Where did god come from???+ morals debate

[Robert.Evans]

I would have thought there was an obvious difference myself, but perhaps not to someone who does not understand it. Let me ask you to think of this,
Please don't treat me like an idiot, treat me as an equal


Can time keep regressing?
We're not sure, time may have started with the big bang

If time cannot, then what is before it?
We're not sure. But why does anything have to be before it?

If time can, then what is time?
A measure

Can anything come from nothing?
Yes, it has been proven in the laboratory - see Lawrence Krauss' book

If not, what is there that it comes from?
See previous question

If yes, then define nothing?
Absence of anything

Does there have to be something that just "IS" by necessity?
Not sure I understand the question

Why do people believe in God?
Because god is a good explanation to many for the big unknowns

Why is there an obvious need to know where we come from?
Because we are inquisitive animals and that is how we further society

No one is treating you as an idiot. Krauss has not proved that something comes from nothing, not nothing in the fullest extent of the word, that is why he wrote a book on it, joining in with his knew found millionaire Dawkins. They are onto a good thing, no?

The answers of "we" is not YOU answering. If we stick with just science answers, then you are on the wrong forum. You have not been honest at all with any of those questions because you have not looked deep enough into them

 

[Altfish]

No one is treating you as an idiot. Krauss has not proved that something comes from nothing, not nothing in the fullest extent of the word, that is why he wrote a book on it, joining in with his knew found millionaire Dawkins. They are onto a good thing, no?

The answers of "we" is not YOU answering. If we stick with just science answers, then you are on the wrong forum. You have not been honest at all with any of those questions because you have not looked deep enough into them

OK, then don't give me condescending responses. e.g. "I would have thought there was an obvious difference myself, but perhaps not to someone who does not understand it." inferring that I don't understand it.

If you can't win the argument assassinate the character of Krauss, what does it matter that he's a friend of Dawkins? Most church /churches are massively more rich than either Dawkins or Krauss, what's that got to do with anything?

We/You/I whatever - and I'm not being treated like an idiot - re-read your very superior response again.

:no:

 

[viole]

I don't know is a good answer if indeed you don't know, but to say you are working on it, suggests that you don't believe in God, and therefore you are working through corporeal understandings, which would smack of arrogance in saying that there cannot be anything we can't see, when clearly even in science there is

Yes, the same corporeal understanding that killed the theory that lightnings come from Zeus or Thor. Or that electricity is not carried by invisible spirits. As if there were a not-corporeal understanding

And yes, we are very arrogant when we say that there are not invisible fairies in our garden. That there is no Zeus, Thor, God, Jesus, Santa or all other things that have the same exact evidence of existing, and share, thereby, the same exact plausibility.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, the same corporeal understanding that killed the theory that lightnings come from Zeus or Thor. Or that electricity is not carried by invisible spirits. As if there were a not-corporeal understanding

And yes, we are very arrogant when we say that there are not invisible fairies in our garden. That there is no Zeus, Thor, God, Jesus, Santa or all other things that have the same exact evidence of existing, and share, thereby, the same exact plausibility.

Ciao

- viole

How do you know that lightening is not? How do you know there are no fairies? How do you know there is no God? Do you believe in magic, it seems you must

 

[Robert.Evans]

OK, then don't give me condescending responses. e.g. "I would have thought there was an obvious difference myself, but perhaps not to someone who does not understand it." inferring that I don't understand it.

The inference was right, you don't.

If you can't win the argument assassinate the character of Krauss, what does it matter that he's a friend of Dawkins? Most church /churches are massively more rich than either Dawkins or Krauss, what's that got to do with anything?

so you assassinate the character of the Church! Krauss and Dawkins make money out of a faith they can't prove, their faith. He has proved nothing as Dawkins has not; but they seem important to you

We/You/I whatever - and I'm not being treated like an idiot - re-read your very superior response again.

In saying "we", you are putting yourself with science, whether that be including me or excluding me I don't know. Science is not the be all and end all of everything. It has made many blunders, not just manmade religion. The truth is there for those who wish to see it. Krauss has made money out of selling a book on a subject that others would make into a paragraph in another book. He looks for "nothing" so people will not think of 'something'. You cannot get something from nothing.

 

[Altfish]

The inference was right, you don't.

Difficult to argue with arrogant facts like that.

so you assassinate the character of the Church! Krauss and Dawkins make money out of a faith they can't prove, their faith. He has proved nothing as Dawkins has not; but they seem important to you.

I did not assassinate the character of the church, I compared it to your slur on Krauss and dismissed it as irrelevant.
I have not mentioned Dawkins apart from in a reply to you raising him, he is not particularly important to me; but I respect him as a scientist. Both him and Krauss have increased our understanding in many areas.

In saying "we", you are putting yourself with science, whether that be including me or excluding me I don't know. Science is not the be all and end all of everything. It has made many blunders, not just manmade religion. The truth is there for those who wish to see it. Krauss has made money out of selling a book on a subject that others would make into a paragraph in another book. He looks for "nothing" so people will not think of 'something'. You cannot get something from nothing.

You read too much into my use of the word 'we'. Neither do I worship Krauss, I don't know why you don't like him but he has written more than the one book I quoted.
I did not say science is the be all and end all of everything - do not put words into my mouth.
The experiments by Krauss and others would infer that "You cannot get something from nothing" if not false is very far from proven.

Your ability to totally ignore my comments and strike off at a tangent creating more strawmen is impressive.

 

[Riverwolf]

Give your reasons why the 'answer doesn't make any sense upon real inquiry'.

I was speaking of a hypothetical.

But okay: the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God, included with the concept of eternal Hell-punishment where God's love does not reach.

That doesn't make any sense. If God is omnipresent, he's in Hell, too. If he's omniscient, he knows that strict rules and regulations are not terribly universal, because different situations call for different rules. But if he's omnipotent, he can basically will into existence several rule-sets for all the varying situations. He could be so much more active.

 

[Riverwolf]

God is not an answer; if scientist throughout the ages had accepted 'god' as an answer we'd still be in the stone ages.

Actually, no. The vast majority of our knowledge in various scientific fields come from theologians who would have thought of God or Gods as an answer. Thing is, they wanted to understand that answer better.

Besides, don't knock Stone Age peoples. They built Stonehenge.

 

[McNap]

Can anything come from nothing?
Yes, it has been proven in the laboratory - see Lawrence Krauss' book

That's interesting.
Unfortunately I'm not a great book reader, but could anyone of you please give me some more information on this research.
I never heard of this proof before.

I'm not sure, but I thought it is written in the bible that God created from the nothing.
As you know I have faith, but I appreciate the views of faithless people as well. After all everybody's life started faithless.

I must admit that as a believer I sometimes felt threatened during discussions with non-believers and I think it was wrong to use my faith as an arguement against scientific evidence.
I find the OP's concern understandable.

 

[viole]

How do you know that lightening is not?

That lightening is not what? A spark from Thor's hammer?
Well, I know, you know?

Knowledge does not entail certainty. If it did, nobody would know anything and your question would be moot, anyway.

How do you know there are no fairies?

Ditto

How do you know there is no God?

Ditto.

Do you believe in magic, it seems you must

Can you expand on this? What magic am I supposed to believe in?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gehennaite]

Who can say that God hadn't evolved in some way or another Itself?

I believe that God started off as a completely abstract, infinite consciousness, and that an infinite number of concrete realities were constructible via God's consciousness. Perhaps God is still based in this abstract consciousness, but has manifested Itself concretely within reality - perhaps undergirding the consciousness of all sentient beings. Who knows? You're trying to define infinity and that's impossible.

Why God chose to create reality this specific way is unknown to me, but surely you jest when you ask where did God come from? Infinity is by the very definition infinite. The source of all things finite has to be infinite, otherwise reality is impossible.

 

[Sunstone]

God is an emergent property of the universe. Or so they say. And by "they", I mean me.

 

[fantome profane]

God is an emergent property of the universe. Or so they say. And by "they", I mean me.

Others (not me) would say that the universe is an emergent property of "God".

 

[Sunstone]

Others (not me) would say that the universe is an emergent property of "God".

How cliche of them! Why, they aren't even being original saying that!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Who can say that God hadn't evolved in some way or another Itself?

I believe that God started off as a completely abstract, infinite consciousness, and that an infinite number of concrete realities were constructible via God's consciousness. Perhaps God is still based in this abstract consciousness, but has manifested Itself concretely within reality - perhaps undergirding the consciousness of all sentient beings. Who knows? You're trying to define infinity and that's impossible.

Why God chose to create reality this specific way is unknown to me, but surely you jest when you ask where did God come from? Infinity is by the very definition infinite. The source of all things finite has to be infinite, otherwise reality is impossible.

Well put, I think that is a good answer.