Question For Those Who Reject Religion But Believe In God (soul, translation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note I enjoy our dialogue because you respond in a reasonable and pleasant manner. Others here of a "less agreeable nature", I will continue to ignore henceforth.
Back the subject:
Why does there HAVE to be something? Who or what decreed that?
Will the Universe last forever? Will there always be stars? Or will they burn out one day?
The idea that there has to be something is interesting. But again, who issued that mandate? If there are immutable laws, seems to me someone or something had to create those. Otherwise they wouldnt exist.
It may be that natural laws arose spontaneously with space and time at the beginning of the universe. The idea that an agent had to decree natural laws is introducing an unnecessary complication.
Virtual particles constantly appear from and disappear into empty space and fill the entire universe. This evidence gives credibility to the idea that the universe itself can do the same over a vast amount of time.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 04-26-2012 at 12:46 PM..
It may be that natural laws arose spontaneously with space and time at the beginning of the universe. The idea that an agent had to decree natural laws is introducing an unnecessary complication.
Virtual particles constantly appear from and disappear into empty space and fill the entire universe. This evidence gives credibility to the idea that the universe itself can do the same over a vast amount of time.
Framing as a decree as opposed to an existential characteristic is why you see an unnecessary complication. The natural laws are manifestations of the very existence of God (field parameters) . . . not decrees.
It may be that natural laws arose spontaneously with space and time at the beginning of the universe. The idea that an agent had to decree natural laws is introducing an unnecessary complication.
Virtual particles constantly appear from and disappear into empty space and fill the entire universe. This evidence gives credibility to the idea that the universe itself can do the same over a vast amount of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Framing as a decree as opposed to an existential characteristic is why you see an unnecessary complication. The natural laws are manifestations of the very existence of God (field parameters) . . . not decrees.
Decree was my word, and a bad one. Thanks Mystic.
This "arising spontaneously" stuff is puzzling. Especially for folks who advocate for evidence and hard proof to rely on such an out there premise.
Not saying God is a dude in a long robe. No doubt He/She is well beyond our human comprehension.
Have you ever seen a tennis ball appear and then disappear spontaneously? But you still think its plausible our entire GINORMOUS universe could have sprung from nothing, at the behest of nothing, 14 billions years ago?
I appreciate your devotion to science, and faith in its abilities. BUt I think you are really reaching, here.
This "arising spontaneously" stuff is puzzling. Especially for folks who advocate for evidence and hard proof to rely on such an out there premise.
Not saying God is a dude in a long robe. No doubt He/She is well beyond our human comprehension.
Have you ever seen a tennis ball appear and then disappear spontaneously? But you still think its plausible our entire GINORMOUS universe could have sprung from nothing, at the behest of nothing, 14 billions years ago?
I appreciate your devotion to science, and faith in its abilities. BUt I think you are really reaching, here.
I can understand your viewpoint. But incomplete knowledge does not automatically indicate a supernatural agent. Or we get back to God of the gaps all over again.
There is enough evidence that the universe was a very different place and behaved very differently at the moment of the big bang compared to today. For example, the universe had zero volume, infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature. These facts are beyond our everyday experience, to say the least. But they're real nonetheless.
It's the same with the idea that the universe arose spontaneously from nothing. It's counter-intuitive to our normal experience. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. Science often surprises us in this way.
Much of science is puzzling, that does not make it untrue. However as you have been told on other threads already models of just how such things can happen are built, and tested, all the time and they do not require imagining evidence we do not have nor ignoring evidence we do have.
Contrast that to the god idea which is assumption from start to finish. All the evidence for it is imagined or made up, and ignorance and open questions are it's theatre.
So while you will never get the 100% proof of either that you seem to so desperately want for reasons unknown to me.... what is certainly clear is that one set of hypothesis is miles ahead of the other... and that other is still in the starting blocks waiting for the FIRST shred of substantiation to show up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigers84
sprung from nothing, at the behest of nothing
You have been asked, but have always ducked and avoided it, many times now why you think "nothing" is the default or that there ever was "nothing". Why is it not just as valid to suggest there was always something and that "nothing" would be the thing needing the explanation?
The original experience was admittedly unparalleled
Not surprised. Even if you had the same "feeling" every day and twice a day however this would not mean that there is a god simply because you feel like there is.
In other words that you only felt it once and have been trying to validate your assumptions based on it in a decades long campaign of confirmation bias only serves to make it _more_ ridiculous - but that does not mean it is not a ridiculous leap in the first place. Confirm it to yourself all you want but you still have not a jot of evidence for the claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It grieves me that you and others insist on characterizing them as entirely and completely baseless and unsupported.
I call a spade a spade too. Likely that greives you also. I simply call it like I see it. If someone says something baseless then I will point out it is baseless. Why should I do otherwise?
I call a spade a spade too. Likely that greives you also. I simply call it like I see it. If someone says something baseless then I will point out it is baseless. Why should I do otherwise?
Unfortunately all you seem capable of doing is "calling a spade a spade" baseless without ANY substantive rebuttal or rationale. It is no more than common spectator caterwauling and taunting. You have been given ample opportunity to put up or shut up . . . but you seem intent on spouting unsubstantiated and unsupported gibes that we are supposed to accept on face value because you have so clearly established your bona fides in your posts . . . NOT!
OK . . . why is attribution to the Universe different from attribution to God? They are exactly the same existentially . . . but you have a problem with the one and not the other. Why is one more legitimate in your eyes than the other?
I think there is a stigma attached to the use of the word "God". It muddies the waters because of all the beliefs about this entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
For the same reason I would likely pull you up if you called my kettle an airplane.
You could easily say "Well look you know I am talking about that thing - so whats the problem - I am just using a word arent I - whats it to you which one I use".
But the kettle already has a word for it. Kettle. The universe already has a word for it. Universe. So why use different ones?
And "airplane" means something else to many people so calling something that is not an airplane by that label will only confuse and bamboozle. So does god have a meaning to many people. You simply call the universe "god" so you can slip in those extra things that people already associate with that word. You choose god rather than universe or kettle or spoon or "all of everything" for the very obvious reason that the metaphysical etymology of the word serves your ends.
Why is pretty clear. It allows you to sneak in all kinds of other things after using the word. You do not just call everything god - you then assume based on nothing but a feeling you had while sitting around one day - that god is concious - Jesus was something more than human - that human conciousness survives the death of the brain - and more.
So while you can call anything by whatever label you want - that is your right - let us not pretend you are not doing so deliberatley to mislead - bamboozle - and slip in after the fact nonsense such as intelligent entities - souls - and after lives. Ideas you then back up with little but informing people how ignorant and biased and incapable you personally find them - and how you seem to see persecution, conspiracies and "campaigns" against you by such people and their "cohorts".
And all for what? A feeling you had one day while sitting around which you then - by your own admission - spend decades in a confirmation bias campaign with yourself trying to validate and verify.
And as I meandered to the next page, I found I was correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool." - Mark Twain
Unfortunately all you seem capable of doing is "calling a spade a spade" baseless without ANY substantive rebuttal or rationale.
This is just rhetoric. I call this spade a spade for a reason. You say there is a god and have supported that with nothing but a feeling you claim to have had one day decades ago. A feeling and conclusion you then admit you have spent decades in a confirmation bias attempt to validate to yourself. The claim itself however is without evidence or support and that is the spade I am calling a spade.
If a claim is without evidence why would I call it anything but a claim without evidence???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.