|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted April 10, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's a pretty simple conclusion that God created time if you assume that God exists as the Creator.
Here is where you should stop. No one knows if God exists, so no one knows who created time. That's my logical conclusion.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is where you should stop. No one knows if God exists, so no one knows who created time. That's my logical conclusion.
And where knowing ends, starts believing.
God rewards those who believe... 
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 04:19 PM |
|
|
There is the arrogence again. The strawman argument. "Oh ours version can't explain certain things, but YOURS must!". "We don't know certain things, and can't know certain things yet, but you have to!" That is indeed why I left this discussion. Never did I say "I KNOW what happened!" I asked questions and got the arrogent responses. "Oh THIS is what happened, and even though there is as many problems with our version as the other version, THEY are wrong!"
Mind you I was not asking based on the 'christian' version of god, but just a 'higher power'. But, as you said. I left this discussion. Too many questions and not enough answers.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Malgore
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Malgore, how would you describe God? And I don't mean that "eternal, creator" as they don't actually tell you anything. I mean like I believe Christian God is said to be all good (and all evil comes from Satan), that kind of attributes. What is it that you know/feel about God, what is the being like that you have faith in?
It is difficult since I have no religious identity. All I can do is to describe Him in terms of philosophy and theology.
Thus God is everything and nothing at the same time (Apophasis vs Cataphasis). The fact of being is an indication of God presence. All being can be viewed as a sign of God. At the same time it is impossible to distinct some aspect of present being as God. Basically we dont have something to point finger at.
Taking about faith - yet again as a non-religious person I cannot share any info about religious feelings. Yet most of the studies of religious experience (say Will James) state that believers identify faith with permanent (or temporary reappearing) of some very unique feelings. The paradox here is that these feelings dont have references in real world and thus cannot be properly described in empirical terms.
Quote:
Here is where you should stop. No one knows if God exists, so no one knows who created time. That's my logical conclusion.
Well, since problem of creation of time cannot be solved (defined in logical terms based on evidences of empirical knowledge) by humans, you can view concept of God as another alternative theory. Of course it is not a straight empirical science, but while theology heavily relies on logic and philosophy, the concept of God (omnipresent transcendent source of all being) can be considered a science theory.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 06:20 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:30, 10 Apr 2009.
|
@Mytical
Author's Preface to Fishberries
Sorry, but if your argument is fallacious, it's fallacious. It has nothing to do with arrogance. There are appropriate ways to make the argument that I believe you are trying to make; it also requires at least a basic knowledge of the theories for which you are trying to pose alternatives. Using logical fallacies to show the invalidity of theories which you clearly don't understand isn't going to convince anyone that your position has a leg upon which to stand.
Please understand: I am critical of your arguments not out of arrogance or close-mindedness. Actually, particularly in this case, I do it because I want you to understand where the logical problems are with what you're saying. Your argument is a strawman argument. It does not logically support your point of view, which may or may not have actual merit.
The point behind all of this is, of course, that even if the underlying belief that one is trying to explain to people has philosophical usefulness, it's not doing anyone any good if one uses misinformation or illogical arguments (whether used out of malice or ignorance) to try to support it. In fact, you actually undermine your goal: it is unavoidable that the method with which a point of view is argued will color the perception of that viewpoint that the holder of an alternate viewpoint will hold.
The Rise of the Fishberries
Here's an example of why this is important. Please pay attention, because I am actually trying to help you. One day a long time ago on the old CH Roundtable Board, I posted a long article against the uneducated idiots who protest against genetic engineering of foods. This was back when I was living in Philadelphia, and on the day in question my commute to work was delayed for over an hour because a large collection of monkeys - er, people - with nothing better to do with their time were in the streets protesting some national conference on genetic engineering or something of the sort.
Anyway, if you go to any number of websites that campaign against bioengineering (and bioengineering of food, in particular), you'll find that a lot of them use (well, at the time they did - I haven't really followed this for a while, but nevertheless, the example is still pertinent here) a common example to argue their position, that of the fishberry. If you're not familiar with this, basically there was an attempt in the early 1990s to use a fish-related gene in tomatoes in order to protect such products from damaging spring frosts, which cause no small amount of economical damage to the food industry each year. Some artic fish (and other species) have genes (well, proteins) which protect them from cold water, you see. Such "thermal hysterisis proteins" prevent ice crystals from forming inside cells. The idea being, of course, that if you could use such a gene in a tomato and confer such cold-protection to this fruit, you'd be able to protect yourself tremendously from the costs of frost-damage. Based on this limited amount of information, anti-GM people saw a potential to exploit a "yuck-factor" and used this as their poster-child for the campaign against genetically modified foods. Somewhere along the line, fish tomatoes were transmogrified into fish strawberries, and the humorously repugnant portmanteau "fishberry" was coined.
I probably would have just forgotten the issue of my delayed commute into work, but on that evening on the news they were disgracefully interviewing some of the wackos - er, protesters - and one of them (the image STILL sticks in my mind, some 6 years later), a toothless old woman wearing an old gray knit hat with a huge hole in the front, was screeching, "They're puttin' fish in our tomatoes!" when the reporter asked why they were protesting. And I remember just groaning with annoyance. My immediate response was a multi-paragraph rant on the RT.
Crime and Fishberries
Why do I rant? Why is this a problem? Why do I care so much to be talking about this AGAIN? And how is this related to many of the posts here relating to the Big Bang? Well, I'm so glad you asked!
First, a few facts. There are no fish tomatoes and there certainly are no fishberries. (In fact, the project never involved strawberries at all - so one wonders if it was just made up out of thin air by the anti-GM zealots because fishberry sounded more grossly poetic than fish tomato) The project was a failure (fish tomatoes were no more resistant to cold than the fishless variety), an amusing bit of irony considering that much of the anti-GM movement was hinged upon this scare-tactic, and the idea was killed before it ever made it out of the lab. Bad PR probably didn't help the lack of further attempts. But that irony was compounded by the fact that even had the project been a success, they weren't really fish tomatoes. Because, as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows (which ironically - again, irony - doesn't apparently include anyone who holds such a fanatical hatred of genetically modified foods), fish and tomato genetic codes aren't even written in the same language. So, no, fish DNA wasn't injected into tomatoes, which is what the anti-GM people seem to have believed, and which is what they were erroneously advertising everywhere. Plant genes inspired by the functionality of similar genes in fish, written in the tomato language, were injected into tomatoes (well, not really injected, but you get the idea). So aside from providing a point of inspiration for an interesting idea, fish had nothing to do with the tomatoes in the first place! They certainly weren't putting "fish in our tomatoes".
Maybe now you can see where I'm going with this. The entire premise of demonstrating the "dangers of GM foods" using the fish tomato, or, worse, the fishberry, is based on an outright lie or gross misinformation, depending on whether it was done out of malice or out of ignorance. The ultimate irony here is that there actually ARE a number of real, valid concerns about genetically modified foods, but the people most vociferously against them chose to focus on an argument based on something that's completely wrong, fallacious, or however you want to put it.
The Tragedy of the Fishberries
The tragedy in all of this is that there's a real policy-based discussion to be had that is completely washed out by the false issues being perpetrated by the ignorant fools that don't know when to keep their mouths shut. People who are against GM foods don't know the real issues with the technology and so are arguing from the wrong premise, and the scientists mistakenly generalize anyone who is against GM to be a wacko because the wackos raise such a cacophony of laughable misinformation which drowns out the minority with valid concerns. The end result is that scientists think anti-GM people are idiots and the anti-GM people think scientists are arrogant, all because of a heavily perpetuated fallacious argument. The end, end result is that the issue cannot be discussed logically, and smart policy decisions are not made. Society suffers.
In the case of food, there are potential health hazards to deal with, not to mention the health of the planet. In the present discussion of the Big Bang, no immediate policy issues are at stake. Never the less, the same sort of thing happens. Here we have a theory in development, which may or may not explain the very origins of the Universe. Peoples' health is not at stake, of course, but our understanding of reality is. Perhaps if scientists and philosophers and theologists could get together and discuss the issue rationally, the shared resources could actually be used to pull some further understanding out of the issue and thus enlighten us all. At the very least, the argument would become more civil. Unfortunately, you have people like yourself, Mytical, who clearly have no grasp of the real shortfalls of the Big Bang theory (because they don't understand basic physics), and argue from an untenable platform of logical fallacies and simple ignorance. And the same goes for scientists who mistakenly assume that, because such people have no understanding of physics, they have nothing useful to contribute or that all arguments against the Big Bang are based on such fallacious arguments. Worse, sane voices are drowned out by the surrounding din. Some scientists, like myself, see past all this and try to educate your side on the problems with your argument, but then we get lumped back in with the "arrogant scientists". Some theologists, try to make sound arguments about the limits of science, but then get lumped back in with the "religious idiots and zealots". The end result is that no rational conversation between people holding very different viewpoints ensues and the canyon between religion and science grows ever wider. A wider-reaching result is that the canyon also exists between nonscientists and scientists in a general sense, and the perception that scientists are arrogant and nonscientists are idiots is perpetuated beyond what might be normally considered an academic, in some senses trivial, discussion.
Dénouement
But I don't know why I waste my time. I tried to explain this before and you didn't listen then. Why would you listen now? My voice is lost among the thunderous noise of jaundiced, immutable opinions. (Now, how do you like that for dramatic metaphor? )
The Fishberry, a Portrait
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 08:30 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 20:32, 10 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Here is where you should stop. No one knows if God exists, so no one knows who created time. That's my logical conclusion.
Yet you appear to know?
I'm not trying to convert you or something, lol. I am trying to make you understand the theistic point of view since it would make further discussion a lot easier. So, I use arguments based on "if we suppose there is a God" or "if we suppose there isn't a God". Because that's sometimes the only way a debate like this can be led.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 08:57 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
Excellent post. But:Quote:
fish and tomato genetic codes aren't even written in the same language
What do you mean? All living things have the same five nucleotides: adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:17, 10 Apr 2009.
|
Alright, maybe "dialect" is a better word than "language" (and you're talking alphabet ). The technical term is codon bias. As I understand it (and I'm not a geneticist), a plant cell could read an animal gene, but the process is much more efficient if the directions are written in a plant's "regional dialect" using codons preferred by plants rather than those of animals. The important point is that the scientists in the fish-tomato case weren't using DNA extracted from a fish. They were using plant DNA inspired by (modeled after, whatever) the DNA from a fish.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:23, 10 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
*sigh* What has this answer to do with my statement at all? It is just not possible to have a discussion with you, coz you completely ignore what others post, but just post what you have in mind right at that time. You may open an own forum where you're the only member. This would fit into your way of disuccions.
You said that man is made in the image of God means that our physical bodies resemble God.
I said that God lives in Heaven, and that our bodies don't go to heaven. How can God have a human body as on Earth in Heaven if our bodies don't go to Heaven?
Can't you draw this most logical simple conclusion?
Quote:
Says who???
You say it's ME who gets difficult discussions?
Of course if you say God doesn't exist, it means he didn't create time. What's your point? I thought this already ASSUMED God exists -- after all, why are you using all sorts of "what if" if you can just as well go back to "God doesn't exist"?
I thought the whole point of that was to show some errors in the Bible, but this ASSUMING IT IS REAL, cause otherwise, it's completely pointless for any discussion.
Quote:
Next example where we can see you do not even attempt to read what others write. I will repeat again slowly, so you may get the idea: Eneryg can't be created! God is pure energy, coz he made adam as an image of himself, and you stated the image which is meant here is his soul, and sould is pure energy! WHo was first then, God or energy? Chicken or egg?
Who said soul is "pure energy" as physics describes it? You think soul can be turned into matter?
Energy is matter as it can be converted, and it is bound to this Universe. Don't ask me what soul is, I don't know, but I DO know that it cannot be matter (or 'energy'), since that is bound to this "Universe", and it is said that souls go to Heaven.
Quote:
Weak comparison. Even the programmer himself can't "create" more RAM. So what now?
I don't think you understand virtual reality. Of COURSE that the virtual reality itself is just atoms etc... but from inside the virtual reality, a living being DOES NOT perceive them no matter what (i.e it's what scientists call unobservable, like parallel universes and such). For it, adding more RAM is "magical" and rightfully so, because by itself, it has NO IDEA of the notion of RAM, probably from inside it is only seen as "more land is created" (assuming you store the polygons in RAM). It would be like expanding the Universe from inside.
Quote:
And who told you that?
The word "eternal".
You won't make a good decrypter, that's for sure.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 23:04, 10 Apr 2009.
|
Excellent post Corribus. I have always said, and always will that you are very intelligent and educated. Except you miss the point altogether in my post.
It comes down to a few simple questions...
How are these two questions/examples (whatever you wish to call them) different?
Where does god come from?
Where does the matter/energy for the big bang come from?
We don't know where god came from.
We don't know where the matter/energy come from.
What about the time before god?
What about the time before that matter/energy?
God is eternal, we don't know if there WAS a time before he was.
That matter/energy was always there, we think there was no time before it was there.
You can't question god, its all about faith, god is infallible.
Science is a process, thus it can't be 'wrong' we just change our views to compensate.
I gave up on getting any answers on how they are different however. The answers to the questions are important to me, but the answer to how they are different is more important.
Edit : Also, I have never argued against the big bang. I am unsure what/who(if anybody/anything AT ALL)/or how the universe was created. I am keeping an open mind (or trying) about the whole thing. I also don't care if there is a 'winner' in this debate, though I feel we are eons away from knowing.
My main thing is the following. Right now it is like :
We examine an ounce of water, and are claiming we know what a vast ocean is like. Having never seen this ocean.
All our life we have stood on a small square of desert and claim to know how the whole world is. Having never been there, seen it, or even be positive it is there.
We assume that the universe acts and reacts exactly like our little sandbox. PLEASE do not get me wrong. With the information we have, we HAVE to at this time, but we SHOULD keep an open mind that we may learn that there is more then sand in the universe.
IE. Gravity may end up working much different then we can even concieve of in some (or most) of the universe. Same with time, or .. whatever.
But every time I ask something of either side..the answers I get tend to be identical with just different words. Either "Because god said so"..or "Because these tests say so."
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 10, 2009 11:42 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:45, 10 Apr 2009.
|
@Mytical
Quote:
Excellent post Corribus. I have always said, and always will that you are very intelligent and educated. Except you miss the point altogether in my post.
I didn't miss it. I understand what point you're trying to make. But your questions aren't appropriate. Let's consider:
Quote:
How are these two questions/examples (whatever you wish to call them) different?
Where does god come from?
Where does the matter/energy for the big bang come from?
These two questions aren't necessarly parallel, but we'll finish with that rather than start with it.
First:
Question 1 is fundamentally non-scientific and can never be answered scientifically.
Question 2 is (at least in principle) scientific and can (again in principle, assuming it's a pertinent question to ask) be answered empirically.
More on question 2:
Question 2 is something of a red herring because it uses superfluous information to lead you to a fallacious conclusion. The question of where matter and energy came from has nothing specifically to do with the Big Bang. To wit: asking where the matter in the apple I just ate is no different from asking where the matter in Big Bang came from. They're the same matter. Asking where the energy from the sun ultimately came from is no different than asking where the energy in the Big Bang came from. They're the same energy. The origins of matter and energy is not a problem that the Big Bang theories tries to solve. The Big Bang theory is a model for the early stages of the universe and is predicated on observations of universal expansion, observed spectral red-shifts, and etc. and etc. The question of God, on the other hand, is based on nothing but human thought. That doesn't make it any less correct, in principle, but it does make the Big Band Theory and the (very ill-defined) God Did It "theory" two completely different creatures - and furthermore I might add that forcing a choice between the two is also fallacious.
I would also like to say that the manner in which you pose your question is EXACTLY the same way that anti-evolutionists try to cast doubt on evolutionary theory. You will find that often Creationists will claim that, because Evolution cannot explain the origin of life, it must therefore be wrong (and then another leap of logic: therefore Creationism must be right). However, it is a strawman argument because Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life - it does not try to answer that question, nor is it formulated to do so. In the same vein, when you implicitly conclude that God is a viable alternative to the Big Bang because the Big Bang cannot explain the origins of matter and energy , you are using the exact same strawman argument, because, analogously, the origins of matter and energy aren't really a question the Big Bang theory is formulated to answer. And just as our inability to explain the origins of life is not a stroke against evolution, neither is our inability to explain the origins of matter and energy a stroke against the Big Bang (or a stroke for anything else!).
I hope you understand this. My contention in this argument is not that the Big Bang is the only solution or that God (or some supernatural solution) is wrong: merely that the origins of matter and energy have no role in distinguishing between the two.
Quote:
What about the time before god?
What about the time before that matter/energy?
I can respond similarly to your other pairs of questions, but I want to add one other thing to your questions on time. This is just something for you to ruminate on for a moment.
First, I think you need to seriously re-evaluate the meaning of time. One of the greatest revelations of Einstein's work was that the meaning of time was (much) more elastic than what was previously thought. Obviously, the physics of singularities is still quite a matter of research and speculation, but the behavior of time in a singularity (like a black hole, or the singularity in the Big Bang) is believed to be quite different from that in normal space. In fact, it has been proposed that time under such large gravity actually comes to a stop. That's a hard concept to wrap one's head around, because time as a constant is something we are comfortable with.
Nevertheless, if we assume that time began at the moment of the Big Bang, because time was incapable of moving (whatever that means) in a singularity, then the question of what happened before the Big Bang has no meaning. Likewise, words like "origin" and "conserved" also have no defined meaning. For matter and energy to be conserved, there has to be a process, and a process requires time. Where did the matter and energy come from? I don't know, but I submit that maybe the very phrase "come from" doesn't have the meaning it does in every-day time and space.
It is this sort of question that physicists have to deal with. I certainly can't answer them. You certainly can't answer them. But I bring it up to highlight that perhaps you aren't even asking the right questions. If time has no meaning, then your question has no relevance.
On a less scientific note, time may also have no meaning with respect to God. It seems to me that if God has no relationship to spatial dimensions (being a non-corporeal "thing"), he also has no relationship to temporal ones either. Thus to ask what happens to time before God is also a question with no relevance. God is, perhaps, beyond time.
(Of course, if there is a being beyond space and time, one wonders why we even care about such a being anyway. Such a being becomes unnecessary to any discussion about anything, but that's a whole separate can of worms.)
In final answer to your question about the differences between your question pairs, consider this: perhaps the reason you're having trouble distinguishing between your questions is not because the questions are too similar (as you seem to contend) but because they are too different, and are not even asking the same things. To make a mathematical analogy: it is easy to discern what is the difference between two parallel lines, because both lines are going in the same direction. But: tell me what is the distance between two lines that are orthogonal?
I submit that your struggle is due to orthogonality of concepts.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 12:04 AM |
|
|
My PoV
I'm what they would call an agnostic atheist. I don't think there is a real deity above (or below) us, but I won't deny the opposite either. I, myself believe that there indeed is something, some kind of force, that created life, big bangs and everything in between.
Whether this "force" is a sentient and allmighty being, an alien and advanced life-form, an ungraspable dimension or something that can be defined by physics alone, I leave in the middle; It matters not.
Living or Unliving, this force is the catalyst of all that was ever created. This is what I would call "God the creator". What God is in reality, as 162 pages show, we will never know. But does it really matter? Does He exist? According to my definitions, He does?
Just assume that we, on an undifined moment in History, finally learn the truth about God. There are two possible scenarios: A) He exists B) He does not exist.
Whichever of these two hypothetical scenarios is true, I don't think it will matter. Should God be proven by Science as unexistant (which still is impossible by the means I know of), the True Believers will not renounce him; Just think of those uncountable religious sects and cults, dotted around the United States, India or the Middle-East. They will refuse to accept the truth, as the Real truth is not their truth.
On the other hand, should God be proven by Science as Existant, I still don't see any significant changes: Eventhough He exists, there's no real reason to worship him; this is still a personal choice, but in my opinion, starting to Worship God, just because he was proven to exist, is pointless itself. I might as much start to worship William, Dagoth or Elvin for knowing that they Exist in RL as well.
Therefore I'm pretty sure that the whole discussion is pointless. We shall probably not know the truth, but does it matter? Do we really need to know the truth? In essence, little will change, according to the hypothesis I posted above. A hypothesis, nothing more. I'm not a scholar or a Theologist, but I have a healthy interest in Religions, and enough common sense to conclude this.
The Truth however cannot take away the postive and negative things that come with Religion; Religion is a source of hope and comfort, and a way to unify people. United they stand. It's basically the same effect a political ideology or Patriotism would give, but unlike those, Religion is very profound and refined.
Religion to me is a way of life, centered around an ultimate Symbol of Virtue, with a matching mythology which builds a unique enviroment, found nowhere else in the world.
The Religious rites, the Mythos, the Pathos, the Magic of every religion ensnares everyone who is willing to listen. If you keep in touch with reality, it's no problem; however taking Religion too serious. However blaming the religion is, imo, pointless. I'll now explain why. Religious Fanaticism comes from losing contact with reality and shaping reality as you wish it to be. This however is not like Terrorism, which sipmly has nothing to do with Religion itself (Terrorism itself is an act of politics, which I won't explain here). Fanaticism itself doesn't mean to be bad. It ensures the survival of the faith, and as long as it doesn't harm others (both believers as non-believers) - That's basically the bottomline of tolerance imo. Religion is no excuse to evade the law. (Nothing really is, unless you are the Head of State)
Conclusion: Does God Exists? Yes! Should we worship It? No, unless you willing choose to. Does it matter? In the end, it will not.
Just my 2Cents.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 12:24 AM |
|
|
My view can be summarized pretty simply: could there be some kind of creative force? Yes - but we have absolutely no basis for believing that there is (beyond our imaginations, of course). So, if one doesn't have a basis to believe in something, then why believe? You don't believe that your wallet will magically double its contents, or that you can float when you step off a cliff. So why believe in God, for whom there is an equal amount of evidence?
God is an answer to the question "Who did/made this?" when no normal answer is known. So saying "God did it" is just like saying "I don't know."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 12:49 AM |
|
|
EDIT: This post is specifically directed at minion. Bring it!
At whoever the guy is who asked how religious people envisioned God:
Some people do envision God as the kind old Jehovah sitting in the clouds, but that image serves only to project God as the fatherfigure of everyone. I don't really envision God ever, nor do I think about him much. If I were to envision God, it would pretty much be how I envision wind, as an invisible force that drives onward. Maybe God is life and, consequently, love as well, perhaps?
God is a miracle, like loving someone for no apparent reason. Maybe God is the irrational part of our lives? Maybe God is the reason why mvass roams these parts, instead of doing productive work. Maybe God is the reason why we laugh.
sidenote: Medieval theologists'd probably disagree, since half of them were convinced that laughing was vulgar and Jesus never laughed, but like it matters; maybe I'm not even a christian (except the fact that i'm baptised and formed). Bah, no matter, call me whatever you wish, I believe in a god or a higher force.
You can always point at things and say: those are instincts, these are hormones, those are signals your brain sends everywhere and you'd be right. I'd be wrong to dispute the fact that everything has a scientific reason behind it, but why then is it possible for us to see more in it? Is life itself not a whole miracle by itself? Maybe all the extra things we see in it is God?
What are the origins of life? I could be horribly wrong and you may all strike down in vicious flames, if I'm not correct and I embarras you with my mere presence on this board, but did Corribus not say that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life? Now, I won't jump to the conclusion that therefore creationism is true, since evolution is pretty much awesome altogether, but maybe God sparked the first organism to life? Maybe he added the little extra to a collection of atoms that strung together? (just making a small cartoon here, I know too little of biology to even properly address this issue, but i wouldn't mind people explaining me what would possibly be the first organisms on this planet) Maybe God sparked the homo sapiens which allowed themselves to organise, develop a language and then philosophise.
(actually, growing from organisation to language creation to establishing the language in abstract context would probably need no divine intervention, but you can see God in it)
Now, mvass might say that right now, I'm using God to fill every gap where I'd say 'I don't know.' and he'd be partly right, but to me God is the spark in everything.
Hey, this is the romantic period for the average man
(well, average teenager would be more precise)
That is how I see God: abstract and in an overly cartoony fashion
Now, I used the word 'God' way too much, so a reply might take a while.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:05 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 03:07, 11 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, if we assume that time began at the moment of the Big Bang, because time was incapable of moving (whatever that means) in a singularity, then the question of what happened before the Big Bang has no meaning. Likewise, words like "origin" and "conserved" also have no defined meaning. For matter and energy to be conserved, there has to be a process, and a process requires time. Where did the matter and energy come from? I don't know, but I submit that maybe the very phrase "come from" doesn't have the meaning it does in every-day time and space.
Absolutely brilliant point here Corribus, and well explained, something which I couldn't do for some reason as people say I make no sense. And hopefully it will be a lot clearer to people to grasp the notion that if God is assumed to exist then he must have created time and must "live" outside of it.
This also answers why the question "before" God or "before" the Big Bang (in a manner of speaking) are ridiculous. It's not that we don't know, because even if everyone KNEW what happened, "before" and "after" have no meaning outside of time. It's pointless, I'm not sure how to explain this better, but you explained it very well, but probably it's because I read your posts different than I read mine 
Quote:
but we have absolutely no basis
the Bible and other texts, priests...
no of course it doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean there's a basis. It's not like you can totally "make it up" since it's already there -- it MIGHT have been made up, but there IS a basis.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:12 AM |
|
|
Okay, we have as much basis for it as we do for Scientology or some religion some drunk guy made up.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 11, 2009 03:14 AM |
|
|
Some drunk guy which "theories'" have been passed down (and altered/corrupted ) for thousands of years. Like in markets, sometimes, crappy products don't gain recognition, while awesome ones do. No of course this doesn't say that said guy couldn't have "made it up" and "knowing human nature that they would pass it" for some reason (I give him credit, he must have been very smart if so -- maybe 300+ IQ, no joke)... but it's still a basis.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:56 PM |
|
|
@Dagoth.
Thanks for the insight. Although you were mostly throwing questions, hehe. But I was not interested on the looks of God. Rather other of his attributes that I less hear talked about. For example, you believe that life was created specifically by God? The aim was human (evolution)? So that tells us something about God. He has will and intent? Is that what you believe? We can also add that if he has those characteristics, he is personal.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
tyraxor
Adventuring Hero
Ruler of the burning Desert
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
What is the intention of this discussion?
Tell other people of our view about God or convincing the other that he/she is wrong?
Nobody can prove that God exists. And we shouldn't want to.
It is just a matter of believing. And the fact that Christianity is not in accordance with modern science makes it harder to believe that what the Bible says.
To respond on TA, starter of this discussion, it often happens that children who are grewn up in a strict ecclesiastic or evangelical environment dropping off at faith.
Christians (I'm one of them) should show tolerance, love and mercy to the rest of the world. Unfortunetaly, faith was and still is often the cause of religious wars.
Also in the church in my hometown there is talk of intolerance towards other religions (even towards other forms of christianity) and people.
Ecxuses for my bad English
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 10:10 PM |
|
|
@Tyraxor: the problem is that posts like yours (and mine on the previous page, and Doomforge's and Baklava's a few pages back) are so true that they provide no new material for discussion. They are correct, if not perfect, and therefore worthless OSM posts.
That'w why they've started this whole Believe vs Deny discussion, since that DOES provide discussion material. I know it doesn't make sense, but since when did Quote Wars make sense? It's worse that Aculias!
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
