him, or is much alike the Keeper in the Swor dof Truth, in which has no concept of time, so wouldn't know whether it was 1 second of 100 years

and if it was big bang boom, it would contradict most every scientific discovery ever made

just, boggling i guess..

[Galron Kincaid]

There is NO God.

You mega-brain philosophers are in for a hell of a delusion.



Oh and thanks BHS-Yoda for that life lesson about "wasting my time and anyone's else"...... i think i needed it a lot......almost as a fish needs a bicycle.


Really, the only person here who showed a hint of respect for my opinion without shooting out acres of text is Benjamin up there.

[Bhs Crew]

There is NO God.
How do you know? You are more sure of that then most religious people are that there is a God. You have absolute proof there isn't a God? Humans been looking for absolute proof for thousands of years. If you found it please enlighten us.

You mega-brain philosophers are in for a hell of a delusion.
Well if there is no God then the mega-brain philosphers won't be in for anything because when they die they'll be dead. In the mean time though, its just a discussion. You need to lighten up. Even if you disagree, there is no harm in discussing new ideas.

Oh and thanks BHS-Yoda for that life lesson about "wasting my time and anyone's else"...... i think i needed it a lot......almost as a fish needs a bicycle.
You're welcome. You'd be amazed what a fish can do with a bicycle. If every fish had a bicycle they would rule the world.

Really, the only person here who showed a hint of respect for my opinion without shooting out acres of text is Benjamin up there.
You didn't show any respect for theirs. You didn't even try to read most of what was posted. You didn't keep even a slightly open mind. I'm amazed people showed you the tiny amount of respect they did.

[Bhs Crew]

Bhs - anytime my friend.

So why do you believe Jesus was the son of God?

[Graav Wolfsong]

You're welcome. You'd be amazed what a fish can do with a bicycle. If every fish had a bicycle they would rule the world.

Oh **** youre right! But we cant stop them from getting their flippers on bicycles forever. Can we?
We need to prepare some defenses.
Somebody call Bush and tell him fish are a threat to the US so he can launch a preemptive strike on the grounds that they may have bicycles!

[Galron Kincaid]

LOL you get a God to guide your toughts and call ME close-minded?

[Bhs Crew]

LOL you get a God to guide your toughts and call ME close-minded?
*sigh*
Ok I'm going to say this one more time.
I am not a religious person. I don't ask God to make my day to day decisons as you just said. I don't even know if a God exists. What I'm doing is asking questions and trying to get a better picture of the universe.

That being said, yes, I am calling you close minded. You have already made up your mind about something that you can't know for sure, and you are unwilling to hear any information to the contrary.

This just proves one more time that you don't even bother to read the posts as I wasn't even one of the people arguing for a God.

[Bhs Crew]

Oh **** youre right! But we cant stop them from getting their flippers on bicycles forever. Can we?
We need to prepare some defenses.
Somebody call Bush and tell him fish are a threat to the US so he can launch a preemptive strike on the grounds that they may have bicycles!

Glad I got someone on board. I've been trying to warn people for years. Our hold on the mainland is weak at best. We must kill the fish now before they can stage a massive revolution. Sure people may laugh now, but when they are getting mowed down by waves of bicycle riding Überfish, they will wish they had been prepared.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Galron - No sense arguing with someone who will not participate.




So why do you believe Jesus was the son of God?

[NOTE: I believe he "IS" the Son of God, not "was"]


When considering matters of epistemology (how you know what you know), there are two fundamental models - that of "foundationalism" and "coherentism" (ref. Keith Lehrer, or Quine). The immutibility of reason that guided the preceeding argumentation is characteristic of the foundations of metaphysics, which are immutable. Hence, foundationalism bases knowledge on absolute, inherent maxims and laws, such as reason.

The second aspect, coherentism, is a method of knowing that is not "perfect", but is coherent with the evidence provided from many variables, and how they coalesce together. A good way of looking at coherentism is by a teepee or tent (or a tauren tent) that has no central pillar, but has many poles that meet in the middle to form the roof. So, there is no exact proof, but there are many points that direct one to that conclusion.

Belief that Jesus is the son of God cannot be proven my the methodolgy I presented earlier, though a God that allows for Jesus is the only viable solution as presented earlier. This must come by revelation, and impact in history. Thus, it is of this coherentist model that belief in Jesus is viable by means of reason. The poles that construct this is by means of personal revelation, evidence in history, evidence in people (there are a some christians who actually live the Gospel and in the spirit), and also the grand coherence of the revelation of Christ, which coincides with the metaphysics I have laid out earlier. All of these fit together in a coherent whole, making belief viable, much moreso than any other dynamic.

I will say however, that because of the coherentist model, certainty of knowledge of Christ cannot be possible by means of the human faculty alone. This is also confirmed by Christian revelation, which attests the only way to know Jesus is by means of "relationship". Then some may ask how we can have a relationship with someone or something we dont know. This could prove true in cases of corporeal relations, but the incorporeal, or the spiitual is not subject to measurement (save for the laws and structures of metaphysics), and thus another methodoligy must be employed to arrive at this place. I will thus offer you one thing to chew on.. "Live the question".

[Bhs Crew]

I will thus offer you one thing to chew on.. "Live the question".
Fair enough.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

LOL you get a God to guide your toughts and call ME close-minded?

If you're not going to contribute anything to the discussion, then please quit with pointlessly spewing things out. Heck, you just showed you can't even follow a conversation for crying out loud.

[Spensdawg]

Glad I got someone on board. I've been trying to warn people for years. Our hold on the mainland is weak at best. We must kill the fish now before they can stage a massive revolution. Sure people may laugh now, but when they are getting mowed down by waves of bicycle riding Überfish, they will wish they had been prepared.
We must run and hide!!! The Überfish are coming!!!!


So what are you selling and how much of it can I buy? :D

[Echod16]

We must run and hide!!! The Überfish are coming!!!!


So what are you selling and how much of it can I buy? :D

omfg...you wanna buy stuff when Earth is about to become Planet of the Fish?

[Graav Wolfsong]

He has a point tho', maybe a fish costume so you can sneak away from all the bloodshed as long as you keep your distance.

But most of all, we need surfboards. Thats how we can beat 'em.

[Bhs Crew]

omfg...you wanna buy stuff when Earth is about to become Planet of the Fish?
No, it can be prevented. By defending yourself against the fish, you can help prevent the next revolution.

My all-purpose fish defense kit is only $9.95. It comes with:
1 all purpose board with special Über-nail of fish-destroying
1 bottle of magical fish killing liquid
5 of those six-pack rings (beer cans not included)

You must buy this now! When the fish attack, you don't want to be telling yourself, "Man, if I'd only bought that fish defense kit!"

[Havard]

I can finally see the end of this thread coming... :lol:

[Essex]

No, it can be prevented. By defending yourself against the fish, you can help prevent the next revolution.

My all-purpose fish defense kit is only $9.95. It comes with:
1 all purpose board with special Über-nail of fish-destroying
1 bottle of magical fish killing liquid
5 of those six-pack rings (beer cans not included)

You must buy this now! When the fish attack, you don't want to be telling yourself, "Man, if I'd only bought that fish defense kit!"
i haven't read this since like... page two... but if it ended with that obviously this thread was worth it. That was hella funny bhs

I especially liked the six-pack rings.... they are like deadly ninja stars to aquatic animals.