The Debate of God.

[godnotgod]

Nice philosophical viewpoint, but can you provide any empirical evidence to support any of this?

We need first to define 'dance', I suppose.

Some of the characteristics of dance are patterned movement, rhythm, harmony, repetition. Does the universe exhibit these characteristics?

One thing that lends support to this idea is that dance is found in just about every culture in the world. We might say that human beings are one way the universe expresses itself. There is obviously some common kind of energy within man which compels him to dance. What is that energy?

As for the universe being the Absolute itself, think about the following: when you remove the conceptual overlays of Time, Space, and Causation from your view of the universe, what do you see?

 

[godnotgod]

The Cosmic Dance

In this new picture, there is no gravitational force that masses exert on other masses. Instead, there are space-time distortions. Space-time in the presence of a mass is curved.

In flat, empty space-time, small test particles follow straight lines. However, just as there are no straight lines on the surface of a sphere, the closest we can come to the notion of a straight line in a curved space-time is what mathematicians call a geodesic (a space-time line that is as straight as possible). Small particles in the vicinity of a massive sphere follow space-time geodesics, which send them plunging toward the mass, or into an orbit around it. Gravity doesn't deflect these particles from their straight lines. It redefines what it means to move in the straightest possible way.

As a consequence, Einstein's universe performs an ongoing cosmic dance in which matter and space-time interact. A given configuration of matter distorts space-time geometry (not only because of mass, but also with its energy, inner tensions or pressure) and this distorted geometry makes matter move in certain ways. This movement, in turn, changes the matter configuration, and space-time geometry changes correspondingly. Now that space-time geometry is a bit different, it also acts on matter in a different way, matter moves, geometry changes, and so on in an endless dance.

The cosmic dance — Einstein Online

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]xRh1NQ0N9vI[/youtube]
Alan Watts - Life Is a Dance - YouTube


God did not create the universe...
He became the universe!
Deepak Chopra

"In the Beginning was the Word,... and the Word became Flesh..."
Genesis

 

[cottage]

So back up your claims, show me both scientific and philosophical objections to my positions.

I laid out my argument giving my objections, some of which you haven’t really answered. But as it appears they were not understood I hope this time to have made them clearer. Most of my arguments will be in the area of philosophy as that is my particular forte.

Science cannot explain the origins of the beginning. Yeah, we can trace your universes expansion all the way back to the initial singularity, but it stops there, because there is no naturalistic reasoning after you take away space and matter, which is exactly what you do once you go back in time. So we need a transcendent cause.
Huh? According to Big Bang cosmology, THERE WAS NO UNIVERSE BEFORE THE BIG BANG. There is no "as we know it" business going on here. Physicists recognize that that our universe began to exist, that is why they have been panicking in their attempts to come up with naturalistic explanations for WHY and HOW our universe began to exist. The universe begin to exist, suggesting that there was a time at which THERE WAS NO UNIVERSE AT ALL.
Actually there is, it is called the "Standard Model" of the big bang. In this model, literally nothing existed before the big bang. This is by far the best explanation, and it has the most evidence supporting it. All other models and proposals fall short. And you are right, it doesn't explain the origin, but it does give support to the second premise of the argument, that the universe began to exist. This is evidence from cosmology, which is independent evidence from the evidence from entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as well. And in case empirical evidence isn't enough, we have logical reasoning from philosophy that the universe had to have had a beginning. So I think we have more reasons than not to believe that the universe began to exist, and therefore require a transcendent cause. If you don't believe this, then you should have no problem tearing down all the arguments that support a finite universe and replacing them with the opposite.

Yes the universe is finite. There is no argument from me that the universe is anything other than contingent. The universe began as something from something and is still evolving, but there is no conclusive identifiable cause and therefore no reason to dismiss out of hand an act of some distinct physical phenomena that was antecedent to the Big Bang. There was of course no ‘before’ in the sense of a pre-existent time and space, which began with the event, but that does not place constraints upon any other dynamics prior to the Big Bang, but only that to which the known laws of the universe apply. In fact the honest (if not altogether satisfactory) conclusion to be formed is that the initial Big Bang singularity was the cause of the universe. But if a supernatural agency can be parachuted in to explain a conclusion from scientific theory, then the former, more natural explanation has equal merit at the very least - if not greater credibility! Admittedly in cosmology there is at its extreme a cloudy boundary between science and metaphysics. But in my view theism making an argument from science isn’t a genuine intellectual enquiry. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is neither philosophy nor science. We don’t know how the universe began, only that it did, and science continues to look for answers. But I have not seen any cosmological models where a transcendent cause or a mystical being is given as a scientific explanation.

Cmon now cottage. It is to easy. You, yourself....did you begin to exist?? Was there ever a point at which you didnt exist? The answer is obviously yes. So, there was a reason why you began to exist, right??? The answer is also yes. So in the same way that you began and require a cause for yourse existence, apply that to the universe. Get it?

I’m sorry but you are not really seeing the point. Neither Cottage nor the universe had to exist; they are not logically necessary and can even be conceived not to exist for the contrary of anything in experience is possible, as it can never imply a contradiction. Causation is inference from past instances and takes the form that B follows A, and therefore Bs will follow As in the future. But there is no necessary connection – only correlation. So even though cause isn’t necessary we know it arises in the universe and is associated with physical phenomena, which is in accordance with the Big Bang being a physical effect. So I’m sure you can see how a problem arises when this contingent phenomenon is used to explain a supposedly non-contingent, supernatural agency. This is continued in my next paragraph.

Huh?? This is not about identifying features. The universe as a WHOLE began to exist, and therefore requires a transcendent cause. This is the logical inference of not believing that things can create themselves.

As it seems we’ve moved from physics to mysticism I’ll look at things in terms of pure philosophy. Now, unlike the concept of God, whose existence is said to be impossible, if causality is a worldly or physical phenomenon then causality together with the world can be conceived to not exist: So there doesn’t have to be any humans, laws of gravity, laws of motion or the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics – or a law of causation. Causation is necessary, ie holds true in all possible worlds, in order for a Creator to bring the universe into existence. And yet the universe is a possible world and cause is not demonstrable! So if there is no necessary law of cause and effect then arguments to God immediately become impossible. Every scrap of contingent matter may be said to be absolutely dependent upon God, but God cannot be God without the concept of cause and effect, which is a feature of the contingent physical world but not logically necessary! So if causation isn’t necessary then God is not intelligible, since believers are only able to reason to god by presenting him as the cause of all things existent. So, the absurdity is a supposedly necessary being who is logically dependent upon a concept that is not itself logically necessary.

 

[Daviso452]

Dear Wild,

Nothing is impossible. Just because u dont understand how something could happen does not mean it didnt. Yes, thry would have to evolve at the same time. It may seem unlikely, but it is not impossible. And actually, all it really takes is one organism to start the genetic variation.

 

[godnotgod]

Dear Wild,

Nothing is impossible. Just because u dont understand how something could happen does not mean it didnt. Yes, thry would have to evolve at the same time. It may seem unlikely, but it is not impossible. And actually, all it really takes is one organism to start the genetic variation.

As I understand it, conversely there is a fish that lives off the Japanese coast that somehow can change its own gender, depending on the need at the time.

I believe that the dual nature of things, which includes gender, is woven into the basic fabric of the universe. The Chinese say it this way:

'From the One came the Two;
From the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came the Ten Thousand Things'

 

[Daviso452]

You know wat, **** it it. Wild, just ignore the post. I said i would stop responding and i will. The only reason why i dont take it down is because godnotgod already quoted it.

 

[Tiberius]

We need first to define 'dance', I suppose.

Some of the characteristics of dance are patterned movement, rhythm, harmony, repetition. Does the universe exhibit these characteristics?

One thing that lends support to this idea is that dance is found in just about every culture in the world. We might say that human beings are one way the universe expresses itself. There is obviously some common kind of energy within man which compels him to dance. What is that energy?

As for the universe being the Absolute itself, think about the following: when you remove the conceptual overlays of Time, Space, and Causation from your view of the universe, what do you see?

And your reply makes very little sense in light of what you wrote. About all that you DID actually reply to was how the universe is a dance, and even then I think vibration would work better.

However, you also said that the universe was a "dance of Absolute Joy. Gender and duality makes that possible."

You have failed completely to explain how the "dance" you mention is one of joy. How do you know it isn't one of mathematics? And you have also completely failed to explain how such a dance is made possible by gender and duality.

 

[godnotgod]

And your reply makes very little sense in light of what you wrote. About all that you DID actually reply to was how the universe is a dance, and even then I think vibration would work better.

However, you also said that the universe was a "dance of Absolute Joy. Gender and duality makes that possible."

You have failed completely to explain how the "dance" you mention is one of joy. How do you know it isn't one of mathematics? And you have also completely failed to explain how such a dance is made possible by gender and duality.

Mathematics? No, it is not a dance of the description of reality, but a dance of reality itself.

 

[Tiberius]

Mathematics? No, it is not a dance of the description of reality, but a dance of reality itself.

Care to define what you mean? Because as it is, what you are saying is meaningless.

 

[godnotgod]

Care to define what you mean? Because as it is, what you are saying is meaningless.

Stars, planets, galaxies, rocks, trees, animals, plants, waves, evolution, and we, are all actions of the universe. Those actions are all variations of the cosmic dance. You and I are the universe looking at itself through our eyes.

Does that help?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mathematics? No, it is not a dance of the description of reality, but a dance of reality itself.

Sung to the tune of simple gifts and my play on the lyrics of "Lord of the Dance."

"Dance, dance, wherever you may be
for I am a guy with a math PhD..."

 

[meddlehaze]

Why don't you believe in God?

 

[9Westy9]

Why don't you believe in God?

1) I used to but found that he was surprisingly silent to prayers. I also had too many unanswered questions
2) There's no good reason to believe in him in the first place

I look forward to your response, Westy

edit: and welcome to the forum

 

[meddlehaze]

1) I used to but found that he was surprisingly silent to prayers. I also had too many unanswered questions

I understand completely. Have you considered the idea that prayer isn't intended to get things or to make things happen? Rather, it is intended to mold the heart of the person praying to God's heart? Or to reveal the heart of the person praying to him/herself? I find that many of my answers are usually 'wait'.

2) There's no good reason to believe in him in the first place

Can you define, "good reason"?

I look forward to your response, Westy

edit: and welcome to the forum

Thanks! I have a question. It's not automatically subscribing to threads for me, why is this?

 

[9Westy9]

I understand completely. Have you considered the idea that prayer isn't intended to get things or to make things happen? Rather, it is intended to mold the heart of the person praying to God's heart? Or to reveal the heart of the person praying to him/herself? I find that many of my answers are usually 'wait'.

The problem with the God answers yes, no or wait is that there is no other possibility. Either it'll happen (yes), wont happen (no) or may happen in the future (wait). Mostly I just couldn't verify that prayer actually had any sort of answer

Can you define, "good reason"?

Certainly. There is no good reason to believe that unicorns exist. They exist as a concept and have defining feature's yet haven't been observed or shown to definitely exist

Thanks! I have a question. It's not automatically subscribing to threads for me, why is this?

I think there's a way to subscribe to threads. Although I forget. But after a few hours, or several minutes, the thread should appear under 'My Replies'. If a thread is in bold then it means new posts have been added to the thread since you last viewed it.

 

[meddlehaze]

The problem with the God answers yes, no or wait is that there is no other possibility. Either it'll happen (yes), wont happen (no) or may happen in the future (wait). Mostly I just couldn't verify that prayer actually had any sort of answer

Sounds like a lack of trust. I can only speak for myself, but the more I pray the more I see answers. I don't think prayer is a logical basis to say that God does not exist because the answer has to be 1 of 3 options.

Certainly. There is no good reason to believe that unicorns exist. They exist as a concept and have defining feature's yet haven't been observed or shown to definitely exist

Let's stay away from unicorns because our subject is about God. We can address that later. Your personal standard sounds like it must be empirical in order for it to exist. Is this criterion exclusive to God?

I think there's a way to subscribe to threads. Although I forget. But after a few hours, or several minutes, the thread should appear under 'My Replies'. If a thread is in bold then it means new posts have been added to the thread since you last viewed it.

Cool, thank you.

 

[9Westy9]

Sounds like a lack of trust. I can only speak for myself, but the more I pray the more I see answers. I don't think prayer is a logical basis to say that God does not exist because the answer has to be 1 of 3 options.

unanswered prayer doesn't disprove God, I agree. And I want to make it clear that I don't believe that God definitely doesn't exist, only that I find it more reasonable to believe he doesn't exist.

Let's stay away from unicorns because our subject is about God. We can address that later. Your personal standard sounds like it must be empirical in order for it to exist. Is this criterion exclusive to God?

We can stay away from unicorns if you like. I was mostly using it to make a point about why I don't believe in God. Yes I prefer empirical evidence for beings but if you say god isn't a physical being then I'll accept logical/ philosophical arguments. (noted these wont prove or disprove only help to show what is most reasonable)

Cool, thank you.

You're welcome

 

[meddlehaze]

unanswered prayer doesn't disprove God, I agree. And I want to make it clear that I don't believe that God definitely doesn't exist, only that I find it more reasonable to believe he doesn't exist.

Awesome, thank you for the clarification.

We can stay away from unicorns if you like. I was mostly using it to make a point about why I don't believe in God. Yes I prefer empirical evidence for beings but if you say god isn't a physical being then I'll accept logical/ philosophical arguments. (noted these wont prove or disprove only help to show what is most reasonable)

I understand the allegory and how you are using it to justify your disbelief. The problem is the two don't compare. One is asking something very specific from us as a result of His existence and the other will continue to feed off of fairies

Forgive me if I sound redundant, but I want to be clear. You posit the fact that in order for something to objectively exist, it needs to be empirical?

 

[9Westy9]

Awesome, thank you for the clarification.

no problem

I understand the allegory and how you are using it to justify your disbelief. The problem is the two don't compare. One is asking something very specific from us as a result of His existence and the other will continue to feed off of fairies

You mean you don't believe in fairies OR unicorns!!! How dare you

Forgive me if I sound redundant, but I want to be clear. You posit the fact that in order for something to objectively exist, it needs to be empirical?

Not necessarily. Empirical evidence is most valuable followed by reasoned argument. Being a sceptic I don't say that anything exists only that it's more reasonable to assume that something exists.