imagine...

[astarath]

This seems to have turned cyclical and fruitless. Each of you is trying to control the argument through questioning and neither is coming into any type of conversation.

 

[1AOA1]

exactly. do you know what you found?

So if they don't know what they're looking for, how are they going to find it?

i don't know, your religion seems to have all the answers :sarcastic

ok

 

[waitasec]

So if they don't know what they're looking for, how are they going to find it?

exactly, how do you know you found it?

ok

don't leave me hangin...what's the answer

 

[waitasec]

This seems to have turned cyclical and fruitless. Each of you is trying to control the argument through questioning and neither is coming into any type of conversation.

i don't think we are being cynical...

in my OP i set up the scenario and anyone is free to respond how they see fit.
it's just very telling how some choose to respond.

 

[1AOA1]

exactly, how do you know you found it?

Can a man be feverishly looking for something to start a car, with a banana, its key and a comb on his lap.

don't leave me hangin...what's the answer

To 'does the ocean have free will?'?

 

[waitasec]

Can a man be feverishly looking for something to start a car, with a banana, its key and a comb on his lap.

are referring to purpose?
or being inquisitive?

my proposition say's; yes god exits, now what?
if god continues to be as god has been, do you think that will bring peace or more strife?

 

[astarath]

I think how people choose to live under God is key. There are many people that ascribe to a belief in God and yet live lives void of any indication that there is a lifestyle change associated with that decision.

 

[waitasec]

I think how people choose to live under God is key. There are many people that ascribe to a belief in God and yet live lives void of any indication that there is a lifestyle change associated with that decision.

i'm not sure what you mean here
many people ascribe to a belief in god, yes that is true. but if the evidence of god became apparent, would that bring peace or strife?

 

[astarath]

I suppose you are referring to the world at large. I imagine at first it would bring great strife. People being forced to abandon their beliefs would scar many. However as generations passed and people had an answer it would make it simpler in understanding purpose for our lives.

 

[waitasec]

I suppose you are referring to the world at large. I imagine at first it would bring great strife. People being forced to abandon their beliefs would scar many. However as generations passed and people had an answer it would make it simpler in understanding purpose for our lives.

ok.
how would people be forced to abandon their belief if evidence of god was found?
wouldn't their faith become stronger?

 

[EverChanging]

If God were a being that could be said to exist, which is not a part of my theology or worldview, I can't see how it would be any more relevant to me than it is now.

 

[Danmac]

No, science is dependent on the natural laws of the universe.
Unless we can find what, if any, laws were in place before time and space came into existence, we cannot "demand a cause for the big bang".
We cannot even insist a cause is necessary. The Law of Cause and Effect is dependent on interaction with space and time.

Causality is the basis for all science. Therefore the big bang required a cause says science, but there was no natural laws to cause it. So science is left with,"something had to cause the big bang, but we don't know what or who it was. If you do not understand that you don't understand the foundation of science, which happens to be causes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No, science is dependent on the natural laws of the universe.
Unless we can find what, if any, laws were in place before time and space came into existence, we cannot "demand a cause for the big bang".
We cannot even insist a cause is necessary. The Law of Cause and Effect is dependent on interaction with space and time.

Causality is the basis for all science.

Not at the quantum level.

Therefore the big bang required a cause says science,

No, it does not. Causality requires interaction with time and space.

So science is left with,"something had to cause the big bang, but we don't know what or who it was.

If you understood even the basics of physics, you would see no physicist in his/her right mind would say something as nonsensical as "something had to cause the big bang"

If you do not understand that you don't understand the foundation of science, which happens to be causes.

The foundations of science are the natural laws of our universe, after the first plank time.

 

[Danmac]

Not at the quantum level.

If we needed causes at the quantum level then God would need a cause. Thank you for declaring that He is a timeless being that doesn't need a cause. The universe on the other hand did need a cause.

If you understood even the basics of physics, you would see no physicist in his/her right mind would say something as nonsensical as "something had to cause the big bang"

Please..... this has been an argument, just like creation and evolution. Each side has a basis for it's belief. So yes, some do make that assumption.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If we needed causes at the quantum level then God would need a cause. Thank you for declaring that He is a timeless being that doesn't need a cause. The universe on the other hand did need a cause.

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to our current discussion on the need for a cause of the "Big Bang".

Although you do present a good picture for the difference in our two theologies.

I can look at the empirical evidence of physics and accept that there is no necessity for a God or "First Cause" in the genesis of our Universe. Yet I have faith that a "First Cause" does exist. I can accept that there is no evidence for or against this "First Cause", and indeed that it cannot even be shown that a "First Cause" is necessary.

You, and others like you, will ignore the empirical evidence of physics and insist that God is a necessity for the Universes existence. It is as if you need this pseudoscientific necessity for God in order to justify your faith.

I wonder which of us has more faith in our "God".

 

[Danmac]

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to our current discussion on the need for a cause of the "Big Bang".

Although you do present a good picture for the difference in our two theologies.

I can look at the empirical evidence of physics and accept that there is no necessity for a God or "First Cause" in the genesis of our Universe. Yet I have faith that a "First Cause" does exist. I can accept that there is no evidence for or against this "First Cause", and indeed that it cannot even be shown that a "First Cause" is necessary.

You, and others like you, will ignore the empirical evidence of physics and insist that God is a necessity for the Universes existence. It is as if you need this pseudoscientific necessity for God in order to justify your faith.

I wonder which of us has more faith in our "God".

My faith in God is not the result of the big bang needing a cause. It is logically justified

 

[Twilight Hue]

If God were a being that could be said to exist, which is not a part of my theology or worldview, I can't see how it would be any more relevant to me than it is now.

Right. It would be reasonable to acknowledge that things would essentially stay the way as they are, irregardless to any such discovery.

 

[tumbleweed41]

My faith in God is not the result of the big bang needing a cause. It is logically justified

Since it cannot be shown that the Singularity or the Big Bang necessitate cause, what is the logical justification?

 

[Danmac]

Since it cannot be shown that the Singularity or the Big Bang necessitate cause, what is the logical justification?

Conscience

 

[tumbleweed41]

Conscience

Moral awareness is explained easily through societal evolution and cooperative survival.
Again, I am not saying God, however one defines that term, does not exist, just that true faith requires acceptance that God cannot be shown to be logically necessary.