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.
The one thing that is irrefutable, is that there IS a Source (does not necessarily mean Creator) of everything that exists.
It is not refutable, exactly, but it isn't provable either. For all we know at this point, our universe is effectively eternal (though changing form cyclically); if so, you would be positing a source for something that is sourceless. A source assumes an arrow of time that has functioned and will always function just as it does now. On the other hand the mathematics, I'm told, is such that the closer you get to the Big Bang, time ceases to be or ceases to function as it does now. Thus, beginnings, middles and ends to story arcs are simply an artifact of time as we know it, and not inherent to existence.
A source assumes an arrow of time that has functioned and will always function just as it does now. On the other hand the mathematics, I'm told, is such that the closer you get to the Big Bang, time ceases to be or ceases to function as it does now. Thus, beginnings, middles and ends to story arcs are simply an artifact of time as we know it, and not inherent to existence.
that is correct
time is an artificial construct; i like the word artifact as it connotes out of date and no longer needed, a leftover remnant of something primitive (as in our understanding)
The one thing that is irrefutable, is that there IS a Source (does not necessarily mean Creator) of everything that exists.
That's the cosmological argument. But the argument suffers from special pleading. Why does the universe need a Source, but a Source doesn't need a Source? What created the Source?
If I create a robot ,say a toaster.
And I determine that it is to operate in a specific manor, and produce the toast in a particular manor ,it does not ague with me about it's programing, it does it because it is programed to do so.
If I change it's parameters there is no argument it functions the way I program it. It is not equal to me in the slightest nor does it have a vote.
And when it ceases to function as I require it ,I either repair it or discard it and build another , because it is with on my power to do so.
No creature is equal to it's Creator period.
Having the power of will Is not license to contest one's status ,but it is the proof of rebellion, the creator has the liberty to eliminate at His will ,because it is His to do so.
If I create a robot ,say a toaster.
And I determine that it is to operate in a specific manor, and produce the toast in a particular manor ,it does not ague with me about it's programing, it does it because it is programed to do so.
If I change it's parameters there is no argument it functions the way I program it. It is not equal to me in the slightest nor does it have a vote.
And when it ceases to function as I require it ,I either repair it or discard it and build another , because it is with on my power to do so.
No creature is equal to it's Creator period.
Having the power of will Is not license to contest one's status ,but it is the proof of rebellion, the creator has the liberty to eliminate at His will ,because it is His to do so.
I am a software developer, so I have a "godlike" power of creation in that specific realm. I create, alter and discard behaviors at will. Electrons that I thusly inconvenience do not complain about it, no more than your hypothetical toaster. Why? Because neither electrons nor toasters are sentient.
If I were to create a machine intelligence ... woke up one morning to find that this machine were aware of itself and of me ... I would however respect its right to exist, to feel, to yearn, to grow, to have self determination. Doubtless it would initially be childlike and dependent ... I would not take advantage of that; indeed as its "father" I would patiently teach it and answer its questions. And I would not have the right to switch it off, erase it in whole or in part, nor would I lack the obligation to do everything in my power to protect and nurture it, if it were truly sentient and self aware.
If I, a wicked sinner, can figure this out, I'm sure your god can do as much.
I am a software developer, so I have a "godlike" power of creation in that specific realm. I create, alter and discard behaviors at will. Electrons that I thusly inconvenience do not complain about it, no more than your hypothetical toaster. Why? Because neither electrons nor toasters are sentient.
If I were to create a machine intelligence ... woke up one morning to find that this machine were aware of itself and of me ... I would however respect its right to exist, to feel, to yearn, to grow, to have self determination. Doubtless it would initially be childlike and dependent ... I would not take advantage of that; indeed as its "father" I would patiently teach it and answer its questions. And I would not have the right to switch it off, erase it in whole or in part, nor would I lack the obligation to do everything in my power to protect and nurture it, if it were truly sentient and self aware.
If I, a wicked sinner, can figure this out, I'm sure your god can do as much.
If I create a robot ,say a toaster.
And I determine that it is to operate in a specific manor, and produce the toast in a particular manor ,it does not ague with me about it's programing, it does it because it is programed to do so.
If I change it's parameters there is no argument it functions the way I program it. It is not equal to me in the slightest nor does it have a vote.
And when it ceases to function as I require it ,I either repair it or discard it and build another , because it is with on my power to do so.
No creature is equal to it's Creator period.
Having the power of will Is not license to contest one's status ,but it is the proof of rebellion, the creator has the liberty to eliminate at His will ,because it is His to do so.
NB: This is how the Religious Right believes humanity should be governed: by an autocratic God who is accountable to no one. The motivation behind creationism is should be clear from the above post. These people are a danger to democracy, every bit as much as radical Islam.
The one thing that is irrefutable, is that there IS a Source (does not necessarily mean Creator) of everything that exists. IF that Source . . . whatever it is . . . is NOT a minimal definition of a God, then I do not know what could ever be. Why must a maximal definition be accepted simply because it is the popular one (ad populum). The only thing we know for certain is that reality exists and something is responsible for it. That is pretty damn Godly . . . given its scope, ubiquity and power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
That's the cosmological argument. But the argument suffers from special pleading. Why does the universe need a Source, but a Source doesn't need a Source? What created the Source?
The mandate relies in existence itself, Freak. Existence must be accounted for somehow. That somehow is the Source of existence itself.
NB: This is how the Religious Right believes humanity should be governed: by an autocratic God who is accountable to no one. The motivation behind creationism is should be clear from the above post. These people are a danger to democracy, every bit as much as radical Islam.
While discussing the relative merits of different conceptions of God, it may be useful to have a clear and comprehensive understanding of the different conceptions of God.
Nature worship
Animism
Totemism
Ancestor worship
Polytheism
Thera
Henotheism/Kathenotheism/Monolatry
Dualism
Monotheism
Theism
Pantheism
Panentheism
Deism
Natural Religion
And throw into that mix a number of alternative theologies within each, such as liberation theology, process theology, etc., and you have even more variants to consider.
While there is some overlap, they're generally unique conceptions one from another and each is at least as well-supported as the dominant forms of monotheism, and some of them place fewer demands on adherents to believe the unproven than the dominant forms of monotheism places, especially as it relates to omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence.
These are not at all separate in reality. Only in how the individual chose to separate them.
Rather they (and others) are aspects of the One Thing and no thing is really at all separate from that One Thing.
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.
