You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Age and trading
- Thread starter nljones5
- Start date
god made space dust, of course. this IS where you are going isn't it stockerup?
since you seem to suggest a cause for every effect, permit me to ask you stockerup....
who made god?
:-/
since you seem to suggest a cause for every effect, permit me to ask you stockerup....
who made god?
:-/
Ahhh, Faster,
Didn't mean to get you on the defensive. However, to answer your question: I don't know. Our infinite minds can only rationalize to a certain point. The very thought of God or the concept of God had to be created, which leads me to think where did that come from.
Finally, the answer to your question is given to us when God refers to Himself as I AM. Meaning, he has no beginning or end.
He was not created -- HE IS.
Didn't mean to get you on the defensive. However, to answer your question: I don't know. Our infinite minds can only rationalize to a certain point. The very thought of God or the concept of God had to be created, which leads me to think where did that come from.
Finally, the answer to your question is given to us when God refers to Himself as I AM. Meaning, he has no beginning or end.
He was not created -- HE IS.
I think both FasterPussycat and Stockerup make good points!
Fasterpussycat
Had I logged on earlier, I would've made the point that FasterPussycat made, but alas he was first. While Darkhorse has made so many great points throughout this discussion, I must agree (without taking a position on whether God must or must not exist) that Morality COULD exist independent of God. I am not saying that it does, only that it could. We have talked about the natural order of the universe. What if goodness is self-evident. As Fasterpussycat asked before I could (not that we are the first, the question goes back centuries at least), is something good because God says it is so, or does God say it is good because it is so? Can goodness be inherent. I am not saying that seemliness and goodness are self-evident (they are no doubt largely defined by our hard-wiring and by what fits the needs of society), only that I don't see why logically it must be so that God exists for goodness to have a higher source.
Stockerup
Is right that God could be infinite, with no beginning, and that it is not the case that God MUST have been created or preceded by something else. The reason that this is hard to fathom is because, as Stockerup (and I previously, among others throughout history) has noted, our ability to comprehend things is very finite, limited to our senses and our infitessmal logic systems. This is the same reason that the common atheist argument against God being all-powerful, "Can God create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it," is so very arrogant and faulty. This question alone defines and restricts God by our very finite, infitessmal logical and cognitive systems. And that alone contradicts "all-powerful."
I hate to sound wishy-washy, but everyone should keep in perspective that we are very "finite" in our ability to comprehend the universe, and thus should be careful of our arrogance in arguing absolutes. There are higher things that can exist without God, but nothing disproves the existence of God.
Fasterpussycat
Had I logged on earlier, I would've made the point that FasterPussycat made, but alas he was first. While Darkhorse has made so many great points throughout this discussion, I must agree (without taking a position on whether God must or must not exist) that Morality COULD exist independent of God. I am not saying that it does, only that it could. We have talked about the natural order of the universe. What if goodness is self-evident. As Fasterpussycat asked before I could (not that we are the first, the question goes back centuries at least), is something good because God says it is so, or does God say it is good because it is so? Can goodness be inherent. I am not saying that seemliness and goodness are self-evident (they are no doubt largely defined by our hard-wiring and by what fits the needs of society), only that I don't see why logically it must be so that God exists for goodness to have a higher source.
Stockerup
Is right that God could be infinite, with no beginning, and that it is not the case that God MUST have been created or preceded by something else. The reason that this is hard to fathom is because, as Stockerup (and I previously, among others throughout history) has noted, our ability to comprehend things is very finite, limited to our senses and our infitessmal logic systems. This is the same reason that the common atheist argument against God being all-powerful, "Can God create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it," is so very arrogant and faulty. This question alone defines and restricts God by our very finite, infitessmal logical and cognitive systems. And that alone contradicts "all-powerful."
I hate to sound wishy-washy, but everyone should keep in perspective that we are very "finite" in our ability to comprehend the universe, and thus should be careful of our arrogance in arguing absolutes. There are higher things that can exist without God, but nothing disproves the existence of God.
I should have said that there are higher things that can exist without God THEORETICALLY!
interesting stuff, and would like to add ( inspite of my ignorance) ..
that what we believe, is true for the believer, as reality is merely a thought, a perception.That we chose to "believe " that man is (was) created in gods image is arrogance and ignorance.
Would it be more correct to say that god is created in mans perception inorder to validate his (mans ) own existance.?
Goodness is empathy..
Empathy is an awareness of self..
Perhaps the awareness of self has been hindered and held back by the interpretation of God by religion...
Does not Goodness come from the God within us..?
Just some thoughts..so be gently..I'm unread and uneducated..
that what we believe, is true for the believer, as reality is merely a thought, a perception.That we chose to "believe " that man is (was) created in gods image is arrogance and ignorance.
Would it be more correct to say that god is created in mans perception inorder to validate his (mans ) own existance.?
Goodness is empathy..
Empathy is an awareness of self..
Perhaps the awareness of self has been hindered and held back by the interpretation of God by religion...
Does not Goodness come from the God within us..?
Just some thoughts..so be gently..I'm unread and uneducated..
stockerup, i am not on the defensive. i am making the point that i can answer your question as you answered mine .....space dust had no creator, "IT IS, AND ALWAYS WAS."
no need to complicate the explanation by invoking a god hypothesis. if you can believe that god always existed and had no creator, then why not space dust?
furthermore, surely you realize that alleged assertions of god's existence by god himself does not constitute proof of his validity because this constitutes a circular argument. you can't prove god's existence by asserting his own written statements of the same.
i missed boat, you are quite right that it is not possible to disprove the existence of god. it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of anything because every possible instance cannot be examined. for instance, no one can prove that unicorns don't exist for who can assert that a unicorn is not in the very next place you look? but you can attempt to marshal evidence in support of your assertions, the more and better the evidence the more compelling your argument.
i like what carl sagan said,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
this has a ring of truth to me. it makes good sense.
asserting the god hypothesis goes too far to my mind. the claims are too extraordinary and the evidence in support too weak. it smacks of a grand fantasy, too neatly satisfying man's emotional needs in areas where he desperately seeks it. too convenient a method of controlling and manipulating the populace. too many logical problems with it.
too too too.....
:-/
no need to complicate the explanation by invoking a god hypothesis. if you can believe that god always existed and had no creator, then why not space dust?
furthermore, surely you realize that alleged assertions of god's existence by god himself does not constitute proof of his validity because this constitutes a circular argument. you can't prove god's existence by asserting his own written statements of the same.
i missed boat, you are quite right that it is not possible to disprove the existence of god. it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of anything because every possible instance cannot be examined. for instance, no one can prove that unicorns don't exist for who can assert that a unicorn is not in the very next place you look? but you can attempt to marshal evidence in support of your assertions, the more and better the evidence the more compelling your argument.
i like what carl sagan said,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
this has a ring of truth to me. it makes good sense.
asserting the god hypothesis goes too far to my mind. the claims are too extraordinary and the evidence in support too weak. it smacks of a grand fantasy, too neatly satisfying man's emotional needs in areas where he desperately seeks it. too convenient a method of controlling and manipulating the populace. too many logical problems with it.
too too too.....
:-/
it is a shame your creator will not permit you to participate in these discussions of matters of obvious importance.
what is "he" afraid of?
:-/
what is "he" afraid of?
:-/
Man, you guys were really stirring the pot while I stepped out. Multiple responses below (excuse the typos if any as I wrote this all VERY fast):
Jaan:
I am saying that without God, reality as we understand it does not "work" and we are forced to twist things into a contorted version of reality in order for them to be acceptable. The solution for FasterPussycat et al. is to create their own version of morality out of thin air, but I hold that this is only a pretend solution, i.e. it does not actually solve the problem and those who go this route are only beholden to the morals of society when they feel like it.
I believe that God is the key to the puzzle, yes, because I have yet to find anyone who can present a coherent worldview and overall reality structure that does not include God- all who try to do this end up trying to justify their belief in truth, love and morality as mere human constructs, which does not work for reasons which I spelled out fairly clearly in two previous posts.
I do not believe God conflicts with science in any way because God is above, or rather beyond, science. Science is a closed system that measures observable phenomena within the space/time continuum. Because God is outside the space/time continuum and chooses to enter it at will, he cannot be measured in a laboratory. I believe that science at its heart is the quest for the truth of how reality works, and that ultimately this truth leads us closer to God because He is at the heart of reality. Before quantum physics, for example, it was acceptable to reject God on the ground that he could not be measured or observed by the standard laws of science. But AFTER quantum physics we have discovered that there are areas in the universe where time does not exist, that there are objects that obey none of the standard laws of physics, and that there are relationships that seemingly defy the space/time continuum itself. With one stroke God knocked the determinists on their butts and put mystery back into the heart of the matter. This process happens over and over. We move forward, congratulate ourselves as geniuses, then realize we have not even reached the tip of the iceberg. Because God is wholly outside the realm of measurable science, the average scientist has no more authority to ruminate on God than does the average hairdresser or plumber. When the scientific community lambasts God because they cannot see him, it is similar to Charlie Brown arguing with Linus over whether or not they are drawn and whether or not more than two dimensions exist. God does not contradict the system of laws within nature because he created the system in its entirety. The old question "can God make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it" is a trick question because God sustains the entire system and all natural laws within it. Since God is holding up the universe, the real question is how could he put the rock down. Things exist on multiple levels and have reasons on multiple levels. Who killed Tybalt: Romeo or Shakespeare? Both did equally. God does not conflict with a system He created and He oversees. For this reason, whether or not you believe in evolution is irrelevant to whether or not God exists/who he is if he does exist. You can use God and evolution in the same sentence as long as you realize that the proof of one does not disprove the other and vice versa.
Your question about whether people see God as a handy mechanism for survival and that is all, was addressed in a previous post of mine I believe. As humans we pride ourselves on being rational, logical beings. If we discover that our most cherished beliefs (love, truth, honor, morality, purpose) are nothing but lies propagated by chemicals to help us copulate, then I propose the only sane thing to do would be to destroy ourselves in despair. I am too committed to the truth to get by in life believing convenient falsehoods, as Nietsche and his followers suggested doing.
=========
Faster:
Ultimate authority goes to the ultimate authority. If God created our universe, then He writes the rules of that universe. It's pretty simple, really. If a reality is created from nothing, and the creator establishes certain rules, than those are the rules. It would also make sense that they would be the best rules to follow, would they not? In fact, they would be the ONLY rules, because if one creator did it all, what other rules would there be to follow? So, yes: God's rules are supreme because He is supreme. If you don't like it, tough. Unless you can find another universe to live in.
A funny common thread among those who have an ax to grind with God is that you guys think the universe is some kind of committee like an apartment association, and that you can voice your dislikes and change the rules or opt out. It doesn't work like that. Listen to me now, really listen: it doesn't matter how you WANT THINGS TO BE. It only matters HOW THINGS REALLY ARE. So get your wants and wishes out of the picture.
If God really exists, and He does, then you damn well better believe you want to pay attention to what He wants! The burden is on you man, not Him. If you choose to reject God, he is not going to sweat it much, probably won't even ruin his day. You, on the other hand, could be playing russian roulette with eternity. If that's the way you want to play it, be my guest. I can't stop you. But don't present the equation as if it's two sided, because it's not. Nobody has anything to lose but You if you get it wrong.
And that is NOT a statement to "believe because it's the safe thing to do," I don't believe in that crap (trying to believe in something only because it's convenient or efficient or safe). It's a statement to try and get you to see that you are arguing from emotion, as if you had a say in how things ultimately are. Instead of being objective, you are approaching the game with a chip on your shoulder and it could cost you dearly. You don't get a say in how things really are, you only get the pleasure of a brief time to figure out how they are before the final exam comes and a hell of a bill if you get it wrong.
As for your argument that you can create your own 'humanistic' rules, read my previous post. Man-made morality is a sham, a fake, a cardboard cutout of the real thing, an unenforceable joke. A life of self deception for convenience is a piss poor substitute for accepting the truth, that we don't have to bend and twist reality if we can swallow our pride long enough to accept the authority of a higher power. Reality weighs against your position, and your contortions- i.e. your need to resort to a make believe morality to justify your actions- further convicts you.
==============
Boat:
Morality cannot exist independent of authority. Right and wrong have to be defined by an autonomous being, they cannot float out their in space independent of all other things. Morality must also be enforced. Only God can define morality because only He can ultimately settle the scorecards. Good and bad cannot exist without logical, coherent definition. It is like Einstein's theory of relativity in that morality needs a measuring stick, something to be held to. If point X is floating out there in an empty universe, we can say that it is nowhere because its location cannot be defined in relation to anything. Morality/good/bad can only be defined by a higher power who sets the standards and has the ability to measure and enforce these standards. Without the ability to enforce standards the rules become meaningless. All this requires a thinking, autonomous being, not some mindless force.
==========
mbt3:
If God is only a construct in man's mind and not real then we go back to conceptual relativism, man creating false constructs, which has been addressed multiple times now as a weak and insufficient solution. It is not necessary to live a lie.
=========
Jaan:
I am saying that without God, reality as we understand it does not "work" and we are forced to twist things into a contorted version of reality in order for them to be acceptable. The solution for FasterPussycat et al. is to create their own version of morality out of thin air, but I hold that this is only a pretend solution, i.e. it does not actually solve the problem and those who go this route are only beholden to the morals of society when they feel like it.
I believe that God is the key to the puzzle, yes, because I have yet to find anyone who can present a coherent worldview and overall reality structure that does not include God- all who try to do this end up trying to justify their belief in truth, love and morality as mere human constructs, which does not work for reasons which I spelled out fairly clearly in two previous posts.
I do not believe God conflicts with science in any way because God is above, or rather beyond, science. Science is a closed system that measures observable phenomena within the space/time continuum. Because God is outside the space/time continuum and chooses to enter it at will, he cannot be measured in a laboratory. I believe that science at its heart is the quest for the truth of how reality works, and that ultimately this truth leads us closer to God because He is at the heart of reality. Before quantum physics, for example, it was acceptable to reject God on the ground that he could not be measured or observed by the standard laws of science. But AFTER quantum physics we have discovered that there are areas in the universe where time does not exist, that there are objects that obey none of the standard laws of physics, and that there are relationships that seemingly defy the space/time continuum itself. With one stroke God knocked the determinists on their butts and put mystery back into the heart of the matter. This process happens over and over. We move forward, congratulate ourselves as geniuses, then realize we have not even reached the tip of the iceberg. Because God is wholly outside the realm of measurable science, the average scientist has no more authority to ruminate on God than does the average hairdresser or plumber. When the scientific community lambasts God because they cannot see him, it is similar to Charlie Brown arguing with Linus over whether or not they are drawn and whether or not more than two dimensions exist. God does not contradict the system of laws within nature because he created the system in its entirety. The old question "can God make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it" is a trick question because God sustains the entire system and all natural laws within it. Since God is holding up the universe, the real question is how could he put the rock down. Things exist on multiple levels and have reasons on multiple levels. Who killed Tybalt: Romeo or Shakespeare? Both did equally. God does not conflict with a system He created and He oversees. For this reason, whether or not you believe in evolution is irrelevant to whether or not God exists/who he is if he does exist. You can use God and evolution in the same sentence as long as you realize that the proof of one does not disprove the other and vice versa.
Your question about whether people see God as a handy mechanism for survival and that is all, was addressed in a previous post of mine I believe. As humans we pride ourselves on being rational, logical beings. If we discover that our most cherished beliefs (love, truth, honor, morality, purpose) are nothing but lies propagated by chemicals to help us copulate, then I propose the only sane thing to do would be to destroy ourselves in despair. I am too committed to the truth to get by in life believing convenient falsehoods, as Nietsche and his followers suggested doing.
=========
Faster:
Ultimate authority goes to the ultimate authority. If God created our universe, then He writes the rules of that universe. It's pretty simple, really. If a reality is created from nothing, and the creator establishes certain rules, than those are the rules. It would also make sense that they would be the best rules to follow, would they not? In fact, they would be the ONLY rules, because if one creator did it all, what other rules would there be to follow? So, yes: God's rules are supreme because He is supreme. If you don't like it, tough. Unless you can find another universe to live in.
A funny common thread among those who have an ax to grind with God is that you guys think the universe is some kind of committee like an apartment association, and that you can voice your dislikes and change the rules or opt out. It doesn't work like that. Listen to me now, really listen: it doesn't matter how you WANT THINGS TO BE. It only matters HOW THINGS REALLY ARE. So get your wants and wishes out of the picture.
If God really exists, and He does, then you damn well better believe you want to pay attention to what He wants! The burden is on you man, not Him. If you choose to reject God, he is not going to sweat it much, probably won't even ruin his day. You, on the other hand, could be playing russian roulette with eternity. If that's the way you want to play it, be my guest. I can't stop you. But don't present the equation as if it's two sided, because it's not. Nobody has anything to lose but You if you get it wrong.
And that is NOT a statement to "believe because it's the safe thing to do," I don't believe in that crap (trying to believe in something only because it's convenient or efficient or safe). It's a statement to try and get you to see that you are arguing from emotion, as if you had a say in how things ultimately are. Instead of being objective, you are approaching the game with a chip on your shoulder and it could cost you dearly. You don't get a say in how things really are, you only get the pleasure of a brief time to figure out how they are before the final exam comes and a hell of a bill if you get it wrong.
As for your argument that you can create your own 'humanistic' rules, read my previous post. Man-made morality is a sham, a fake, a cardboard cutout of the real thing, an unenforceable joke. A life of self deception for convenience is a piss poor substitute for accepting the truth, that we don't have to bend and twist reality if we can swallow our pride long enough to accept the authority of a higher power. Reality weighs against your position, and your contortions- i.e. your need to resort to a make believe morality to justify your actions- further convicts you.
==============
Boat:
Morality cannot exist independent of authority. Right and wrong have to be defined by an autonomous being, they cannot float out their in space independent of all other things. Morality must also be enforced. Only God can define morality because only He can ultimately settle the scorecards. Good and bad cannot exist without logical, coherent definition. It is like Einstein's theory of relativity in that morality needs a measuring stick, something to be held to. If point X is floating out there in an empty universe, we can say that it is nowhere because its location cannot be defined in relation to anything. Morality/good/bad can only be defined by a higher power who sets the standards and has the ability to measure and enforce these standards. Without the ability to enforce standards the rules become meaningless. All this requires a thinking, autonomous being, not some mindless force.
==========
mbt3:
If God is only a construct in man's mind and not real then we go back to conceptual relativism, man creating false constructs, which has been addressed multiple times now as a weak and insufficient solution. It is not necessary to live a lie.
=========