Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Gabethewiking]

No actually by asking this question I have simply shown that the Believer and non believer have the same footing. I always see people saying prove God, I say disprove Him.

So why do you not accept anything anyone tells you?
Could it be because you want a foundational basis for it? Well if you claim something you need a basis for it, be it that the RedSocks won or a God. You seem to think that anything anyone claims is true because they claim it, Good luck with that worldview and skewed thinking, but if you want to learn something ,which you can not if you follow this logic, you need to use common sense and accept facts on its evidence not on "faith".

 

[tumbleweed41]

So lets see we have 3 categories

1. eternal universe
2. God created universe
or
3. i dont know "religion"

Again you have ignored the many other possible scenarios. Leaving open only the equaly improbable ideas of "eternal universe" and "created universe".

And how you equate both a lack of belief and admitting that one is does not know to religious faith is beyond reasonable comprehension.

 

[AK4]

Your understanding of physics is flawed. Super Relativity is an attempt to tie all physics together into a "Theory of Everything".
The link you provided is an unverified philosophy. Not evidence of your assumption.

Question. Do you think quantum physics is a stand alone theory?

As I said, you posit nothing is eternal, while presenting your God as eternal.

Nothing that is created is eternal. Created and eternal are complete opposites. Nothing is eternal IN CREATION. So where would God fit into this?

I have presented two of the many scientifically valid scenarios. Again, where have I ever posited an "eternal universe"?

Again, you swear by QP and that the happenings in QP can appear from "nowhere". So you either are for creation out of nothing or you believe these things already existed in some form or another. Which is it?

 

[AK4]

There are many options, two of which I have already presented.

Can you state them and others briefly and give them a title please?

 

[AK4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK4
More smoke and mirrors. This is what you really said----there was no creation, the universe is eternal. Thats it.

So when are you guys gonna stop hiding behind the real meaning of what you say?

When are you going to stop putting words in peoples mouths in your weak attempt to shore up your convictions?

You are doing no different than what christians do when you ask them if Jesus is the Saviour of the world. They will without a doubt say yes He is, but then you mention hell then is He really Saviour of the world? Or they will say God is love but yet His is going to torture and barbeque most of humanity in hell.

Amazing aint it?

 

[AK4]

Why does a given nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other?
What "cause" is given for this action, according to Super Relativity?

Ah so are you looking for a REASON why something happened? Isnt that what science is? If there is a REASON, then that is the CAUSE.

So why do these things happen in QP? To say it "just happens" is not very scientific now is it?

 

[AK4]

Asatru
Bön
Buddhism
Confucianism
Deism
Gnosticism
Jainism
Stoicism

Just to name a few......

Oh dont forget atheism. Tell me, what do all these have in common then if they are not looking for salvation from a/ by a God?

I know the answer, do you? Dont forget, atheism falls in here too!

 

[Willamena]

Oh dont forget atheism. Tell me, what do all these have in common then if they are not looking for salvation from a/ by a God?

I know the answer, do you? Dont forget, atheism falls in here too!

I'm going to guess that not attaining salvation is what they have in common.

(Did I win?)

 

[tumbleweed41]

Question. Do you think quantum physics is a stand alone theory?

I never posited that is was. However, it does carry more weight individually than the currently suggested "Theory of Everything"

Nothing that is created is eternal. Created and eternal are complete opposites. Nothing is eternal IN CREATION. So where would God fit into this?

Obviously God does not fit into your cause/effect argument.

Again, you swear by QP and that the happenings in QP can appear from "nowhere". So you either are for creation out of nothing or you believe these things already existed in some form or another. Which is it?

I gave two reasonable example of the origins of the Big Bang. I do not "swear" that either one occurred, just that they are both much more scientificaly valid than your either/or proposition of "eternal" or "created".

Can you state them and others briefly and give them a title please?

• Quantum effect without cause.
• Lack of necessity for cause beyond the boundaries of our universe.

Ah so are you looking for a REASON why something happened? Isnt that what science is? If there is a REASON, then that is the CAUSE.

So why do these things happen in QP? To say it "just happens" is not very scientific now is it?

I am asking you to posit the cause. You brought up Super Relativity and how it explains the uncaused effects in Quantum Physics.
So explain it.
Why does a given nucleus decay at one particular moment rather than some other?
What "cause" is given for this action, according to Super Relativity?

 

[McBell]

More smoke and mirrors. This is what you really said----there was no creation, the universe is eternal. Thats it.

No, I did not say that.
I did not say anything even remotely close to that.

This is YOUR strawman.
This is your sad attempt to put words in my mouth to make your argument look better.
This is you dictating to me what I think and believe.
Problem is that your strawman does not help your argument.
Sad, really, that you think it does.

So when are you guys gonna stop hiding behind the real meaning of what you say?

When are you going to stop lieing?

 

[McBell]

Amazing aint it?

Yes, your fanaticism is utterly amazing.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And, as I have mentioned before, because of the way in which quantum physics and its laws operate, time itself more than likely has no meaning near the Big Bang event. This means that there was no 'time' as we know it 'before' the Big Bang. Before time is meaningless.
That being the case, the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible answer. The expansion of the universe has always been a process of transformation from one state to the next.
At some point as we look back at the Big Bang, we enter a state so removed from any that we now know, that even the Laws that govern it become totally obscure to science itself. In the quantum world, we see things 'appearing' out of nothing all the time. This is why we look to the quantum world as our closest observation of what may have occurred during the Big Bang.
One can speculate that a god or deity was the "cause", but a cause is not necessary.

 

[godnotgod]

And, as I have mentioned before, because of the way in which quantum physics and its laws operate, time itself more than likely has no meaning near the Big Bang event. This means that there was no 'time' as we know it 'before' the Big Bang. Before time is meaningless.

"Since there cannot be two worlds -- one for the scientists and one for the mystics -- it must be that their descriptions are of the same world but from different points of view."

"The Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation....time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe."

"This allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about.. the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

That being the case, the question of what happened before the Big Bang is now a question without any possible answer. The expansion of the universe has always been a process of transformation from one state to the next.

If time is non-existent at the source of the Big Bang, then we are in the realm of the Infinite. If time is but a concept overlaid onto the event of the Big Bang, then the Big Bang is occurring at this moment, and we, as conscious entities, are part and parcel of that event, as well as microcosms of the universe itself. This idea is reflected in Zen's view of the moon in a dewdrop. All dewdrops contain an image of the entire moon. This would suggest that both the Universe and the Big Bang are complete within our own entities. If we can come to understand our own human nature as being at one with the Absolute, then it would follow that we can arrive at a complete understanding as to the nature of the Universe.

At some point as we look back at the Big Bang, we enter a state so removed from any that we now know, that even the Laws that govern it become totally obscure to science itself. In the quantum world, we see things 'appearing' out of nothing all the time. This is why we look to the quantum world as our closest observation of what may have occurred during the Big Bang.

Still, quantum theory is a tool by which we try to understand phenomena; it is not the universe itself. It tells us about behavior, not about essence. If we want to know about essence, we need to go beyond the tools of analysis.

This "appearing out of nothing" is beginning to coincide with Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist views of the universe, in which "nothingness" and "emptiness" are vital to understanding the nature of what we call "something".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You dont have to believe in a God or be religious to believe in freewill though. Its a philosophy not necessarily a religious one at that.

Hey, you asked...and I gave you my take on it. Whether you agree with me or not is another subject.....

 

[Jeremiah]

So lets see we have 3 categories

1. eternal universe
2. God created universe
or
3. i dont know "religion"

So in i dont know religion you need proof of either 1 or 2 to believe one of them. Okay, we have no proof of anything in the universe, in creation that is eternal. We have only evidence of the universe/creation having a beginning.

So judging by the evidence, theres only one you should believe.

No, you have it wrong.

It is:

1. There is an origin of existence.

2. There is no origin of existence.

3. We don't know if or if not there is an origin of existence.

It has nothing to do with religion or gods.


"We have only evidence of the universe/creation having a beginning."

There is no such evidence.

 

[AK4]

No, I refuse to accept them because what you present as fact is generally nothing but unsupported assertion.

So the verses supporting a expanding universe---is this an unsupported assertion?
things being made by things unseen---is this unsupported also?
the earth being older than 6000 years----unsupported?

And if you want a Christian denomination that doesn't use salvation as the reason for worship:

- Calvinism
- Quakerism
- Catholicism (they acknowledge salvation, but frown on people motivating themselves by fear of Hell or desire for Heaven, calling this "imperfect contritition)

No these still use salvation, but the fear of hell is their strongest point to try to get people salvation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find it amazing that a ludicrous OP could generate 184 pages of dialogue. The capacity of nonsense to generate substance is suggestive of ...

 

[cottage]

I find it amazing that a ludicrous OP could generate 184 pages of dialogue. The capacity of nonsense to generate substance is suggestive of ...

:yes: You are right in a sense. The thread title is absurdity itself. But where we manage to leave that bit of nonsense behind we seem to scrape together a few reasonable arguments.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So the verses supporting a expanding universe---is this an unsupported assertion?

Yes. This is called reading into a verse what you want it to say.

things being made by things unseen---is this unsupported also?

Yes. See above.

the earth being older than 6000 years----unsupported?

Nope, you got that one right.

 

[AK4]

Many who lack belief in a deity may still adhere to predestination.
Conversely, a belief in a deity does not necessitate lack of freewill.

But the opposite is more true that more people believe that a deity has given mankind freewill. This is probably the biggest deception given to man and the one that is embraced by nearly everyone. As the scriptures state "given a strong delusion so that they can believe a lie".