FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Deism

Deism

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

Anyone other deists on here?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Yeah not really a big believe in Gods or afterlife but at least I'm with them in the science beliefs.

If I had to go with someone I'd probably throw my hat in with native American Indians... I kinda like there philosophy of life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eMontresMan  over a year ago

Halesowen

I tend to Bhudism, mainly because it's a non prophet philosophy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *histler21Man  over a year ago

Ipswich

I worship at the Church of Lakeside.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Deism = hedging your bets. Can't really be bothered with any sort of belief that detracts from reality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Deism = hedging your bets. Can't really be bothered with any sort of belief that detracts from reality."

Well; unless it turns out to be proven to be true.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *reelove1969Couple  over a year ago

bristol

religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/12/14 22:58:38]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman  over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

deism is okay .... but oh oh those su ummmm er nights !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political"

Nobody mentioned religion and this thread isn't about religion either!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *carineMan  over a year ago

Armthorpe, Doncaster

Cello is an abbreviation for violoncello(not violincello). Some basses have a fifth string tuned to the B or C below the bottom E.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Cello is an abbreviation for violoncello(not violincello). Some basses have a fifth string tuned to the B or C below the bottom E."

Yep; I used to have a five string bass. You can have six string basses too (normally tuned F-B-E-A-D-G)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *its_n_piecesCouple  over a year ago

what sort of deism err towards

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"what sort of deism err towards"

Eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *its_n_piecesCouple  over a year ago


"what sort of deism err towards

Eh?"

ha! ..... sorry ..... major typo there ..... what sort of deism do you err towards?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

Myself...probably pandeism. Kind of similar to what Einstein and Heidegger believed.

I also think, like Einstein, that the universe is strictly deterministic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Myself...probably pandeism. Kind of similar to what Einstein and Heidegger believed.

I also think, like Einstein, that the universe is strictly deterministic."

Schroedinger got that one wrong then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation "

I wouldn't be surprised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

We can't prove there isn't one, but I haven't seen enough to convince me there is.

I'm edging towards the 'no god' side of the pendulum and I have attempted to remain as open minded in my deliberation as possible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"We can't prove there isn't one, but I haven't seen enough to convince me there is.

I'm edging towards the 'no god' side of the pendulum and I have attempted to remain as open minded in my deliberation as possible. "

So you're an agnostic who leans towards atheism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised. "

I'm currently on a bonus level.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Theres a fantastic show on History Channel about the translation of the Bible. So much has been deleted of the years from the scriptures. Apparently in early versions of the Bible, there was a Mrs God!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm currently on a bonus level. "

If it is a simulation does anyone know the cheat code so I can gain an inch or two

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

There does seem to be the (wrong) assumption that there is just religion on the one hand, and atheism on the other hand, with no centre ground.

Personally I find that rather annoying. I think as with all things, reality is most probably imbetween the two extremes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rightonsteveMan  over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!


"There does seem to be the (wrong) assumption that there is just religion on the one hand, and atheism on the other hand, with no centre ground.

Personally I find that rather annoying. I think as with all things, reality is most probably imbetween the two extremes."

Your reality is only your perception. It might be different to mine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political"

umm. I think you'll find that most wars always have, and still do have, far more to do with politics than any religion. Religion is far more often used as the label for 'the other' than actually being the real cause. As in Muslims now and Catholics in the past. (Not really one of 'us', must be opposed)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"We can't prove there isn't one, but I haven't seen enough to convince me there is.

I'm edging towards the 'no god' side of the pendulum and I have attempted to remain as open minded in my deliberation as possible. "

I know the OP said this thread is not about religions but I don't thing can talk about belief with out talking about religion as well.

As far as proof is concerned: You'll never find the proof your looking for. If there was proof, (as in empirical, scientific proof, either way then there would be no religion at all. All religions require faith; that's why they are often called faiths; If there was real proof then there would be no need for faith and no point to any of the religions at all. People who believe don't need proof and people who don't don't need it either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm currently on a bonus level.

If it is a simulation does anyone know the cheat code so I can gain an inch or two "

I think a better cheat code would be filling your account with load of money. If you have that a few inches here or there won't put any lady of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There does seem to be the (wrong) assumption that there is just religion on the one hand, and atheism on the other hand, with no centre ground.

Personally I find that rather annoying. I think as with all things, reality is most probably imbetween the two extremes."

So this is about religion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

Deist = creationist

Creator = creator paradox

No evidence for creator

Creator solves no question about existence yet would raise them

No data to suggest a creator is possible , much data to suggest it isn't plausible

Any creator concept has come from the fertile imagination of humans ,just as many scientific theory , to believe either without credible data would be beyond me

I'll stick to a theist

Without belief, in any of the human invented creator concepts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

A theist

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation "

I read something the other day about someone finding a formula within fundamental universal laws that looks remarkably like a piece of code written embedded within all internet browsers that is supposed to reduce errors. Why is that code there written into the fabric of the universe?

We're all doomed and will be deleted and our data will be written over countless times....

Anyhow on that uplifting thought for the day I'm off to work....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

To my mind the computer simulation theory is just geek, creationism

Again it solves nothing , it's only purpose is as a lateral thinking aid , in respect it is hard to Prove this moment we're experiencing now is not a simulation . I don't know how but I'm of the opinion it's philosophically possible to articulate we are not ?

The software and computer need an external , evolved builder and materials .The simulation circle would have to end eventually which then would lead us to question the origins of the reality , back to square one x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"To my mind the computer simulation theory is just geek, creationism

Again it solves nothing , it's only purpose is as a lateral thinking aid , in respect it is hard to Prove this moment we're experiencing now is not a simulation . I don't know how but I'm of the opinion it's philosophically possible to articulate we are not ?

The software and computer need an external , evolved builder and materials .The simulation circle would have to end eventually which then would lead us to question the origins of the reality , back to square one x"

It is not creationism, as it is not based on belief, but a hypothesis that has to be confirmed by obervation. Until it is proved or disapproved there is no basis of fact to accept it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

might give shinto a go this year as a new year resolution , that way will be able to get out of going to the midnight service with the mrs and her bloody mother

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"To my mind the computer simulation theory is just geek, creationism

Again it solves nothing , it's only purpose is as a lateral thinking aid , in respect it is hard to Prove this moment we're experiencing now is not a simulation . I don't know how but I'm of the opinion it's philosophically possible to articulate we are not ?

The software and computer need an external , evolved builder and materials .The simulation circle would have to end eventually which then would lead us to question the origins of the reality , back to square one x

It is not creationism, as it is not based on belief, but a hypothesis that has to be confirmed by obervation. Until it is proved or disapproved there is no basis of fact to accept it."

Yes it's creationism x the hypothesis is that the universe was created by a deity

Beyond that if the Deists suggest the creature ,entity, energy ? they hypothesise exists is not a universal orchestrator then the deity becomes nothing more than an evolved extra terrestrial aka an alien

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

But if that turns out to be true-what then?

I'm not interested in emotional responses to this question ('this is just tantamount to x idea', etc) I'm just interested in the ultimate truth behind the way the universe works.

I don't think myself (based on the evidence) that it is a question of the universe being created by something, I am myself more along the lines of the universe itself being in some way conscious. That is, a very loose kind of pan-deism akin to what Heisenburg, Bohr and Einstein subscribed to. I'm not particularly interested in whether something created us or not, I'm more interested in whether it-be it the universe as some kind of immense quantum computer or what-exists. And there is no reason why science-and particularly the physical sciences-will not provide us with this answer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"There does seem to be the (wrong) assumption that there is just religion on the one hand, and atheism on the other hand, with no centre ground.

Personally I find that rather annoying. I think as with all things, reality is most probably imbetween the two extremes.

So this is about religion "

It has nothing to do with religion, as what I put there clearly stated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"But if that turns out to be true-what then?

I'm not interested in emotional responses to this question ('this is just tantamount to x idea', etc) I'm just interested in the ultimate truth behind the way the universe works.

I don't think myself (based on the evidence) that it is a question of the universe being created by something, I am myself more along the lines of the universe itself being in some way conscious. That is, a very loose kind of pan-deism akin to what Heisenburg, Bohr and Einstein subscribed to. I'm not particularly interested in whether something created us or not, I'm more interested in whether it-be it the universe as some kind of immense quantum computer or what-exists. And there is no reason why science-and particularly the physical sciences-will not provide us with this answer."

I have not seen or heard any data to suggest the matter in the universe is United in any kind of consciousness , I am perfectly able to understand that in infinite time matter that can move will in parts of an infinite universe become self aware

I have no idea where the concept of the entire universe being self aware come from other than imagination

I'm far more interested in the fact matter can interact in such a way we term it living without displaying or needing a self determining consciousness

And let's be very clear

Deists think the consciousness orchestrated the universe .IF it is suggested that the universe manifest a concious as it evolved and not existed from any theoretical start point , that consciousness is alien

It is plausible and statistically high that in the current small visible universe that some matter has evolved to be self aware

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"But if that turns out to be true-what then?

I'm not interested in emotional responses to this question ('this is just tantamount to x idea', etc) I'm just interested in the ultimate truth behind the way the universe works.

I don't think myself (based on the evidence) that it is a question of the universe being created by something, I am myself more along the lines of the universe itself being in some way conscious. That is, a very loose kind of pan-deism akin to what Heisenburg, Bohr and Einstein subscribed to. I'm not particularly interested in whether something created us or not, I'm more interested in whether it-be it the universe as some kind of immense quantum computer or what-exists. And there is no reason why science-and particularly the physical sciences-will not provide us with this answer.

I have not seen or heard any data to suggest the matter in the universe is United in any kind of consciousness , I am perfectly able to understand that in infinite time matter that can move will in parts of an infinite universe become self aware

I have no idea where the concept of the entire universe being self aware come from other than imagination

I'm far more interested in the fact matter can interact in such a way we term it living without displaying or needing a self determining consciousness

And let's be very clear

Deists think the consciousness orchestrated the universe .IF it is suggested that the universe manifest a concious as it evolved and not existed from any theoretical start point , that consciousness is alien

It is plausible and statistically high that in the current small visible universe that some matter has evolved to be self aware"

I agree it's plausible but I don't know where you get the statistical high from. On current evidence, I'd say the likelihood of self awareness existing anywhere else in the universe is pretty low.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes

I find taoist argument quite convincing.

All talk of alien intervention, computer simulation or universal consciousness is just kicking the question of creation further down the road. If it's aliens who or what created the aliens; if it's computer simulation whose running the program, who wrote the program and who or what created them; if it's universal consciousness then what created it, if it occurs naturally then it's not needed as, if consciousness can exist naturaly in the universe them it could also exist here on earth naturally without any creator.

To me there are only 2 reasonable possibilities.

1) The universe existence is a natural occurrence which, while not knowing all the answers yet, science will eventually be able to explain. This may be just one of many natural universes that just occur naturally as a result of some sort of physical reaction. There is no creator, no over all plan, things just happen.

2) There is a creator that has always existed and will always exist. The creator set in motion the creation of the universe and possibly has a plan or will.

Whilst finding option 1 the more logical I personally choose to believe option 2

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

But if you accept the principle of a deterministic universe (something increasingly accepted by physicists and notable absolutely accepted by Einstein), nothing 'just happens'.

This is what Einstein meant when he said 'God does not play dice'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"But if you accept the principle of a deterministic universe (something increasingly accepted by physicists and notable absolutely accepted by Einstein), nothing 'just happens'.

This is what Einstein meant when he said 'God does not play dice'."

John Stewart Bell's theorem on quantum mechanics actually seems to prove Einstein wrong and that we actually live in a non deterministic universe where things only become what they are as they become observed.

But not really sure how scientifically deterministic or not universe makes any difference to either a completely natural universe or universe created by the will or action of a creator?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think the unfortunate truth is that if you only 'believe' in a God then you are unlikely to be able to bring anything of any meaning to the table. This is why the worlds 'faiths' are becoming increasingly redundant. These days we need more than belief and faith... we need proof.

Fortunately there is abundant proof that God exists and we can personally make contact with that God via various esoteric practices, such as meditation. By doing this a person moves beyond 'belief' and into 'knowledge'. Once we know God exists it then becomes a perplexing problem...why? how?

Although I don't like the software analogy, as it suggests the need for an external engineer, and I also agree with Taoist that it is impossible to create an infinite universe and so, therefore, a traditional model of a God that comes before all things and creates them is dubious, I do lean towards the idea that God is dreaming this universe into existence in the present tense and that I am living within that dream. This version does not require an external reality in any concrete sense. It is also entirely plausible that the dream is utterly concrete; that it sends energy into action and, through that, manifests a materiality which is, nonetheless, a dream.

As with all things God-related, it's utterly wonky and wonderfully M C Escher-like in it's seeming implausibility. But I love it that way

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rtemisiaWoman  over a year ago

Norwich

As Piscine Patel asks in The Life of Pi, when it comes to human beings and their apparent need for faith of one kind or another, isn't it just a question of which story you prefer?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"I think the unfortunate truth is that if you only 'believe' in a God then you are unlikely to be able to bring anything of any meaning to the table. This is why the worlds 'faiths' are becoming increasingly redundant. These days we need more than belief and faith... we need proof.

Fortunately there is abundant proof that God exists and we can personally make contact with that God via various esoteric practices, such as meditation. By doing this a person moves beyond 'belief' and into 'knowledge'. Once we know God exists it then becomes a perplexing problem...why? how?

Although I don't like the software analogy, as it suggests the need for an external engineer, and I also agree with Taoist that it is impossible to create an infinite universe and so, therefore, a traditional model of a God that comes before all things and creates them is dubious, I do lean towards the idea that God is dreaming this universe into existence in the present tense and that I am living within that dream. This version does not require an external reality in any concrete sense. It is also entirely plausible that the dream is utterly concrete; that it sends energy into action and, through that, manifests a materiality which is, nonetheless, a dream.

As with all things God-related, it's utterly wonky and wonderfully M C Escher-like in it's seeming implausibility. But I love it that way "

A very beautiful vision.

But I fundamentaly disagrea with the idea that proof is required for the existence of God. If we could prove the existence of God it would not be God but some sort of supper being or even a god but not God. A god that can be proved becomes nothing more than a powerful tyrant demanding our obedience and tribute, like former sovereigns. The whole concept of God, an all powerful, all knowing, ever present entity is only acceptable if it can not be proven but is purely a matter of faith. What would be the difference between a provable god and a superior alien tyrant (benign or otherwise).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"A very beautiful vision.

But I fundamentaly disagrea with the idea that proof is required for the existence of God. If we could prove the existence of God it would not be God but some sort of supper being or even a god but not God. A god that can be proved becomes nothing more than a powerful tyrant demanding our obedience and tribute, like former sovereigns. The whole concept of God, an all powerful, all knowing, ever present entity is only acceptable if it can not be proven but is purely a matter of faith. What would be the difference between a provable god and a superior alien tyrant (benign or otherwise)."

I think you're getting things in a bit of a twist there imo If God exists in any meaningful sense then we should be able to prove that, as we indeed can. If, however, your faith demands that God's existence cannot be proven in this way, perhaps that God lies outside of the universe rather than within it, then you need to come to terms with the fact that, by this definition, such a God does not exist. As such a God does not exist, we needn't concern ourselves with it at all.

Returning to the God which actually does exist and can be proven to exist, this God is not some lesser deity... it is nothing less than the entire universe, all of existence, in it's totality. Even if there is a further God beyond this, such a God does not exist for us, cannot be proven, cannot be connected with, and is therefore unworthy of our attention. For me Metaphysics is only valid when we can see some small shadow of it's truth played out upon our reality. It becomes invalid when we can find no evidence for it's possibility whatsoever. Thus the existence of God is different from that floating Teapot or the Spahetti Monster because there is a fingerprint of the former whilst there is absolutely no evidence of the latter.

God, the real one, does not require anything from us... there is no need to worship or throw ourselves to our knees before it will accept us. This is a classic misunderstanding from those who don't quite grasp the religious impulse. Instead it is we who fall so in love with God that we want to offer ourselves to God, it is we that want to worship God. God really doesn't mind either way... it's us who seek to show devotion... At least that's what I have come to understand

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adgodCouple  over a year ago

Greensburg


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised. "

Neither would I.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

Neither would I. "

If it's a software simulation how come it doesn't keep crashing all time? LOL

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adgodCouple  over a year ago

Greensburg


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

Neither would I.

If it's a software simulation how come it doesn't keep crashing all time? LOL"

Lol. What makes you think you would know if it did?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

Neither would I.

If it's a software simulation how come it doesn't keep crashing all time? LOL"

Maybe it does? Maybe that's what de ja vue is? A crash in the system and then it restarting so we do the same thing again?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adgodCouple  over a year ago

Greensburg

Anytime a system crashes, one of the first things technicians do is try to restore it to it last proper working point. The system then operates from that point as if the crash never occurred. Im not advocating this theory as the true explanation of things and I agree with those who say all that would do is create the question of what made whatever created the program. Im just saying if it is a simulation, it is possible it does crash, and we would never know about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Why creationism? Why not existentialism? Things exist....that's it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Anytime a system crashes, one of the first things technicians do is try to restore it to it last proper working point. The system then operates from that point as if the crash never occurred. Im not advocating this theory as the true explanation of things and I agree with those who say all that would do is create the question of what made whatever created the program. Im just saying if it is a simulation, it is possible it does crash, and we would never know about it. "

That's what I said, only slightly more words involved lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adgodCouple  over a year ago

Greensburg


"Why creationism? Why not existentialism? Things exist....that's it!"

It is certainly a possibility.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you their is a god he is probably a software engineer and we are all living in a simulation

I wouldn't be surprised.

Neither would I.

If it's a software simulation how come it doesn't keep crashing all time? LOL

Maybe it does? Maybe that's what de ja vue is? A crash in the system and then it restarting so we do the same thing again?"

I've got a feeling deva vu is something much more disturbing to our equillibrium. Having had experience of memory loss at a certain point in my life, I can confirm that the world as we experience it does not exist. Instead everything we think the world is is actually just the product of our minds making sense of a series of sensory inputs, putting that into some order and then serving it up to us. What I mean is that we are never living in the present. Instead we live about 1/2 a second in the past. That might not sound like much but the difference between us and what happened 1/2 a second ago is alot. Without memory nothing has any sequential order. Time just arrives to us as raw data. It is our brain which imposes upon it a sense of before and after... a sense of linearity. What I mean is that, if we travel back that 1/2 a second we would likely find a universe completely unlike our own, one in which there is no time, no space, just sensory data. Life, therefore, is the story our memory tells us.

Every once in a while that illusion breaks down and our memory relays events to us ahead of the sequence they're actually supposed to appear in... that's deja vu imo. So it turns out... if the world is an illusion then, at least in some part, we are the unwitting engineers of it. It's at this point that I've gotta admit... I'd rather God was controlling and manipulating my memory than it was just making all this stuff up by itself. The former places me in the hands of an agent I can completely trust... the latter leaves me lost and careening out of control

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

There is no god. Period. Pernod is the proof of that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adgodCouple  over a year ago

Greensburg


"There is no god. Period. Pernod is the proof of that. "

Well....I guess we got all that squared away. On to the next big issue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Which is----boobs. Proof there is a god. Oh. Bugger.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I doubt there would ever be proof that any god exists even if they did.

If a wacko said they saw or spoke to god, it's because they're a wacko.

If an intelligent, balanced and sane person said the same, they'd be a wacko.

If there were a god, looking at how we like to play god, I'm not sure they'd want to leave any clues lying around.

God is something of a word that isn't just a name or a label but a definition meaning one above all, or one to define all.

This planet is one which defines all, and since it can sustain life, it is one above all. The same can be said for this galaxy and maybe even this universe, so I'd rather look at it like god is the definition of existence and take it from there, rather than go around twatting people who won't conform to a belief system/regime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I doubt there would ever be proof that any god exists even if they did.

If a wacko said they saw or spoke to god, it's because they're a wacko.

If an intelligent, balanced and sane person said the same, they'd be a wacko.

If there were a god, looking at how we like to play god, I'm not sure they'd want to leave any clues lying around.

God is something of a word that isn't just a name or a label but a definition meaning one above all, or one to define all.

This planet is one which defines all, and since it can sustain life, it is one above all. The same can be said for this galaxy and maybe even this universe, so I'd rather look at it like god is the definition of existence and take it from there, rather than go around twatting people who won't conform to a belief system/regime."

I think you've latched onto one of the key meanings of the word 'God' i.e. it defines that thing which one holds above all other things. This is why we can say a person's God is money or some pop idol. Agreably there are a raft of other meanings for the word... but this use...to define that which we hold most dear; the axis upon which our lives pivot, is a crucially important aspect of what the word means.

For me, my God, that thing which I place above all others, is the source of life. To some people this means their ancestors, to others it means the Earth, to others it means the Sun, whilst to me and many others it means something more distant and cosmic. I think it is worthy of placing above all other loves in my life because, without it, not only would I not exist but neither would anyone I love, nor any of the things I love. I am therefore clearly so in debt to this source of life that it would be impossible for me to repay it in any way. Nonetheless I will struggle to offer some humble offering of thanks to it; to give myself utterly over to it It is this act of giving that forms the basis of a life of service and of worship. Not that I'm particularly great at it, I'm not a monk for a good reason lol ... But I just wanted to try and convey the feeling in words, just in case it helped others understand it a bit more

Oh yes and btw... everyone has something they hold above all else, an axis upon which their life pivots. In this sense everyone has a God. Proof of the existence of this God is self abundant. We each have one, therefore this God quite obviously exists. This is one way in which we can state that the existence of God can be proved. The other proofs for the other uses of the word God are a little more complicated lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

"

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times?? "

But deism means to believe in the existence of God so if it's not a thread about religion what the hell us it about and why did you title it deism

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow

The issue with deism is, and I don't mean to be disrespectful here, that in a sense it's meaningless. The deist god is basically non-interventionist, unknowable, has no impact in our lives etc so in a sense it's not actually a million miles away from agnosticism or even atheism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"The issue with deism is, and I don't mean to be disrespectful here, that in a sense it's meaningless. The deist god is basically non-interventionist, unknowable, has no impact in our lives etc so in a sense it's not actually a million miles away from agnosticism or even atheism."

All true.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times??

But deism means to believe in the existence of God so if it's not a thread about religion what the hell us it about and why did you title it deism "

Because deism isn't a religion. It *is* a religious viewpoint-in the same way agnosticism or atheism is; but like atheism and agnosticism, it isn't a religion itself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"The issue with deism is, and I don't mean to be disrespectful here, that in a sense it's meaningless. The deist god is basically non-interventionist, unknowable, has no impact in our lives etc so in a sense it's not actually a million miles away from agnosticism or even atheism."

I can see how, if I wanted something from God, then your points would make sense. But I don't want anything so they have no bearing on my approach to this issue.

If a person gave birth to you without being aware of having done so (ok lol it's a bit of a far fetched scenario but bare with me ) ... would they still be your parent? Yes. Would they be someone worth thanking? Yes. Do you need anything from them? No. It is not meaningless to honour your parent, whether they are aware of having given birth to you or not

I do, however, agree that an unknowable God is not worth knowing lol... but, as I've said before, God imo is quite easily knowable via techniques such as meditation...it's just that most people don't bother trying

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times??

But deism means to believe in the existence of God so if it's not a thread about religion what the hell us it about and why did you title it deism

Because deism isn't a religion. It *is* a religious viewpoint-in the same way agnosticism or atheism is; but like atheism and agnosticism, it isn't a religion itself."

I would argue that the world is made up of a variety of 'Faiths'. These are human organisations given over to studying and living by certain dogmas and traditions. They are bound together by 'beliefs' that what is contained in their rituals and texts is true. These Faiths are largely superstitious, rather than religious, and are the cause of much trouble in the world. One of these troubles is that they've all muddied the meaning of the word 'Religion' and turned it into something that a large amount of people in the west would like to see the back of.

'Religion' is actually a subject, just like philosophy or chemistry. To get rid of it, you would need to burn nearly all the books in the world and implement thought control upon the masses; something I'm sure the Nazi's had wet dreams about. Religion is a way of looking at the universe and includes within it Deism; a belief in God which is independent of any of the various Faith's texts, perhaps via scientific proof instead.

You could argue that religion is a subset of philosophy, and perhaps it is. But, for me, religion is a step beyond philosophy. It's when you have a philosophical realisation about the nature of life that instills such a depth of awe in you that you feel compelled to act upon it. It is this that makes someone religious, not any membership to a particular group or club. Unfortunately, for most people, they do go on from this and join a Faith Bad move. Instead we should stay free of dogma and carry on questioning and exploring the religion that we ourselves are discovering, and not suffocate it by superimposing another's cookie cutter Faith upon it.

That's the way I see it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Anytime a system crashes, one of the first things technicians do is try to restore it to it last proper working point. The system then operates from that point as if the crash never occurred. Im not advocating this theory as the true explanation of things and I agree with those who say all that would do is create the question of what made whatever created the program. Im just saying if it is a simulation, it is possible it does crash, and we would never know about it.

That's what I said, only slightly more words involved lol"

Guys! I was joking. Ok.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Why creationism? Why not existentialism? Things exist....that's it!

It is certainly a possibility. "

As a scientific explanation it's even less satisfactory then the God argument.

The question then would be. Why does it all exist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

"

And you might be right or you might be wrong but without any explanation of the rational that leafs you to that belief it adds little to the discussion.

That's not say it's not a valid belief or any less worthy than anything else said here. Just, without out explanation, it's blowing in the wind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times?? "

I think it is now TBH. Sorry!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I believe religion was man made originally to instill fear into people to keep them in line

This thread...isn't about religion!!

How...many times??

But deism means to believe in the existence of God so if it's not a thread about religion what the hell us it about and why did you title it deism "

Is it worth pointing out that there are quite a few religions that are atheistic or agnostic too...Jainism has absolutely no notion of a God whatsoever and rejects the existence of one altogether, as do some strains of Hinduism, and Buddhism deems the whole question of the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods to be totally irrelevant.

Belief in a deity does not neccesarily = religion, and vice-versa.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Whats the difference between Deism Atheism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Whats the difference between Deism Atheism?"

Atheism=disbelief in a God or Gods (from Greek 'a' meaning no, and 'theos' meaning 'God'). That's it essentially. You can believe in other stuff like an afterlife or ghosts etc and still be considered an atheist. The only pre-requisite is that you don't accept the existence of a God or Gods.

Deism=belief in a God, but not a personal God that you can pray to and who concerns himself with the day to day affairs of human beings like you find in a lot of religions. Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

There's also pandeism which is the idea that the Universe itself is the same thing as God, but this God again does not interfere with the affairs of humans or answer prayer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Ok, so Einstein believed in Deism then.

It does seem Deism seems a better way to think with what is happening in the world past and present.

But its still ok to believe in Santa right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Ok, so Einstein believed in Deism then.

It does seem Deism seems a better way to think with what is happening in the world past and present.

But its still ok to believe in Santa right? "

Yes, Einstein was what you would call a pan-deist.

Incidentally though, Einstein didn't believe in an afterlife (again, not a pre-requisite to being a deist).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Ok, so Einstein believed in Deism then.

It does seem Deism seems a better way to think with what is happening in the world past and present.

But its still ok to believe in Santa right?

Yes, Einstein was what you would call a pan-deist.

Incidentally though, Einstein didn't believe in an afterlife (again, not a pre-requisite to being a deist)."

I'm not sure I see the point of this god if it does nothing. Or is that the point, that there is no point to this god it just is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Ok, so Einstein believed in Deism then.

It does seem Deism seems a better way to think with what is happening in the world past and present.

But its still ok to believe in Santa right?

Yes, Einstein was what you would call a pan-deist.

Incidentally though, Einstein didn't believe in an afterlife (again, not a pre-requisite to being a deist).

I'm not sure I see the point of this god if it does nothing. Or is that the point, that there is no point to this god it just is?"

Pretty much.

But; given human being's immense insignificance in this universe, would it not be human arrogance to assume that God existed for our benefit? That there has to be 'a point' for us?

I would argue it's the other way around.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

P.s. By 'point for us'; I mean why would a God need to have a point? That's like saying 'what is the point of a human being's body to a red blood cell'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!"

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

"

*started

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

"

This is pretty much my take on things. I think it's possible the whole universe is one immense, conscious organism and we are part of it; and I see no reason not to label such a being 'God'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife? "

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

This is pretty much my take on things. I think it's possible the whole universe is one immense, conscious organism and we are part of it; and I see no reason not to label such a being 'God'.

"

maybe we are the cancer on another organism...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence..."

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *1paljungMan  over a year ago

Richmond


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

*started"

I'm comforted by the fact my 700000000000000000000000000 atoms will live on in the Universe in some form or another for many years to come

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife"

I'd like to think pure science..

I'd like to think everything on the gran scheme of things is pointless and has no meaning(cue psychopathy)

In a world where we know nothing actually changes the universe in a whole, I can argue , that something wont really matter...but the thoughts, the emotions of my past influences(learnings), have an effect on how I conduct my life.

It's anthropy with a devilish twist...and perhaps that is what keeps our reality going..order and chaos, a future set and a future that cannot be set..perplexing as it may sound..it is to me the only way a universe(s) can survive..thats if youb take into account the idea we have more than one existence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

*started

I'm comforted by the fact my 700000000000000000000000000 atoms will live on in the Universe in some form or another for many years to come "

I might have ur spunk on my face someday

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife

I'd like to think pure science..

I'd like to think everything on the gran scheme of things is pointless and has no meaning(cue psychopathy)

In a world where we know nothing actually changes the universe in a whole, I can argue , that something wont really matter...but the thoughts, the emotions of my past influences(learnings), have an effect on how I conduct my life.

It's anthropy with a devilish twist...and perhaps that is what keeps our reality going..order and chaos, a future set and a future that cannot be set..perplexing as it may sound..it is to me the only way a universe(s) can survive..thats if youb take into account the idea we have more than one existence.

"

Well I think that ties in with what Einstein used to say that science will eventually 'eat' religion just as chemistry 'ate' alchemy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife

I'd like to think pure science..

I'd like to think everything on the gran scheme of things is pointless and has no meaning(cue psychopathy)

In a world where we know nothing actually changes the universe in a whole, I can argue , that something wont really matter...but the thoughts, the emotions of my past influences(learnings), have an effect on how I conduct my life.

It's anthropy with a devilish twist...and perhaps that is what keeps our reality going..order and chaos, a future set and a future that cannot be set..perplexing as it may sound..it is to me the only way a universe(s) can survive..thats if youb take into account the idea we have more than one existence.

Well I think that ties in with what Einstein used to say that science will eventually 'eat' religion just as chemistry 'ate' alchemy."

I dont know much really about alchemy, but I cannot say that when these things were proposed, they must have had some incling that elements such as gold/diamond, were not just great to look at...we now know these elements are pretty much things our sciences could never have progressed with...

I dont think we've always been stupid lol..how we have relayed/acknowledged that information is what is stupid..or shrewd controlling...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *1paljungMan  over a year ago

Richmond


"I've stateted to think...

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

*started

I'm comforted by the fact my 700000000000000000000000000 atoms will live on in the Universe in some form or another for many years to come

I might have ur spunk on my face someday "

Haha, I'd pay good money to see that!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I've stateted to think...

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

*started

I'm comforted by the fact my 700000000000000000000000000 atoms will live on in the Universe in some form or another for many years to come

I might have ur spunk on my face someday

Haha, I'd pay good money to see that!"

in another universe babe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *1paljungMan  over a year ago

Richmond


"I've stateted to think...

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

*started

I'm comforted by the fact my 700000000000000000000000000 atoms will live on in the Universe in some form or another for many years to come

I might have ur spunk on my face someday

Haha, I'd pay good money to see that!

in another universe babe "

Quantum mechanics anyone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife"

In deed and you don't have to look that far for a religion that believes in God but not in an after life. Not all Jewish doctrine has the concept of an after life. In fact this was the big split in Judaism at about the same time Christ. The Pharisees believed in an after life whilst the Sadducees did not. In fact the whole concept of heaven and hell, as we imagine them in the Western world, has far more to do with Greco/Roman ideas of Olympus and Hades than anything from the original Aramaic religions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"If you believe it fair enough...if you dont

BURN IN HELL!

Ahh but what if you're like Einstein and you believe in a God...but not an afterlife?

why does an afterlife incluse 'god'...arent we pretty much just recycled material?...the big bang may just be something as simple as a neuron firing over and over again, our perception can never fathom the idea in real terms...but if a mind is energy, and we are all actually connected..nothing actually leaves our plane of existence...

It doesn't have to include God...like I said earlier, there are plenty of religions and belief systems that believe in an afterlife but don't believe in a God.

Likewise there are belief systems and religions that accept the existence of a God or Gods but don't believe in an afterlife

In deed and you don't have to look that far for a religion that believes in God but not in an after life. Not all Jewish doctrine has the concept of an after life. In fact this was the big split in Judaism at about the same time Christ. The Pharisees believed in an after life whilst the Sadducees did not. In fact the whole concept of heaven and hell, as we imagine them in the Western world, has far more to do with Greco/Roman ideas of Olympus and Hades than anything from the original Aramaic religions. "

Abrahamic* (dam auto correct. grrr)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

Yep. Which is why I think the standard marxist (as well as other) explanation of religion as a means of distracting people from their lot in this life by promising them better things in an afterlife in order to exploit and control them falls flat.

Didn't early Judaism have no concept of an afterlife whatsoever? I'm sure there's a line in one of the earlier books of the Tanakh/Old Testament that says just that too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago

But the Greco-Roman concept of an afterlife had more in common with the ancient Celtic, Germanic/Norse and Slav afterlifes than the dual heaven/hell dynamic. (and indeed the Greek and Roman religions shared the same origins as these other religions); the whole notion was that it was only aristocrats who got to 'the nice place' (Elysium for the romans, Valhalla for the Norse, Germans and Saxons...etc)...with the added criteria with some of them that you had to die in battle. Everyone else held a sort of ghostly limbo-ish existence in the underworld (Hades to the Greeks and Romans, Hel to the Norse/Germans/Saxons...etc)

That said though, the romano-greek idea of the underworld did admittedly influence the later medieval Christian conception of hell-something not described at all in the bible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards."

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator "

I didn't say that's what I thought...I'm not a straight-up deist-rather a pandeist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

This is pretty much my take on things. I think it's possible the whole universe is one immense, conscious organism and we are part of it; and I see no reason not to label such a being 'God'.

"

I see a number of reasons , the main one being language and communication . The word god cannot just be attributed to absolutely anything and expect to be understood or taken seriously

I'd suggest to qualify as a god concept certain parameters and attributes are essential to qualify to use the definition "god"

The main one would be sentient creator, a thinking orchestrator, an originator of all that exists matter and energy ,

If you don't include the above attributes to your imagined , theorised concept you do not have a "god" concept

Suggesting matter exists and has become sentient does not make the grade of a god concept it is , a theory regarding non terrestial life existing beyond earth, I understand we call these aliens

I have little doubt that beyond earth life of some description exists , no one has enough data to say more on that subject without stepping into relatively wild speculation

I have zero belief that the foundation of the universe is because an eternal something , reasoned it into being. We will always have the question regarding the origins of such an advanced orchestrator . Which we are always left with ,

it has always existed

or it evolved from non sentient mass

It does not matter how vague or how ethereal the imagined concept is the word God does have some intrinsic definition or else it is beyond meaningless

So God = eternal creator

if not whatever it may be and totally regardless of if a person wants it to be it is not a god concept

Here is a point, if we do not give the word god certain distinguishing parameters , we could all factually declare gravity and electricity ARE gods

Just need a telescope to observe how our Lord gravity shapes the visible universe , however the gravity god does not illustrate any creativity or decision making or sentient behaviour

Let's not forget there is zero data to suggest anything that could be termed "sentient orchestrator" exists in any format

And every story is wild speculation without any collaborative data, that is NOT saying a speculative theory cannot be illustrated to be true

Just a side note , suggesting the universe is concious has zero data . We currently have no idea if anything we could call life exists elsewhere , so I'm not being closed minded or unreasonable illustrating that said concept is speculation

however on earth there are examples of non concious communication pathways between plants, where it has been observed a plant will chemically signal if being attacked , nothing so far inorganic has exhibited any sign it can even do this and so far we only observe inorganic as the substance of the universe suggesting hydrogen gas is somehow alive and sentient is just imagination as nothing that would suggest this is evidenced

Gravity and kinetic energy explain the observations of gas clouds, stars, galaxies and solar systems and I'd suggest they are neither GOD or aliens

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Myself...probably pandeism. Kind of similar to what Einstein and Heidegger believed.

I also think, like Einstein, that the universe is strictly deterministic."

Sorry to disagree but I thought John Bell disproved Einstein's hypothesis- or at least that's what Jim al-khalili said on tv last week

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator "

But space and time are not infinite. The universe as we know it has a starting point, a point of creation, where everything that is was created. This is often refereed to as 'The Big Bang'. And all the evidence seems to suggest that time itself is not a steady flowing stream but is related in some way to gravity and mass; which means, in an oxymoron sort of way, time as we know it, is not infinite but could only exist after the creation of the universe itself.

The only way you can talk about anything being infinite is if it exited before the universe existed. A sort off time before time where nothing had shape or form. In this time before time we have one simple but un answerable question and it is this:- "Is the current perceived universe created by the will of a creator or is it a natural occurrence that just happened".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator

But space and time are not infinite. The universe as we know it has a starting point, a point of creation, where everything that is was created. This is often refereed to as 'The Big Bang'. And all the evidence seems to suggest that time itself is not a steady flowing stream but is related in some way to gravity and mass; which means, in an oxymoron sort of way, time as we know it, is not infinite but could only exist after the creation of the universe itself.

The only way you can talk about anything being infinite is if it exited before the universe existed. A sort off time before time where nothing had shape or form. In this time before time we have one simple but un answerable question and it is this:- "Is the current perceived universe created by the will of a creator or is it a natural occurrence that just happened"."

I don't believe big bang was the start of everything .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I've stateted to think I might just be the fleeting thoughts of a larger organism....yes, its that pteri dish thing..

my time will be unfathomable to something much smaller(and i suppose much larger), in one case I may appear the most primitive of lifeforms, but to those 'lower' than me..I may appear as their god.

I might just be the passing synaptic neuron in something elses mind...for them it lasts less than a jiffy, to me, its an eternity

This is pretty much my take on things. I think it's possible the whole universe is one immense, conscious organism and we are part of it; and I see no reason not to label such a being 'God'.

I see a number of reasons , the main one being language and communication . The word god cannot just be attributed to absolutely anything and expect to be understood or taken seriously

I'd suggest to qualify as a god concept certain parameters and attributes are essential to qualify to use the definition "god"

The main one would be sentient creator, a thinking orchestrator, an originator of all that exists matter and energy ,

If you don't include the above attributes to your imagined , theorised concept you do not have a "god" concept

Suggesting matter exists and has become sentient does not make the grade of a god concept it is , a theory regarding non terrestial life existing beyond earth, I understand we call these aliens

I have little doubt that beyond earth life of some description exists , no one has enough data to say more on that subject without stepping into relatively wild speculation

I have zero belief that the foundation of the universe is because an eternal something , reasoned it into being. We will always have the question regarding the origins of such an advanced orchestrator . Which we are always left with ,

it has always existed

or it evolved from non sentient mass

It does not matter how vague or how ethereal the imagined concept is the word God does have some intrinsic definition or else it is beyond meaningless

So God = eternal creator

if not whatever it may be and totally regardless of if a person wants it to be it is not a god concept

Here is a point, if we do not give the word god certain distinguishing parameters , we could all factually declare gravity and electricity ARE gods

Just need a telescope to observe how our Lord gravity shapes the visible universe , however the gravity god does not illustrate any creativity or decision making or sentient behaviour

Let's not forget there is zero data to suggest anything that could be termed "sentient orchestrator" exists in any format

And every story is wild speculation without any collaborative data, that is NOT saying a speculative theory cannot be illustrated to be true

Just a side note , suggesting the universe is concious has zero data . We currently have no idea if anything we could call life exists elsewhere , so I'm not being closed minded or unreasonable illustrating that said concept is speculation

however on earth there are examples of non concious communication pathways between plants, where it has been observed a plant will chemically signal if being attacked , nothing so far inorganic has exhibited any sign it can even do this and so far we only observe inorganic as the substance of the universe suggesting hydrogen gas is somehow alive and sentient is just imagination as nothing that would suggest this is evidenced

Gravity and kinetic energy explain the observations of gas clouds, stars, galaxies and solar systems and I'd suggest they are neither GOD or aliens

"

Suggesting that an 'eternal creator' fits the definition of a 'God' seems to me a rather western-centric, judeo-christian-islamic-centric notion. The hindu conception of Brahman-that Brahma is all that exists and that Brahma is thus identical with the universe certainly doesn't fit that definition of a 'God'; and the Buddhist conception of the devas-the idea that the Gods certainly exist, but they are not all-powerful, did not create the universe and die and are reborn just like everyone else most certainly doesn't, and yet western scholars have absolutely no problem calling these 'Gods'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator

But space and time are not infinite. The universe as we know it has a starting point, a point of creation, where everything that is was created. This is often refereed to as 'The Big Bang'. And all the evidence seems to suggest that time itself is not a steady flowing stream but is related in some way to gravity and mass; which means, in an oxymoron sort of way, time as we know it, is not infinite but could only exist after the creation of the universe itself.

The only way you can talk about anything being infinite is if it exited before the universe existed. A sort off time before time where nothing had shape or form. In this time before time we have one simple but un answerable question and it is this:- "Is the current perceived universe created by the will of a creator or is it a natural occurrence that just happened".

I don't believe big bang was the start of everything . "

As an aside, did you know the guy who first came up with the notion of the Big Bang was a Roman Cathoic priest?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political"

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator

But space and time are not infinite. The universe as we know it has a starting point, a point of creation, where everything that is was created. This is often refereed to as 'The Big Bang'. And all the evidence seems to suggest that time itself is not a steady flowing stream but is related in some way to gravity and mass; which means, in an oxymoron sort of way, time as we know it, is not infinite but could only exist after the creation of the universe itself.

The only way you can talk about anything being infinite is if it exited before the universe existed. A sort off time before time where nothing had shape or form. In this time before time we have one simple but un answerable question and it is this:- "Is the current perceived universe created by the will of a creator or is it a natural occurrence that just happened".

I don't believe big bang was the start of everything . "

.

What concept do you prefer and what science do you have to think it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed. "

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Basically, God starts everything off, then does not interfere with the universe afterwards.

That's completely impossible. You would need to believe in a finite uiverse4 with a finite time line; something which is not only unlikely but imo theoretically impossible. If space and time are infinite... nothing could have come before it...hence it is impossible for it to have had a creator

But space and time are not infinite. The universe as we know it has a starting point, a point of creation, where everything that is was created. This is often refereed to as 'The Big Bang'. And all the evidence seems to suggest that time itself is not a steady flowing stream but is related in some way to gravity and mass; which means, in an oxymoron sort of way, time as we know it, is not infinite but could only exist after the creation of the universe itself.

The only way you can talk about anything being infinite is if it exited before the universe existed. A sort off time before time where nothing had shape or form. In this time before time we have one simple but un answerable question and it is this:- "Is the current perceived universe created by the will of a creator or is it a natural occurrence that just happened".

I don't believe big bang was the start of everything . "

We are all free to believe what ever we want. I to do not believe that the 'Big Bang' was the start of everything but the empirical evidence is that it was the start of this finite universe. So you can not argue that we live in a n infinite universe when the evidence quite simply says otherwise. The current universe has a starting point and if it has a starting point then it is not infinite.

That's not to say that something infinite can not exist outside the perceived universe. In fact that is what I believe. I call this thing that always was, always is and always will be God. But that is a belief not an empirically proved fact.

So to say that something is impossible because you believe something different, without providing any empirical proof of what you believe, could just be seen as being closed minded.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history."

Lets see whats bad about war.... you'd only understand if you were in the other side of the equation. If war isn't a bad thing, then murder and theft should be legalised in your book.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history.

Lets see whats bad about war.... you'd only understand if you were in the other side of the equation. If war isn't a bad thing, then murder and theft should be legalised in your book. "

Whereas I personally would not go so far as to say I don't see what makes war a bad thing, I don't think that legalising murder and theft is the logical conclusion to what he said.

From an evolutionary point of view and from a technological improvement point of view war and conflict does have many advantages.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history.

Lets see whats bad about war.... you'd only understand if you were in the other side of the equation. If war isn't a bad thing, then murder and theft should be legalised in your book. "

Is there any real difference between war and murder besides the fact that one is endorsed by the state, and the other is not?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history.

Lets see whats bad about war.... you'd only understand if you were in the other side of the equation. If war isn't a bad thing, then murder and theft should be legalised in your book.

Whereas I personally would not go so far as to say I don't see what makes war a bad thing, I don't think that legalising murder and theft is the logical conclusion to what he said.

From an evolutionary point of view and from a technological improvement point of view war and conflict does have many advantages."

Nope.

It is the emotional conclusion though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *1paljungMan  over a year ago

Richmond

Seriously my favourite thread in yonks, kudos!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"religeon seems to breed hatred ..there are more religeous wars going on currently than political

In the sea, the big fish don't need to provide an excuse for eating the small fish. For humans its quite different. Having a different way of life or a competitive belief is the excuse these days. Don't blame religion. Blame human greed.

Humans (like all other animals) are naturally territorial and evolution is all about competition. In light of all that; I don't see what makes war a bad thing, and to say otherwise in my opinion is merely a relic of the Christian narrative of history.

Lets see whats bad about war.... you'd only understand if you were in the other side of the equation. If war isn't a bad thing, then murder and theft should be legalised in your book.

Is there any real difference between war and murder besides the fact that one is endorsed by the state, and the other is not?"

Yes the difference is the scale of the damage. The state endorsed wars results in genocides, rape, theft, destruction, poisening of humans, animials and nature, hatred and even after the war ends, the history is still there to remind the next generations to what happened to the parents and great parents and there will always be episode 2 and 3 and 4 of revenge wars and hatred and conflicts and racism ... the desastrous concequences of a war are too mutch too big to count or list. A murder however, although no matter how big the punishement is for the criminial that nothing will bring the victim back to his family and those who loved him/her but at least part of the justice can be done in court.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The problem with time is that there must always have been something before it...something before the big bang...something before the thing that was before the big bang... and so on... that is if you are driven to believe in a finite universe. Sooner or later you end up having to come to terms with the fact that this chain of 'befores' is never ending i.e. that the universe is infinite. As there never was a time before the universe existed, it therefore follows that there could not have been a creator before it. Instead, by making the universe finite we only shuffle the same problem deeper into the pack by creating an infinite creator. If God is not infinite then it transpires to only be a sub deity as there must, therefore, have been a creator of that God, or a time before that God. Previous generations couldn't face the idea of an infinite universe so they relied upon a God as having created it. However, when it came to defining that God they could not bring themselves to define that God as finite and, instead, defined it as infinite and unfathomable. In truth this latter description is a more accurate description of the universe itself. Thus, having had personal experience of God myself, I am driven to the conclusion that the universe is alive and aware; that it is God... it always existed and always will.

I can see that Taoist is trying to pin down what the word God means in order to suit his own agenda. I respect that but unfortunately he's pinned it down inaccurately. Firstly we need to pin it down as something which exists, not something which is a fantasy. It is the source of all things, and may, infact be the sum of all things... we simply don't know. For some, like me, it is aware, whilst for others, like lincolnjay perhaps, it is simply alive. Crucial to the whole concept of God is not whether it is involved in us or not... but whether it is our true source of coming into being; our true parent. This also explains the second important meaning of the word God i.e. to hold in the highest regard. When I say that something is God I place it at the apex of my life. Thus the core meaning of the word God, in a religious setting, is to hold the true parent, the original source of all life, in the highest regard i.e. to worship and adore it. That, in a nutshell is what the word God really means. Anything else is better serrved by terms such as angels, demons, deities, and gods with a small g.... all of which are imo nonsense.

The definition I've given above is shared by all the faiths of the world... except they add their own mythological baggage to it. Fundamentally under it all, however, they exist in order to honour and praise the source of all things. Thats my 2.5p

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Firstly we need to pin it down as something which exists, not something which is a fantasy."

Sorry ...I wrote this in haste. What I mean by that is if you define God as something which can't exist then obviously such a God does not exist. This is why the Christian argument about a God which exists outside of existence undermines itself. It defines God as something which doesn't exist and therefore obviously such a God does not exist. The real task of the Atheist is to try and find terms in which God can be defined as something which exists and then disprove that. Anything less is a fruitless excercise in circular thinking imo.

A crucial thing to bear in mind, when defining God, is that Catholicism and many other faiths define God as unknowable and infinite. Therefore any description of God needs to confront that belief, otherwise you're really only dealing with a sub-set of religious belief. Thus any description of God as something finite, such as a man on a cloud or some big superior alien, only really applies to a very few of the most primitive superstitions. Indeed, there is evidence that even these tribal superstitions have a concept of an original creator which is completely nebullous and unlike any of their worldly spirits or plant gods. They simply don't worship this creator because they are too concerned with winning favor from the lesser spirits which hold sway over their lives... or so they think

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"The problem with time is that there must always have been something before it...something before the big bang...something before the thing that was before the big bang... and so on... that is if you are driven to believe in a finite universe. Sooner or later you end up having to come to terms with the fact that this chain of 'befores' is never ending i.e. that the universe is infinite. As there never was a time before the universe existed, it therefore follows that there could not have been a creator before it. Instead, by making the universe finite we only shuffle the same problem deeper into the pack by creating an infinite creator. If God is not infinite then it transpires to only be a sub deity as there must, therefore, have been a creator of that God, or a time before that God. Previous generations couldn't face the idea of an infinite universe so they relied upon a God as having created it. However, when it came to defining that God they could not bring themselves to define that God as finite and, instead, defined it as infinite and unfathomable. In truth this latter description is a more accurate description of the universe itself. Thus, having had personal experience of God myself, I am driven to the conclusion that the universe is alive and aware; that it is God... it always existed and always will.

I can see that Taoist is trying to pin down what the word God means in order to suit his own agenda. I respect that but unfortunately he's pinned it down inaccurately. Firstly we need to pin it down as something which exists, not something which is a fantasy. It is the source of all things, and may, infact be the sum of all things... we simply don't know. For some, like me, it is aware, whilst for others, like lincolnjay perhaps, it is simply alive. Crucial to the whole concept of God is not whether it is involved in us or not... but whether it is our true source of coming into being; our true parent. This also explains the second important meaning of the word God i.e. to hold in the highest regard. When I say that something is God I place it at the apex of my life. Thus the core meaning of the word God, in a religious setting, is to hold the true parent, the original source of all life, in the highest regard i.e. to worship and adore it. That, in a nutshell is what the word God really means. Anything else is better serrved by terms such as angels, demons, deities, and gods with a small g.... all of which are imo nonsense.

The definition I've given above is shared by all the faiths of the world... except they add their own mythological baggage to it. Fundamentally under it all, however, they exist in order to honour and praise the source of all things. Thats my 2.5p "

WOW. Let me think about all that for a couple of years, then I'll come back.

But on a few points.

Firstly the Universe is finite because it has a beginning. Whether something else which is infinite exists or existed around or before the universe is simply speculation or belief.

Time, as we understand, only starts at the creation of the universe. Anything before that is a time before time began and is beyond our comprehension.

From a scientific point of view it's as valid that something unknowable was there 'before' time and the universe or that nothing was before the universe and , as time only exists within the universe, there just simply is no 'before' the universe.

There is no requirement for anything infinite and no empirical proof that anything infinite exists at all either in our finite universe or, if any exists out side it, out side it. Any belief in any such thing is just simply that, belief. It may be true but it's still belief.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But on a few points.

Firstly the Universe is finite because it has a beginning. Whether something else which is infinite exists or existed around or before the universe is simply speculation or belief."

This reasoning is folly as it's a bit like saying that the universe is a box and outside that box is a whole lot of nothing that goes on forever i.e. the universe is finite within an infinite void. Why isn't the void part of the universe? Why have you chosen to exclude it? A better description would be that the universe is like an infinite egg, with a finite yolk and an infinite white. Regardless the universe is infinite. To suggest it isn't would be to suggest that it has an edge. If it has an edge... what is beyond this edge? If the answer to this is 'nothing' then the next question is how much nothing? The answer to this must be an infinite amount of nothing or else we haven't actually reached the edge of the universe and there is something else to be discovered beyond this nothingness. If there is an infinite void of nothingness at the edge of the universe we return to the same arbitrary decision to exclude this void from our description of the universe. The universe must be infinite. Any other model is far harder to rationalise imo.


"Time, as we understand, only starts at the creation of the universe. Anything before that is a time before time began and is beyond our comprehension.

From a scientific point of view it's as valid that something unknowable was there 'before' time and the universe or that nothing was before the universe and , as time only exists within the universe, there just simply is no 'before' the universe.

There is no requirement for anything infinite and no empirical proof that anything infinite exists at all either in our finite universe or, if any exists out side it, out side it. Any belief in any such thing is just simply that, belief. It may be true but it's still belief."

On the contrary it's completely unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view that something came out of nothing. For the universe to have sprung into existence from a big bang, before which there was nothing... this defies all the laws of nature as we know them i.e. something was created out of nothing i.e. a miracle occured. By defining it as a miracle you're shirking the scientific impulse to find answers. Surely a much better conclusion was that there was something before the big bang which caused it? Surely that's more plausible and scientific? If we are now talking only about our own era i.e. that there was a universe before ours, or at least something in existence which caused ours to come into being, then we must conclude that there seem to have been what may be a long chain of big bangs and universes like our own. This argument is particularly important if you don't believe in God because the balance of our universe, and it's ability to bring self aware life into existence within it, is so utterly improbable that you would need to argue that our big bang was merely the one successful one in a long chain of many many unsuccessful ones if you wished to dispose of a God hypothesis. How long is this chain? Most likely infinite otherwise you're only shuffling the problem deeper into the pack again... and so we come back to that maddening view of infinity again.

I think the thing people need to come to terms with is that on our Earth things are born and they die. Furthermore there are cycles and seasons which we can perceive in the world around us. All of this has led us to develop a way of thinking about the world which involves beginnings middles and ends. We have evolved our whole culture around this, and all of our stories follow this formula, including most of our religious myths. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that this mindset applies to the way the universe, and God imo, works. We continually seek to impose beginnings and ends on it... and yet these ideas are likely to be merly a human-eyed view on things imo

It's been fun going down the rabbit hole

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Actually, after writing the above, I suddenly realised that our big bang and our 'universe' is probably only one of a huge array of big bangs and 'universes' each springing up and fading away... all occuring within a much vaster void i.e. that what we think of as the 'universe' is only a small subset of it and that, somewhere else, right now, there is another big bang going on far far away and another 'universe' springing into existence.

For me the word universe only makes sense as a description of the whole. Therefore it is the vast void which is springing all of these big bangs into being which we should call the universe not these smaller phenomena within it.

It's quite a beautiful vision really... something like a cosmic firework show going on all around us... far far off in the void Ooo pretty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"Actually, after writing the above, I suddenly realised that our big bang and our 'universe' is probably only one of a huge array of big bangs and 'universes' each springing up and fading away... all occuring within a much vaster void i.e. that what we think of as the 'universe' is only a small subset of it and that, somewhere else, right now, there is another big bang going on far far away and another 'universe' springing into existence.

For me the word universe only makes sense as a description of the whole. Therefore it is the vast void which is springing all of these big bangs into being which we should call the universe not these smaller phenomena within it.

It's quite a beautiful vision really... something like a cosmic firework show going on all around us... far far off in the void Ooo pretty "

While I don't believe that what you are saying is wrong, in fact I belief that something like what you are saying is not only plausible and possible, it is still belief not empirically proofed fact. The empirically proved facts are that the universe that we perceive is not infinite and does have a beginning. Belief does not come into it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"While I don't believe that what you are saying is wrong, in fact I belief that something like what you are saying is not only plausible and possible, it is still belief not empirically proofed fact. The empirically proved facts are that the universe that we perceive is not infinite and does have a beginning. Belief does not come into it."

It is also an empirically proven fact that it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You have a belief that the universe just began at some point. This belief requires a miracle to have occured, making something out of nothing.

If you accept that, instead, it is more rational to suggest that something existed 'before' the universe, which caused it to come into being, then why are you excluding this pre-existing thing from our model of the universe? To exclude it based upon lack of knowledge of it is tantamount to saying that something may have come out of nothing, and you would need to defend why you believe this. We have lack of empirical evidence of many things... indeed I don't think we've even seen a black hole yet and they're already talking about white holes. The point is that what you're proposing needs to add up in some way... and what you're proposing does not.. at least that's the way I see it

Finally.. if you insist that our universe is finite and that nothing may have gone before it... then, as a result, you MUST believe in God, as you would need God in order to make your model work. You would need God to make something out of nothing and you would need God to make sure that this one and only finite universe somehow miraculously sprung into existence in such a perfectly balanced state that it was capable of not only giving birth to life, but self aware life. This is so utterly implausible for a one-off creation that you would need a God to explain how that happened... random chance just wouldn't be enough. Random chance only becomes enough when you start to entertain that our big bang is only one of many and it's only then that you can move away from needing a God in order to support your argument. So, you see, your argument is much more religious than scientific. I like it, as I'm a religious man, but I don't think it's plausible... but who knows??? Maybe you're right lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Lol I just realised that's you on the other thread Unleashed... So I guess you do believe in God and that's how you square things up. That's cool But it still doesn't make much sense for me. I also believe in God, well to be honest I've had direct contact so I'm pretty happy that I have strong empirical evidence for God's existence... but my sense is that God is infinite and all pervading... not finite and external to our universe... so I kinda include God in my model of the universe... and that's another reason why I prefer the inifinite universe model Merry Xmas

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

in my universe..I'm right.Do not question me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *nleashedCrakenMan  over a year ago

Widnes


"But on a few points.

Firstly the Universe is finite because it has a beginning. Whether something else which is infinite exists or existed around or before the universe is simply speculation or belief.

This reasoning is folly as it's a bit like saying that the universe is a box and outside that box is a whole lot of nothing that goes on forever i.e. the universe is finite within an infinite void. Why isn't the void part of the universe? Why have you chosen to exclude it?

"

No, I’m not saying outside the box is anything or nothing. I’m saying we don’t know what’s outside the box or even if there is an outside to the box. The box could be everything. And that’s why the void is not part of the universe. We know the perceived universe exits (barring oddities in quantum mechanics) but we don’t what, if anything exists around it or existed before it.


"

A better description would be that the universe is like an infinite egg, with a finite yolk and an infinite white. Regardless the universe is infinite.

"

How is it better to insist on an explanation for the universe that is not backed up by empirical evidence? There is no evidence to support your hypothesis, just belief. That’s not scientific.


"

To suggest it isn't would be to suggest that it has an edge. If it has an edge... what is beyond this edge? If the answer to this is 'nothing' then the next question is how much nothing? The answer to this must be an infinite amount of nothing or else we haven't actually reached the edge of the universe and there is something else to be discovered beyond this nothingness.

"

If we restrict ourselves to 3 dimensional perspective then that may be so but as we cannot perceive a reality outside of are perceived universe we can’t really have any ideas what anything, or nothing, would be like. And a finite object can exist without an edge. Consider a ball, in 2 dimensions it has no edge, no beginning and no end, but even in 2 dimensions it’s not infinite.


"

If there is an infinite void of nothingness at the edge of the universe we return to the same arbitrary decision to exclude this void from our description of the universe.

"

You cannot have any amount of nothing. Nothing is nothing. You cannot have nothing round something. Either the something is everything or something else exists around it. I personally don’t believe that the perceived universe is everything and I do believe that the universe exist within something else that we cannot properly comprehend. I also believe that that something around the universe must, at some point of iteration, be infinite. That is reasoned logical argument but it’s not empirical proof and without empirical proof, however good the logical argument, it’s still just belief.


"

The universe must be infinite.

"

But it just isn’t. The science clearly says it has a starting point. Therefore it is not infinite but finite.


"

Any other model is far harder to rationalise imo.

"

Just because it’s tuff to understand don’t make it wrong


"

Time, as we understand, only starts at the creation of the universe. Anything before that is a time before time began and is beyond our comprehension.

From a scientific point of view it's as valid that something unknowable was there 'before' time and the universe or that nothing was before the universe and , as time only exists within the universe, there just simply is no 'before' the universe.

There is no requirement for anything infinite and no empirical proof that anything infinite exists at all either in our finite universe or, if anything exists outside it, outside it. Any belief in any such thing is just simply that, belief. It may be true but it's still belief.

On the contrary it's completely unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view that something came out of nothing.

"

The only thing unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view is to base conclusions on assumptions rather than empirical evidence.


"

For the universe to have sprung into existence from a big bang, before which there was nothing... this defies all the laws of nature as we know them i.e. something was created out of nothing i.e. a miracle occurred. By defining it as a miracle you're shirking the scientific impulse to find answers. Surely a much better conclusion was that there was something before the big bang which caused it? Surely that's more plausible and scientific?

"

In scientific terms i’m not the one saying anything about how the universe started; least of all that it was started by a miracle. All I’m saying is that the perceived universe is provably finite and, as yet, science cannot explain how or why it started. Therefore any hypothesis as to what happened, however rational, logical, plausible or well-made still remains that; an Hypothesis. You can choose which ever one of the many you wish to believe or disbelieve but, without empirical proof, it’s not science it’s belief.

The laws of nature, as we know then, by definition can only exist after a universe exists. The whole concept of ‘nature’ has no real meaning outside our universe.

And below, where you go on to talk about other universes before ours or after ours. This is just speculation. Good logical speculation maybe but still speculation, not proven fact. I think you need to get more clear in your own head is the difference between what is provable and fact and what is speculation based on reasoned, logical argument.


"

If we are now talking only about our own era i.e. that there was a universe before ours, or at least something in existence which caused ours to come into being, then we must conclude that there seem to have been what may be a long chain of big bangs and universes like our own. This argument is particularly important if you don't believe in God because the balance of our universe, and it's ability to bring self aware life into existence within it, is so utterly improbable that you would need to argue that our big bang was merely the one successful one in a long chain of many many unsuccessful ones if you wished to dispose of a God hypothesis. How long is this chain? Most likely infinite otherwise you're only shuffling the problem deeper into the pack again... and so we come back to that maddening view of infinity again.

"

You’re making the classic mistake of applying probability and chance to events that have happened when it is only appropriate for predicting events that have not happened. The probability of me or you existing in any universe is so remote that mathematically it is all but impossible. And yet we both do exist. And we exist without a miracle or any other special intervention. In the same way self-awareness exists in this universe regardless of the probability of it existing. The fact that it exists has no bearing on infinity or mutli-universes. It exists in this universe and that is all we can say about it.


"

I think the thing people need to come to terms with is that on our Earth things are born and they die. Furthermore there are cycles and seasons which we can perceive in the world around us. All of this has led us to develop a way of thinking about the world which involves beginnings middles and ends. We have evolved our whole culture around this, and all of our stories follow this formula, including most of our religious myths. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that this mindset applies to the way the universe, and God imo, works. We continually seek to impose beginnings and ends on it... and yet these ideas are likely to be merly a human-eyed view on things imo

It's been fun going down the rabbit hole "

Except that the Abrahamic religions do have a quite clear concept of infinity. It’s called God. I personally believe that that infinite God exists but it is a belief, not science and not empirically provable. Anything that Is not empirically provable is simply belief and no more or less than that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Ok... if the universe is finite... and you travel out to it's furthest reaches... and you reach it's limit... what happens then? Do you fall off the edge of the universe? Do you magically appear back at the beginning again? Do you just hit a big black wall, like some cosmic version of the Truman Show?

Until you can come up with a convincing, logical, scientifically plausible answer to that question, I'm gonna make the assumption that it doesn't miraculously end and that it just keeps going... forever.

Describing the universe as finite is not more difficult because it's more complex and more scientific... it's more difficult because it's utterly ridiculous and illogical. As it turns out the finite universe, no matter how much we love 'what you see is what you get' Newtonianism, is simply far more insanely implausible than the infinite universe. You can see how the universe ending with a brick wall is more ridiculous than it going on forever can't you? Therefore, based upon logic alone, and yes some of our knowledge of the world around us is not based upon empirical evidence but upon logic, then we can state with a fair degree of certainty that... until someone comes up with some believable and sensible answers to that question of what exists beyond this finite universe... then we're better off assuming that the universe is infinite... it simply makes more sense

If you think that all of science is limited by empirical evidence then you've got it all backwards. Science works by formulating hypothesis first, then seeking out evidence to back that hypothesis up secondarily. It very rarely works the other way round. Indeed if it did work backwards it wouldn't be so scientific. Collecting data and then coming up with a theory of why that data is the way it is, fais to give us the understanding required to predict phenomena. Therefore science is crucially based upon logic, learning, intuition, and creativity... all of which work to formulate a hypothesis, such as the universe is infinite, which can then be tested using a variety of tools. There are currently no tools to test the true size of the universe. Instead we have merely gazed as far as we can see and called that the end. It is not the end. Sooner or later we will be able to gaze further...and further...and further. Don't limit your conception of the universe by the tools you use to perceive it

Needles to say...I'm not a big fan of the Big Bang theory The existence of the ridiculous inflation theory, in order to make it work, suggests to me that it is comepletly wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Except that the Abrahamic religions do have a quite clear concept of infinity. It’s called God. I personally believe that that infinite God exists but it is a belief, not science and not empirically provable. Anything that Is not empirically provable is simply belief and no more or less than that."

I have personal experience of that God... so I know God exists. It is not a belief for me like it is for you. Therefore I need to confront the issue of an infinite God actually existing, compared to your happiness to merely believe it might. As it actually exists...then automatically it becomes part of the universe...part of science...part of what is. For you it does not exist... it is only a belief, a faith. I understand that... and that's why I believe Christianity fails so many people, as do so many other faiths, by leading them to feel that belief in something like Santa is enough. It isn't. God actually exists. This infinite being actually exists. Therefore the universe must be infinite. If the universe is not infinite... then either that God is also finite, which is ridiculous, or we are suggesting that God is not part of the universe, which is the same as arguing that God doesn't exist when clearly God does. God is very much a part of the universe... God is the universe... we exist within God... God is infinite... therefore the universe is infinite.

Boy you've got some wonky ideas lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"You’re making the classic mistake of applying probability and chance to events that have happened when it is only appropriate for predicting events that have not happened. The probability of me or you existing in any universe is so remote that mathematically it is all but impossible. And yet we both do exist. And we exist without a miracle or any other special intervention. In the same way self-awareness exists in this universe regardless of the probability of it existing. The fact that it exists has no bearing on infinity or mutli-universes. It exists in this universe and that is all we can say about it.

"

This argument you have made here simply fails to work on any level. You can't say that if something utterly implausible exists then we need to ignore how or why it exists and just deal with the fact that it exists. If the sky suddenly started raining strawberry trifle you'd just shrug your shoulders and say... there is no need for an explanation.. it just exists. That's so much the anti-thesis of scientific thinking it's ridiculous. The fact is that we are compelled to come up with an explanation of the intricate balance of our universe. It is not scientific to simply say it is the way it is. And the only scientific argument for why it is the way it is, which does not rely upon an existence of a God, is that it must merely be one of many other big bangs.. and that we're just the successful one. If that's not your argument, then you can't stand up and offer a serious argument that it simply is the way it is because we got lucky. That's tantamount to calling it a miracle... and science doesn't like having to rely upon miracles. I haven't made a 'classic mistake'... you're applying a logical argument which you obviously heard used somewhere else... but it doesn't apply here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Oh...one last point...to suggest that at the edge of our finite universe space and time just ends. The word 'ends' here carries both a spatial and temporal meaning. Things only end either in time or in space. If neither space nor time exist, at a point, we cannot claim they have ended as we would still be talking in terms of something spatial or temporal. Does that make any sense? Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I think I've effectively killed this thread with my endless waffle lol.. but I must admit I've been pleased as punch with this one today... so here goes.

If we argue that the universe is finite and that, at some point, time and space just ends... well the notion of something ending is, itself, based upon time and space. A piece of music ends or a road ends. Thus endings require time or space to exist. Therefore if we say that time and space ends... this ending must take place within time and space, meaning that time and space must both be in existence for it to happen. Instead if we imagine a realm where there is no time and space it is fairer to say that, in this realm, there are no beginnings and no ends. Thus a better description of what happens at the edge of a finite universe is not that it ends... but rather that it transitions to a state of endlessness and beginninglessness. Therefore we have gone from a notion that requires time and space to one which does not. By doing so we have more accurately described what occurs at the edge of a finite universe... the only problem is that, in doing so, we have simultaneously described the universe as being infinite.

That's a great one! I'm gonna stick that one in my book

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *1paljungMan  over a year ago

Richmond


"in my universe..I'm right.Do not question me. "

Hahaha Keen ya fucker!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think I've effectively killed this thread with my endless waffle lol.. but I must admit I've been pleased as punch with this one today... so here goes.

If we argue that the universe is finite and that, at some point, time and space just ends... well the notion of something ending is, itself, based upon time and space. A piece of music ends or a road ends. Thus endings require time or space to exist. Therefore if we say that time and space ends... this ending must take place within time and space, meaning that time and space must both be in existence for it to happen. Instead if we imagine a realm where there is no time and space it is fairer to say that, in this realm, there are no beginnings and no ends. Thus a better description of what happens at the edge of a finite universe is not that it ends... but rather that it transitions to a state of endlessness and beginninglessness. Therefore we have gone from a notion that requires time and space to one which does not. By doing so we have more accurately described what occurs at the edge of a finite universe... the only problem is that, in doing so, we have simultaneously described the universe as being infinite.

That's a great one! I'm gonna stick that one in my book "

.

Come back when you've got some evidence for any of your beliefs and we'll discuss it as facts or theory's until then it's a belief like father Christmas or elves or the bogey man or smoking is good for you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aucy3Couple  over a year ago

glasgow


"There does seem to be the (wrong) assumption that there is just religion on the one hand, and atheism on the other hand, with no centre ground.

Personally I find that rather annoying. I think as with all things, reality is most probably imbetween the two extremes."

Deism sounds like my kind of thing.

No commitment,with possibly heaven at the end.

alleluia!!I'm a believer,happy days.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Come back when you've got some evidence for any of your beliefs and we'll discuss it as facts or theory's until then it's a belief like father Christmas or elves or the bogey man or smoking is good for you"

This stuff is wasted on you lot lol Only kidding What I've written above isn't a belief... it's a logical formula. It makes total and utter sense in and of itself. It doesn't need any external proof to prove it. It sets up a series of rules and it fits them perfectly in order to come to a conclusion. That's logic. It's not belief

Lets follow it again...just for the fun of feeling our way around it

1) We wish to assert that the universe is finite; that at some point time and space ends

however

2) The whole concept of something ending is a concept that relies upon time or space in order for it to occur

therefore

3) We need to describe how time and space transitions to timelessness and spacelessness without describing it in spatial or temporal terms. In a realm where there is no space nor any time there would be no beginnings or endings.

therefore

4) In order to describe what occurs at the edge of a finite universe we would need to state that time and space transition into a state which lacks beginnings or endings.

as a result

5) We have better described what happens at the edge of a finite universe, without using language that requires space or time in order to make sense of it

however

6) In doing so we have simultaneously described the universe as infinite

I can't see any point in the previous 6 steps that has any basis upon belief. It is logically water tight. Each step does not need proving because each step is obviously correct. That's the beauty of it and that's why I've been smiling all day. It's like friggin Fermat's theorem... it's a work of beauty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Come back when you've got some evidence for any of your beliefs and we'll discuss it as facts or theory's until then it's a belief like father Christmas or elves or the bogey man or smoking is good for you

This stuff is wasted on you lot lol Only kidding What I've written above isn't a belief... it's a logical formula. It makes total and utter sense in and of itself. It doesn't need any external proof to prove it. It sets up a series of rules and it fits them perfectly in order to come to a conclusion. That's logic. It's not belief

Lets follow it again...just for the fun of feeling our way around it

1) We wish to assert that the universe is finite; that at some point time and space ends

however

2) The whole concept of something ending is a concept that relies upon time or space in order for it to occur

therefore

3) We need to describe how time and space transitions to timelessness and spacelessness without describing it in spatial or temporal terms. In a realm where there is no space nor any time there would be no beginnings or endings.

therefore

4) In order to describe what occurs at the edge of a finite universe we would need to state that time and space transition into a state which lacks beginnings or endings.

as a result

5) We have better described what happens at the edge of a finite universe, without using language that requires space or time in order to make sense of it

however

6) In doing so we have simultaneously described the universe as infinite

I can't see any point in the previous 6 steps that has any basis upon belief. It is logically water tight. Each step does not need proving because each step is obviously correct. That's the beauty of it and that's why I've been smiling all day. It's like friggin Fermat's theorem... it's a work of beauty "

.

If something doesn't need external proof it's a belief.

Give me science not why you need to assert that time and space ends for a belief that suits your needs.

Give me a mathematical formula for your theory for your belief that time and space transitions into "timelessness" and "spacelessness"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Firstly we need to pin it down as something which exists, not something which is a fantasy.

Sorry ...I wrote this in haste. What I mean by that is if you define God as something which can't exist then obviously such a God does not exist. This is why the Christian argument about a God which exists outside of existence undermines itself. It defines God as something which doesn't exist and therefore obviously such a God does not exist. The real task of the Atheist is to try and find terms in which God can be defined as something which exists and then disprove that. Anything less is a fruitless excercise in circular thinking imo.

A crucial thing to bear in mind, when defining God, is that Catholicism and many other faiths define God as unknowable and infinite. Therefore any description of God needs to confront that belief, otherwise you're really only dealing with a sub-set of religious belief. Thus any description of God as something finite, such as a man on a cloud or some big superior alien, only really applies to a very few of the most primitive superstitions. Indeed, there is evidence that even these tribal superstitions have a concept of an original creator which is completely nebullous and unlike any of their worldly spirits or plant gods. They simply don't worship this creator because they are too concerned with winning favor from the lesser spirits which hold sway over their lives... or so they think "

It is not the job of an atheist to disprove gods existence. They didn't come out with a positive statement of somethings existence. If your going to say something exists, be prepared to provide proof, otherwise you should say I BELIEVE something exists, not that you KNOW.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"While I don't believe that what you are saying is wrong, in fact I belief that something like what you are saying is not only plausible and possible, it is still belief not empirically proofed fact. The empirically proved facts are that the universe that we perceive is not infinite and does have a beginning. Belief does not come into it.

It is also an empirically proven fact that it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You have a belief that the universe just began at some point. This belief requires a miracle to have occured, making something out of nothing.

If you accept that, instead, it is more rational to suggest that something existed 'before' the universe, which caused it to come into being, then why are you excluding this pre-existing thing from our model of the universe? To exclude it based upon lack of knowledge of it is tantamount to saying that something may have come out of nothing, and you would need to defend why you believe this. We have lack of empirical evidence of many things... indeed I don't think we've even seen a black hole yet and they're already talking about white holes. The point is that what you're proposing needs to add up in some way... and what you're proposing does not.. at least that's the way I see it

Finally.. if you insist that our universe is finite and that nothing may have gone before it... then, as a result, you MUST believe in God, as you would need God in order to make your model work. You would need God to make something out of nothing and you would need God to make sure that this one and only finite universe somehow miraculously sprung into existence in such a perfectly balanced state that it was capable of not only giving birth to life, but self aware life. This is so utterly implausible for a one-off creation that you would need a God to explain how that happened... random chance just wouldn't be enough. Random chance only becomes enough when you start to entertain that our big bang is only one of many and it's only then that you can move away from needing a God in order to support your argument. So, you see, your argument is much more religious than scientific. I like it, as I'm a religious man, but I don't think it's plausible... but who knows??? Maybe you're right lol "

When you say you cannot make something out of nothing, your not including energy into matter in that statement are you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Come back when you've got some evidence for any of your beliefs and we'll discuss it as facts or theory's until then it's a belief like father Christmas or elves or the bogey man or smoking is good for you

This stuff is wasted on you lot lol Only kidding What I've written above isn't a belief... it's a logical formula. It makes total and utter sense in and of itself. It doesn't need any external proof to prove it. It sets up a series of rules and it fits them perfectly in order to come to a conclusion. That's logic. It's not belief

Lets follow it again...just for the fun of feeling our way around it

1) We wish to assert that the universe is finite; that at some point time and space ends

however

2) The whole concept of something ending is a concept that relies upon time or space in order for it to occur

therefore

3) We need to describe how time and space transitions to timelessness and spacelessness without describing it in spatial or temporal terms. In a realm where there is no space nor any time there would be no beginnings or endings.

therefore

4) In order to describe what occurs at the edge of a finite universe we would need to state that time and space transition into a state which lacks beginnings or endings.

as a result

5) We have better described what happens at the edge of a finite universe, without using language that requires space or time in order to make sense of it

however

6) In doing so we have simultaneously described the universe as infinite

I can't see any point in the previous 6 steps that has any basis upon belief. It is logically water tight. Each step does not need proving because each step is obviously correct. That's the beauty of it and that's why I've been smiling all day. It's like friggin Fermat's theorem... it's a work of beauty "

But is doesn't prove a gods existence. That is just your take on it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm not sure he says "no ones seen a black hole yet".. Apart from the fact you can't see black holes and apart from the fact mathematicians have theorised through formulas for 40 years there existence apart from the fact that they've found possibly lots looking at stars wobbling... They like to point out that we don't know this or we don't know that , so it's perfectly plausible that God exists... Great give me a mathematical formula for god's existence, give me something tangible that we can do the numbers on, give me photo evidence of a spirit, give me video of the soul leaving the body.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I'm not sure he says "no ones seen a black hole yet".. Apart from the fact you can't see black holes and apart from the fact mathematicians have theorised through formulas for 40 years there existence apart from the fact that they've found possibly lots looking at stars wobbling... They like to point out that we don't know this or we don't know that , so it's perfectly plausible that God exists... Great give me a mathematical formula for god's existence, give me something tangible that we can do the numbers on, give me photo evidence of a spirit, give me video of the soul leaving the body.

"

Well I could give you Godel's ontological proof expressed symbolically

Lol, I'm just being facetious there

There's also Euler's proof, but that was apocrypha ally given in reply to the atheist Diderot and didn't actually happen. Still, it would have been piss-your-pants funny to have seen that happen if it had.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site) OP     over a year ago


"I'm not sure he says "no ones seen a black hole yet".. Apart from the fact you can't see black holes and apart from the fact mathematicians have theorised through formulas for 40 years there existence apart from the fact that they've found possibly lots looking at stars wobbling... They like to point out that we don't know this or we don't know that , so it's perfectly plausible that God exists... Great give me a mathematical formula for god's existence, give me something tangible that we can do the numbers on, give me photo evidence of a spirit, give me video of the soul leaving the body.

"

Well, for a long time the concept of black holes was something that Einstein theorised must be real, but we had never seen one (just like nobody has ever seen a wormhole for example); however in more recent years we have been able to observe the effect black holes have had on stars near to them when they have been part of a binary star system where one star has gone supernova and has imploded into a black hole as a result.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If something doesn't need external proof it's a belief."

2+2=4 doesn't need external proof. Would you class that as a belief? No it's a logical formula which adheres to it's own rules and is therefore true, by it's own rules. Do you have no experience of logical formulas? You seem to have something of a blind spot to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But is doesn't prove a gods existence. That is just your take on it."

It doesn't prove God's existence at all. It merely proves that the universe is infinite At least via a logical formula that is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"It is not the job of an atheist to disprove gods existence. They didn't come out with a positive statement of somethings existence. If your going to say something exists, be prepared to provide proof, otherwise you should say I BELIEVE something exists, not that you KNOW. "

I don't think this argument has any merit. We clearly lack the tools to even attempt to prove God's existence objectively. God is a consciousness that pervades the universe. We lack the tools to detect consciousness in any form... even our own. Once we develop that ability... then we will detect God's presence around us. Until then you'll have to go on your own empirical evidence i.e. you will need to experience God for yourself. That's really the only way I can show you.

If you have a personal sensory experience of something... you no longer 'believe' in it any more than you 'believe' trees exist. You know it, whether you can prove it or not. If you've been following my ramblings you will see that I don't believe the universe was created and that I'm quite antagonistic to many of the world's Faiths. Indeed in many ways I have all the hallmarks of an Atheist. The only reason why I'm not is because I have personal sensory experience which goes against that. The existence of God is a wonderfully awkward problem for me. It prevents me from being sloppy with my logic. If I come up with something that sounds right but excludes the existence of God... I know it must be wrong... and I spend some time deconstructing it until, sure enough, the flaw in the logic reveals itself.

Anyway I could go on and on... lol but it's getting late

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

How do you know that you have experienced god? You don't. Stop saying you have. You believe you have. personally, I think its your mind playing tricks to help you cope with the cold facts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But is doesn't prove a gods existence. That is just your take on it.

It doesn't prove God's existence at all. It merely proves that the universe is infinite At least via a logical formula that is "

Your logic has a fundamental flaw in that it presupposes certain "facts".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"But is doesn't prove a gods existence. That is just your take on it.

It doesn't prove God's existence at all. It merely proves that the universe is infinite At least via a logical formula that is

Your logic has a fundamental flaw in that it presupposes certain "facts". "

The only fact it presupposes is this...

Fact: Things can only begin or end within the realms of space or time.

That is a fact, a very simple and obvious one. Unless you can cite other 'facts' which I've presupposed, without which my logical formula would fail, and which are not facts but are instead beliefs, my logical formula stands. It is, imo, irrefutable. If you disagree with that try refuting it and lets see if it stands the test If you can't you will need to accept it. That's the way all of these logical formulas go. Either refute it or accept it.

My own feedback on this discovery is this. My formula has not proven that the universe is infinite, as I prevously claimed. Instead it has merely proven that it cannot be finite, as for it to be finite it would need to be infinite. We are therefore left with two options... that it is infinite or that it is something else, neither finite or infinite. It's that 'something else' which is now most interesting to me Perhaps one possibility of that 'something else' is that it doesn't exist at all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow


"

Fact: Things can only begin or end within the realms of space or time.

"

When you say 'things' are you referring to physical objects/ matter?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"If something doesn't need external proof it's a belief.

2+2=4 doesn't need external proof. Would you class that as a belief? No it's a logical formula which adheres to it's own rules and is therefore true, by it's own rules. Do you have no experience of logical formulas? You seem to have something of a blind spot to them."

...

2 and 2 is 4...no shit Sherlock are you now getting your mathematical formula for why the universe is finite from Barney the dinosaur

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

All of your points 1 through to 6 are or use presuppositions. They are not provable facts. You are not using pure logic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Surely the fact we evolved from primordial slime into high primates over 100s of millions of years proves that we were either random chance or unintentionally created while doing other things or the supreme being has some bloody good patience!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"All of your points 1 through to 6 are or use presuppositions. They are not provable facts. You are not using pure logic. "

Then refute each of them... should be easy yes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

Fact: Things can only begin or end within the realms of space or time.

When you say 'things' are you referring to physical objects/ matter?"

My apologies, the word 'things' has sent you on a red herring. Ok lets rephrase it more accurately as...

Fact: beginnings and endings can only take place within either time or space

A good way to refute that would be to describe anything that either begins or ends without requiring either space or time to do so. Lets see if you can

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow


"

Fact: Things can only begin or end within the realms of space or time.

When you say 'things' are you referring to physical objects/ matter?

My apologies, the word 'things' has sent you on a red herring. Ok lets rephrase it more accurately as...

Fact: beginnings and endings can only take place within either time or space

A good way to refute that would be to describe anything that either begins or ends without requiring either space or time to do so. Lets see if you can "

Are you looking to state the 2nd premise of the Kalam argument here, albeit with a slightly different wording?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"

Fact: Things can only begin or end within the realms of space or time.

When you say 'things' are you referring to physical objects/ matter?

My apologies, the word 'things' has sent you on a red herring. Ok lets rephrase it more accurately as...

Fact: beginnings and endings can only take place within either time or space

A good way to refute that would be to describe anything that either begins or ends without requiring either space or time to do so. Lets see if you can

Are you looking to state the 2nd premise of the Kalam argument here, albeit with a slightly different wording?"

Dunno lol I've never heard of the Kalam.. I'm looking them up now on wikipedia... I'll let you know

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Ok... basically I've managed to refute the second premise of Kalam theory; to show it is wrong.

Wikipedia tells me that Kalam theory was invented by a philosophger called William Lane Craig, who used a combination of metaphysical and scientific argumentation to assert that the universe must have had a beginning. His argument has served as a key component of a renewed wave of Christian apologetics, who use his work to refute the claims of the New Atheists. Presumably William Lane Craig is a Christian.

His goal seems to have been to prove that the universe must be finite and, therefore, was possibly created by a pre-existent God.

What I have shown here is that, to the contrary, the universe cannot be finite as, in order for it to be finite, it must be infinite. Therefore, as it always existed and will, forever more, always exist, it cannot have been 'created' by a pre-existing God.

Perhaps I should email him and let him know lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Actually, reading more about Kalam theory... it's really full of holes. I'm pretty certain it's been shot down long before I came on the scene lol. Perhaps I won't bother letting him know... hopefully by now he's already aware of how flawed it all is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ensualtouch15Man  over a year ago

ashby de la zouch


"Ok... basically I've managed to refute the second premise of Kalam theory; to show it is wrong.

Wikipedia tells me that Kalam theory was invented by a philosophger called William Lane Craig, who used a combination of metaphysical and scientific argumentation to assert that the universe must have had a beginning. His argument has served as a key component of a renewed wave of Christian apologetics, who use his work to refute the claims of the New Atheists. Presumably William Lane Craig is a Christian.

His goal seems to have been to prove that the universe must be finite and, therefore, was possibly created by a pre-existent God.

What I have shown here is that, to the contrary, the universe cannot be finite as, in order for it to be finite, it must be infinite. Therefore, as it always existed and will, forever more, always exist, it cannot have been 'created' by a pre-existing God.

Perhaps I should email him and let him know lol "

Define universe ?

It has been suggested that

The universe is

expanding, small, and finite possibly one of many within an infinite cosmos

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow


"Ok... basically I've managed to refute the second premise of Kalam theory; to show it is wrong.

Wikipedia tells me that Kalam theory was invented by a philosophger called William Lane Craig, who used a combination of metaphysical and scientific argumentation to assert that the universe must have had a beginning. His argument has served as a key component of a renewed wave of Christian apologetics, who use his work to refute the claims of the New Atheists. Presumably William Lane Craig is a Christian.

His goal seems to have been to prove that the universe must be finite and, therefore, was possibly created by a pre-existent God.

What I have shown here is that, to the contrary, the universe cannot be finite as, in order for it to be finite, it must be infinite. Therefore, as it always existed and will, forever more, always exist, it cannot have been 'created' by a pre-existing God.

Perhaps I should email him and let him know lol "

To be honest despite my interest in philosophy when you start to discuss the subject matter around the Kalam argument especially the start of the universe etc then you are delving into a subject that becomes very complex given the physics involved. I've watched a few debates online involving WLC, who I disagree with, and various cosmologists etc (Sean Carroll being the most recent) but the theoretical physics soon surpasses that of the layman (most people, including me. It's also a criticisim of WLC that he doesn't understand some of them). However I do know, given the various arguments around the premises, that it is clear they can't be stated as fact. And that would include the premise you have put forward above.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"However I do know, given the various arguments around the premises, that it is clear they can't be stated as fact. And that would include the premise you have put forward above."

What I've stated is different from the kind of philosophical arguments you've been looking at, with or without the need for metaphysics or complex theoretical physics. Instead mine is merely a small logical formula, much like 2+2=4. It doesn't need any extra arguing because it is complete. It proves itself.

To be clear. It is possible for something to be a fact without requiring any reference to external facts. 2+2=4 is true and does not need proving because it sets up it's own rules and then adheres to them in order to come to it's conclusion. What I have devised is the same. Here it is written as a logical formula...

1) If we wish to describe that the universe is finite we would need to assert that, at some point, space and time end.

2) Given that beginnings and endings require space or time to exist, we would need to use another language to describe what happens when they are absent, a language which does not require them to exist.

3) Given that beginnings and endings require space or time to exist, we can therefore state the inverse; that without time or space there can be no beginnings and no endings.

4) Therefore, in order to describe what happens when the universe transitions from a realm of time and space to a realm without time and space, you would be best describing a transition from a state where there are beginnings and endings to a state where there are no beginnings and endings.

Everything about the formula works perfectly. But it is based upon one premise i.e. that beginnings and endings require time or space. Given that we agree with that, we must agree with the rest of the statement. In order to refute it we would need to refute that assumption. In my opinion the logic of the formula is 100% correct and the assumption it's built upon is pretty self evident. This is why I've described it as a logical formula, like 2+2=4, which proves itself

What people are missing here is that, by describing the end of the finite universe, they are in effect making a statement which undermines itself i.e. they are saying that...

"beyond existence there exists an existenceless realm"

An 'existenceless realm' cannot 'exist'. Similarly a 'realm of timelessness and spacelessness' cannot 'begin'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say it's different from the philosophical arguments I've been looking at but I'll pass on that for now.

I do realise that this isn't a formal philosophy forum ('Thankfully', 99% of fab members are probably thinking) but the argument you are stating is a little all over the place the way you are laying it out. Can you state it as a syllogism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm not really sure what you mean when you say it's different from the philosophical arguments I've been

looking at but I'll pass on that for now.

I do realise that this isn't a formal philosophy forum ('Thankfully', 99% of fab members are probably thinking) but

the argument you are stating is a little all over the place the way you are laying it out. Can you state it as a

syllogism?"

Lol yes I was gonna say... what the heck any of this has to do with swinging is beyond me lol But you beat me

to it. Ok... a syllogism... here's a first attempt...

.

Beginnings and ends are both properties of space and time i.e. they need either space or time in order for them to exist.

.

Beyond the finite universe space and time ceases to exist.

.

Therefore a finite universe cannot end.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

No, I'm not happy with that syllogism as it requires time and space to end in order to prove itself... when, in fact, the core problem is that time and space are the framework within which endings take place so to remove that framework is impossible... it's a bit like removing existence from existence.

Endings are a property of space and/or time.

An ending can have a time or a space... but space or time can't have an ending.

Similarly, yellow is a property of a banana.

A banana can be yellow... but a yellow can't be a banana.

How would you put that into a syllogism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

How about...

Endings require a space or time.

Therefore space and time cannot end.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow

That's the handy thing about them, it makes everything much clearer and easier to spot any possible flaws in the process etc. That's not necessarily a criticism as it also means it's a good method for honing a particular argument.

Anyway, this discussion is probably the reason my partner tends to make 95% of our posts on the forums instead of me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I'm happy with this last one...if you'd care to comment?

Endings require a space or time.

Therefore space and time cannot end.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"How about...

Endings require a space or time.

Therefore space and time cannot end."

how about the universe eventually collapsing under x amount of black holes..so when everything possible doesnt exist..the universal black hole ends up exploding...and its the re-big bang

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *andACouple  over a year ago

glasgow


"I'm happy with this last one...if you'd care to comment?

Endings require a space or time.

Therefore space and time cannot end."

My first objection would be that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise. As an example, using the same logic:

Death requires life

Therefore life cannot end/ die

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I'm happy with this last one...if you'd care to comment?

Endings require a space or time.

Therefore space and time cannot end.

My first objection would be that the conclusion doesn't follow the premise. As an example, using the same logic:

Death requires life

Therefore life cannot end/ die"

A good rebuttal... but your use of the word 'life' holds the same meaning in both statements, whilst 'a space' and 'a time' means something different from 'space' and 'time'. The difficulty is that we can talk about 'a life' dying... but talking about 'life' dying doesn't make any sense. If you can find a better way of wording it you might be onto something

Here's another way of saying it as a syllogism...

.

Beginnings require time

Timelessness cannot begin

Therefore time is endless

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

btw lins1975. I was gonna send you a friendly PM thanking you for engaging with me on this level But you've blocked me lol I probably said something horrible at some point which caused your missus to shriek in fear lol Just to let you know... I'm not all that bad and, as you know now, I'm mainly interested in exploring ideas more than anything else more 'real' on these forums so if I did ever say anything frightful it was probably just me questioning stuff out loud when it should've remained in my head... Ooops Anyway cheers mate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Shu, an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, explains in a study posted at arXiv.org that the new models emerge from a new perspective of some of the most basic entities: time, space, mass, and length. In his proposal, time and space can be converted into one another, with a varying speed of light as the conversion factor. Mass and length are also interchangeable, with the conversion factor depending on both a varying gravitational “constant” and a varying speed of light (G/c2). Basically, as the universe expands, time is converted into space, and mass is converted into length. As the universe contracts, the opposite occurs.

“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”

As Shu writes in his paper, the newly proposed models have four distinguishing features:

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.

• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.

• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere [a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere], ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.

• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news199591806.html#jCp

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.2969

0