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.
As much as you may not like it, it is perfectly possible that the universe sprang into existence from the multiverse without a "maker". It just is.
Let me explain. I said, "it is perfectly possible.....It just is," meaning it just is perfectly possible that the universe sprang into existence from the multiverse without a maker.
As for my "sprang into existence" language, I am referring to the Big Bang.
Some theists like to equate things we already know exist with god. They say god = love; or god = the universe; etc. By default, that makes theists out of us all; if we believe the universe exists then we have to believe their god exists because their god is the universe. I view that as a semantic trick, and I see it completely unnecessary to call something god that we already have a perfectly good word for.
But, they mean something more than what they say, because they impart all sorts of new abilities and qualities to "love" or the "universe" or what-have-you. They imbue it with consciousness, and intelligence, etc, such that it no longer really equals the thing we think of when we say love or the universe. In other words, their love does not equal our love; and their universe does not equal our universe. So, don't call my concept of love, "god". You can call your conception of love, "god" all you want, but my love is an emotion that motivates me to act and it does not have self-awareness or intelligence.
Mystic defines god as the source of everything. I am still undecided with whether I am comfortable saying that I believe there is a source of everything; I think I'd much rather say that everything just exists. I know that I am completely uncomfortable with all the abilities and characteristics he gives to that source of everything. And I am pretty much allergic to applying the word "god" to any of my beliefs as the word is so generally misunderstood and carries with it so much baggage. I don't care how a person wants to define god, I won't be saying I believe in god.
"Sprang into existence" or "poof" is a "magic" claim . . . one that is routinely scoffed at when made by the religionists and theists.
I never claimed that the universe "sprang into existence", either, to my knowledge. The "big bang" only accounts for our universe and the way/form that exists in TODAY. It makes no claim about how the universe may or may not have existed prior to that event. I believe the universe has always existed.
Again, I don't see your point. The statement above does nothing to address my post that we can prove the universe exists. We cannot prove, and don't even have compelling evidence, that "god" exists.
It is possible that the multiverse from whence the universe came "always existed". I put that in parentheses because it is not technically correct, because time is created and is contained within each universe, so the multiverse does not exist on a timeline, it just is; therefore uncreated. If you find that strange, it is no more strange than a god that has "always existed", not on a timeline, and just is; therefore uncreated.
I think the "it just is" quote of mine that Mystic was referring to was actually the bolded one above. By "it" I was referring to the possible multiverse. The "just is" part of my quote meant existing, but not on a timeline, similar to how many Christians think of god.
To clear up another thing, everything in that post that we keep referring to was listed as a possibility. I don't think we know, yet that the multiverse exists or what happened before the Big Bang. My point was that the whole thing could have happened without a "maker", which Ryrge thinks is so self-evident that he claims it is one of other two things we can know for sure.
By the way there is a big difference between "maker" of everything and "source" of everything, which Mystic prefers. Regardless both are these guy's definitions of god and we are not beholden to accept them. So, when I talk about the possibility of a multiverse, I am not making a god claim, (It can only be considered a god claim in Mystic's mind using his personal definition of god).
After the distractions of tit for tat, please keep connected to the issue at present, and read the preliminaries.
Before anything else, I will just leave to MysticPhD to explain the fact of God's existence from the default physics prevailing in regard to the universe, and God its creator, and mankind, and some men who projects certainty of no God.
For the rest, we are NOW into the search for the kind of evidence appropriate to substantiate the existence of God according to the concept God is maker or everything that is not God Himself.
Please keep to the conceptual preliminaries of this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Preliminaries
Definitions of evidence:
From Hueff -- an observation submitted in support of a proposition.
From Ryrge -- Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Definitions of God and universe:
Of God from Ryrge -- Maker of everything that is not Himself (himself means His person-self).
Of universe from Ryrge -- the totality of existence where we reside in and are part and parcel of.
Conceptual preliminaries because they are not yet substantiated to be objective facts in the world of your nose and my nose which have objective existence outside of concepts in our mind.
But some people just cannot or worse or the worst keep on and on missing the distinction between concept and object, all because of malice or cognitive incapacity.
Please all men of good will to exchange thoughts in furtherance of knowledge, leave these obstructors to themselves.
Now, if you anyone do not want to accept any of the preliminaries, conceptual preliminaries, please dispense yourselves of your presence in this thread at your earliest convenience, because at most you are a distraction, at worst an obstruction to the fruition of the thread so that everyone get to know at least the issue at present on the kind of evidence: that is appropriate to substantiate the existence of God according to the concept of God as maker of everything that is not Himself.
Those who stay please be quided by my repeated again and again reminder:
Unless we agree on concepts and protocols it is hopeless to come to common knowledge or conventions, so useless to talk.
--------------
What follows now is really a repeated ad hominem because it is sincerely addressed to the person of atheists there, to abstain namely from mockery, parody, and the worst, misdirection, in the present concern of the thread, at this point in time: to search for the kind of evidence appropriate to substantiate the objective of God and as understood in the concept of maker of everything that is not Himself.
Hooligan, will you just attend to the now issue, instead of mockery, parody, amd misdirection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Preliminaries
Definitions of evidence:
From Hueff -- an observation submitted in support of a proposition.
From Ryrge -- Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Definitions of God and universe:
Of God from Ryrge -- Maker of everything that is not Himself (himself means His person-self).
Of universe from Ryrge -- the totality of existence where we reside in and are part and parcel of.
-----------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
[...]
Hooligan, will you just attend to the now issue, instead of mockery, parody, amd misdirection?
Here is the now issue: to determine the kind of evidence that is appropriate to substantiate the existence of God.
And here is my latest contribution to that issue, namely:
Evidence of causality or causality evidence is the kind of evidence appropriate to substantiate the existence of God.
And where do we search for that kind of evidence?
Where else but in the universe where we have our residence and are part and parcel of, so also if God exists He is also a part and parcel of the universe.
Please get that into your head.
Just attend to those two points, okay?
Or just read but don't write irrelevant things (that includes yours truly, but I am now and then into the psychology of atheists to enable them to understand themselves better so that they will realize that they have gripes against God but won't listen and get connected to people who seek to explain to them why they have gripes and why their gripes are not justifiable).
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.
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.
After the distractions of tit for tat, please keep connected to the issue at present, and read the preliminaries.
