Right and my question is why a god can have these attributes but the
universe/multiverse cannot.
Because "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity. It contradicts our understanding that only intelligence can beget intelligence, and only life can beget life. Sense does not come from nonsense!
It's not that God gets a "free pass" in our deliberations, it's that his existence is the only explanation that resolves the age-old conundrums that these discussions inevitably brickwall into.
It's not that God gets a "free pass" in our deliberations, it's that his existence is the only explanation that resolves the age-old conundrums that these discussions inevitably brickwall into.
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
If "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity, then "everything from god from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity x 9000. Are you guys starting to catch on to this absurdly simple concept?
Quote:
Sense does not come from nonsense!
The laws of chemistry and physics are not nonsense. You could calculate the odds of a snowflake forming, and this number would be higher than what you'd see in anti-evolution literature. There is no intelligence at work in the formation of a snowflake, just ordered, natural laws acting on water particles. Your being baffled at this process does not require that there must be an intelligence behind it.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-Douglas Adams
GNA - sorry man, but your explanation still doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, you're still inventing your own laws of logic. For example:
Quote:
By outside, I mean something like this: when we take out the very foundation of all that could possibly exist (by definition of what we know to be "existing") all that "IS" is God.
and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
Because........*drum roll* it wasn`t. Who are you trying to fool here?,
Theists or yourselves?
Uhm, prove it? Or reply to my post. Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
Lol, I failed my physics class when these intellects have zero proof and evidence for multiverse, parallel universes, branes, etc and we must take it seriously.
Nice try guys, nice try. Yep we have no proof the universe was created, in fact it must have been never created and thats why we are here. *Troll face*
You don't have to take it seriously. That's why science textbooks don't talk about what happened before the big bang. When the next generation of gravity wave detectors come by we might have ways of eliminating these theories. Nonbelievers are fine with living with uncertainty. We don't have to have the answer right away.
The fact that we can't know what happened before the Planck time is like the first thing you learn in any basic intro to cosmology. You've repeatedly made the claim that the universe wasn't always there, and have been asked to prove it multiple times.
and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
Because........*drum roll* it wasn`t. Who are you trying to fool here?, Theists or yourselves?
Don't be stupid. I've said about 20 times already "replace universe with multiverse at your leisure". Since you're more keen on picking apart terms than actually addressing points, here's the child's version;
1) Gods create universes. Gods are complex. Complex things require an explanation just as much as the universe does.
2) Explain why you see "God always existed" as acceptable, but "multiverse always existed" as unacceptable.
3 pages since I asked these things and I've still yet to see a direct reply. Are you going to accept cosmological argument is nonsense or shall I just take your constant evasion as a yes?
Grad,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know. This is why it is hard for us to understand things in the quantum level at the moment.
But in philosophical terms "to exist" meaning "to be" then yes. But still in part.
One way to define God is the "living God". I don't have the exact Aramaic text and translations for these. Those who study the original books may be a good source for this investigation into what really the guys back in those days were talking about.
In our present time, "Emmanuel" or God with us, is our "interaction". There's scuffles about this as well. The youtube of 2000 years ago was as convoluted as our present day youtube.
The best way to conceive of this "existence" is only through the interactions our realm gets with this God. This is where the troubles come from presently. The search of this "interactions" or proof of God's existence.
I believe there will come a time when Jesus' words, the ones where he spoke about the "sign of the end", will become so clear to humanity (though still not all will believe) that it is clear that God does interact on a scale beyond the limitations we are under.
I'm closely looking at the Iran vs Israel trouble, and the eventual unification of the Islamic world. I wish to post a series of videos on youtube about the Anti-Christ in this line of thought, but instead I will leave it up to you guys to decide.
It's ridiculous, but I'll be damned if this thing blows up in our faces with us left unawares:
This is a condensed version:
If you have time, search: "Walid Shoebat End Times Today - Part1" on youtube
I'm not convinced yet, but hey, anything's possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
When the next generation of gravity wave detectors come by we'll have ways of eliminating these theories. Nonbelievers are fine with living with uncertainty. We don't have to have the answer right away.
Heh, Dont count on it anytime too soon man. You`re asking for miracles there.
Let me riddle you this. If we were in nothing more than a computer simulation, How would we ever come to know this?
Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know.
I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile.
"I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile."
---------------------------------------------
The truth about the matter is obvious. In a general consensus, no one has an exact idea what God is. My point is what I have said posts ago:
Since no one has an exact picture and must only rely on "revealed" things about Him, and if everything is created by Him, then as we know things, our definition of God will always go back as it has began long ago which is "revelation". The idea that He is beyond all and is unbound and undefinable in our terms have been spoken of ever since.
And I have to say, against all odds, it is God who does the first move to "reveal Himself".
Therefore, you are absolutely right in saying that what I describe of God is 99% wrong, and I admit this. The truth is, I want to know God as well, and meet His Son Jesus Christ and ask all the questions I have.
But I will stand to the end that there is God, and everyone will see this eventually.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Very true, they are not the same and are contrary to each other.
Regarding your question:
"Your God deliberately chooses an inefficient path to reveal himself in a manner that prefers the unreasonable."
Not so. Becoming human is the most efficient way to describe Himself. Miracles to display power and authority over things (Jesus said something about this through saying something like, take note that these miracles have been done so you will believe. Or something in those lines). His character and person to display God's character and person. His ministry to describe his intentions. etc. Most importantly his Resurrection to display rightful position and ultimate authority over what binds everything.
The occurring inefficacy of said things (or perception thereof at least) also attests to the "reasonableness" that others see.
God, in my view, chooses to not persistently show people "magic tricks" because people will say, "aha! God is limited to the laws!" Instead, he always shows to be the driver of things from a position hidden from the surface. Take note that Jesus' miracles were once put up against him as Satanic powers being employed.
On 1/3 only:
Doesn't really matter how many will believe. In fact, many of the 1/3 will at least turn away at some point. But those who trust in Him, as He said, He will never cast aside/abandon.
On revelation lying:
It is said that if a prophet says something and it doesn't come to pass then the said prophet is false. My advice on the things that on this line of thinking is simple:
It's dangerous to trust in "miracles and signs", especially in our times, as it was before. Gold dust, Kundalini, proofs, etc. and more that are said to be so convincing people will turn away from believing. (you know what I'm talking about).
Keep trusting on Jesus, and be vigilant. Watch and gain affirmation as the world takes the path it takes.
Also, take note that the idea, "God is the Universe; The Universe is God" is as old as paganism is. I think Gnosticism took this path. Please be careful and check that you are not following pagan paths. There are reasons why God chose simple people to deliver a simple truth.
Not so. Becoming human is the most efficient way to describe Himself. Miracles to display power and authority over things (Jesus said something about this through saying something like, take note that these miracles have been done so you will believe. Or something in those lines). His character and person to display God's character and person. His ministry to describe his intentions. etc. Most importantly his Resurrection to display rightful position and ultimate authority over what binds everything.
Why has the flow of miracles come to a halt as soon as video and audio recording devices were invented?
For centuries, everything from entire graveyards rising from the dead, to talking bushes, and flooding the entire planet have happened. However, as soon as we have methods to prove these miracles took place, they no longer occur. Ever. At all. Not even once.
Also, take note that the idea, "God is the Universe; The Universe is God" is as old as paganism is. I think Gnosticism took this path. Please be careful and check that you are not following pagan paths. There are reasons why God chose simple people to deliver a simple truth.
Firstly that's pantheism, not paganism. Secondly I'm not saying "God is the universe".
Because "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity. It contradicts our understanding that only intelligence can beget intelligence, and only life can beget life. Sense does not come from nonsense!
It's not that God gets a "free pass" in our deliberations, it's that his existence is the only explanation that resolves the age-old conundrums that these discussions inevitably brickwall into.
@TheZizz: Go
Nailed it. Pretty much. As did Gna.
An entity that can create universes must be complex. Complexity requires an explanation. You are simply deferring the question from "Where did the universe come from?" to "Where did the creator of the universe come from?".
You do not get a free pass to skip this question with some "it was always there" nonsense. If you are satisfied with that answer, then why bother with gods at all and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
You are at best delaying the question, and at worst special pleading.
@Eiviyn: Go
and just proclaim the universe "was always there"?
Because........*drum roll* it wasn`t. Who are you trying to fool here?, Theists or yourselves?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIf "everything from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity, then "everything from god from nothing" is the absolute height of credulity x 9000. Are you guys starting to catch on to this absurdly simple concept?
The laws of chemistry and physics are not nonsense. You could calculate the odds of a snowflake forming, and this number would be higher than what you'd see in anti-evolution literature. There is no intelligence at work in the formation of a snowflake, just ordered, natural laws acting on water particles. Your being baffled at this process does not require that there must be an intelligence behind it.
http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
-Douglas Adams
GNA - sorry man, but your explanation still doesn't make much sense to me. The way I see it, you're still inventing your own laws of logic. For example:
Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?
Uhm, prove it? Or reply to my post. Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
@Gradius12: Go
Again, you must have failed your physics class if you're going to keep insisting on this notion that we have proof the universe was created. We don't.
Lol, I failed my physics class when these intellects have zero proof and evidence for multiverse, parallel universes, branes, etc and we must take it seriously.
Nice try guys, nice try. Yep we have no proof the universe was created, in fact it must have been never created and thats why we are here. *Troll face*
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou don't have to take it seriously. That's why science textbooks don't talk about what happened before the big bang. When the next generation of gravity wave detectors come by we might have ways of eliminating these theories. Nonbelievers are fine with living with uncertainty. We don't have to have the answer right away.
The fact that we can't know what happened before the Planck time is like the first thing you learn in any basic intro to cosmology. You've repeatedly made the claim that the universe wasn't always there, and have been asked to prove it multiple times.
I think we've finally reached some kind of breakthrough. Cookie to Eiviyn and Gradius, a silent-but-smelly fart to EW and TheZizz.
Round two, commence!
Don't be stupid. I've said about 20 times already "replace universe with multiverse at your leisure". Since you're more keen on picking apart terms than actually addressing points, here's the child's version;
1) Gods create universes. Gods are complex. Complex things require an explanation just as much as the universe does.
2) Explain why you see "God always existed" as acceptable, but "multiverse always existed" as unacceptable.
3 pages since I asked these things and I've still yet to see a direct reply. Are you going to accept cosmological argument is nonsense or shall I just take your constant evasion as a yes?
Grad,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Doesn't this just say that God doesn't exist?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. But only in part. God is not bound by definitions of existing and non-existing (as we perceive it at least). Our definition of existence is bound by what we know. This is why it is hard for us to understand things in the quantum level at the moment.
But in philosophical terms "to exist" meaning "to be" then yes. But still in part.
One way to define God is the "living God". I don't have the exact Aramaic text and translations for these. Those who study the original books may be a good source for this investigation into what really the guys back in those days were talking about.
In our present time, "Emmanuel" or God with us, is our "interaction". There's scuffles about this as well. The youtube of 2000 years ago was as convoluted as our present day youtube.
The best way to conceive of this "existence" is only through the interactions our realm gets with this God. This is where the troubles come from presently. The search of this "interactions" or proof of God's existence.
I believe there will come a time when Jesus' words, the ones where he spoke about the "sign of the end", will become so clear to humanity (though still not all will believe) that it is clear that God does interact on a scale beyond the limitations we are under.
I'm closely looking at the Iran vs Israel trouble, and the eventual unification of the Islamic world. I wish to post a series of videos on youtube about the Anti-Christ in this line of thought, but instead I will leave it up to you guys to decide.
It's ridiculous, but I'll be damned if this thing blows up in our faces with us left unawares:
This is a condensed version:
If you have time, search: "Walid Shoebat End Times Today - Part1" on youtube
I'm not convinced yet, but hey, anything's possible.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Heh, Dont count on it anytime too soon man. You`re asking for miracles there.
Let me riddle you this. If we were in nothing more than a computer simulation, How would we ever come to know this?
@Gradius12: Go
Actually all your analogies are completely wrong.
Atheism is a religion because it is your belief that their is no god, saying otherwise would just mean that you are completely full of yourself.
If Atheism isnt a religion, or set of beliefs, then Neither is Christianity.
I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile.
Atheists don't believe that.
Dammit, I am in a cult that thinks that there are no Unicorns. I am also part of a cult that believe that there are no Santa.
Yep and we're all A-Thorists. I guess that's our religion.
Eiviyn,
"I have some imaginary dice in my hands. I decide what properties they have.
Explain to me the difference between your view of God and my imaginary dice and the difference in properties that something "not bound by definition" is different from "imaginary".
I'm not really expecting an answer to be honest. If you openly state that you make things up about your god as you go along, you're outside the realm of reason and discussion about it is futile."
---------------------------------------------
The truth about the matter is obvious. In a general consensus, no one has an exact idea what God is. My point is what I have said posts ago:
Since no one has an exact picture and must only rely on "revealed" things about Him, and if everything is created by Him, then as we know things, our definition of God will always go back as it has began long ago which is "revelation". The idea that He is beyond all and is unbound and undefinable in our terms have been spoken of ever since.
And I have to say, against all odds, it is God who does the first move to "reveal Himself".
Therefore, you are absolutely right in saying that what I describe of God is 99% wrong, and I admit this. The truth is, I want to know God as well, and meet His Son Jesus Christ and ask all the questions I have.
But I will stand to the end that there is God, and everyone will see this eventually.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Here are two points of contention;
The Christian God gave no verifiable proof of his existence, but gave us a brain to reason with.
The majority (2/3rds) of the planet do not believe in Christianity.
Now, I'm curious. Either;
1) Your God deliberately chooses an inefficient path to reveal himself in a manner that prefers the unreasonable.
or
2) People claiming revelation are lying.
What are your thoughts?
To anyone stating the Christian God is the same as the Islamic God etc, refer to John 14:6.
Very true, they are not the same and are contrary to each other.
Regarding your question:
"Your God deliberately chooses an inefficient path to reveal himself in a manner that prefers the unreasonable."
Not so. Becoming human is the most efficient way to describe Himself. Miracles to display power and authority over things (Jesus said something about this through saying something like, take note that these miracles have been done so you will believe. Or something in those lines). His character and person to display God's character and person. His ministry to describe his intentions. etc. Most importantly his Resurrection to display rightful position and ultimate authority over what binds everything.
The occurring inefficacy of said things (or perception thereof at least) also attests to the "reasonableness" that others see.
God, in my view, chooses to not persistently show people "magic tricks" because people will say, "aha! God is limited to the laws!" Instead, he always shows to be the driver of things from a position hidden from the surface. Take note that Jesus' miracles were once put up against him as Satanic powers being employed.
On 1/3 only:
Doesn't really matter how many will believe. In fact, many of the 1/3 will at least turn away at some point. But those who trust in Him, as He said, He will never cast aside/abandon.
On revelation lying:
It is said that if a prophet says something and it doesn't come to pass then the said prophet is false. My advice on the things that on this line of thinking is simple:
It's dangerous to trust in "miracles and signs", especially in our times, as it was before. Gold dust, Kundalini, proofs, etc. and more that are said to be so convincing people will turn away from believing. (you know what I'm talking about).
Keep trusting on Jesus, and be vigilant. Watch and gain affirmation as the world takes the path it takes.
Also, take note that the idea, "God is the Universe; The Universe is God" is as old as paganism is. I think Gnosticism took this path. Please be careful and check that you are not following pagan paths. There are reasons why God chose simple people to deliver a simple truth.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Why has the flow of miracles come to a halt as soon as video and audio recording devices were invented?
For centuries, everything from entire graveyards rising from the dead, to talking bushes, and flooding the entire planet have happened. However, as soon as we have methods to prove these miracles took place, they no longer occur. Ever. At all. Not even once.
Why?
Firstly that's pantheism, not paganism. Secondly I'm not saying "God is the universe".