93 replies to this topic

[jackinbox]

Why not cut out the middle man and just say the universe is "self-existing"? Why do you need to have an explanation for how the universe came about but feel totally satisfied with the rationale that god always existed? (hint: it's because you've been brainwashed since birth to think that way)

Why can't the universe, the one we know, be self-existing?

Because there was a beginning of the universe, the one we know, and we know it has a beginning.

Why then can't things which have a beginning not be self-existent?

Because there was a time or a point between non-existence and existence when things having a beginning belong to the non-existence camp, they were still nothing but at most possibilities.

Then some entity that is existing prior to these non-existing things except as possibilities turns them from nothing but possibilities into really existing things and not only possibilities, and this is the beginning of their real existence, for which they owe it to the prior to them existing entity.

And the ultimate prior existing entity that starts the the chain of prior existing entities bringing about the beginning of posteriorly existing things, the ultimate last most anterior and end prior existing entity is the one and only self-existing entity which is God.

That is why I say that God belongs to that category of being which is self-existent, and God is the only member of this category.


As a concrete example, every man was nothing but a possibility until a man and a woman prior to him conceive him and the woman bears him in her womb so that at full term she gives birth to him.

The man from his mother and father has a beginning and therefore it cannot be a self-existing entity.

Now everything in the universe we know has a beginning for owing their existence to some prior agents, which prior agents have a beginning and thus are also not self-existing beings.

Until the chain of prior entities giving rise to posterior entities, reach the ultimate end anterior entity which is self-existent and is the only one agent that is self-existent, that agent is God.


Susmariosep

You still can't explain why God doesn't need to have a beginning. All you say is that God has to be so because if he is not your logic fall apart.

[Cyberbrain]

In which case I would presume that you don't have any educated guess to contribute in this thread, but you are just a witness to the messages transmitted here by people who do care to engage in a spirit of dialogue on the question what or who made the universe, at least earth and heaven known to man.

Susmariosep

I said I don't know if there was a "maker" - a creative intelligence that had any part in the creation of the universe, ie your god. Most presumably there wasn't any maker. I never said I had no idea how the universe came to being (I have a pretty good idea how it came to being). You should really read and respond to whole posts.

[susmariosep]

Why not cut out the middle man and just say the universe is "self-existing"? Why do you need to have an explanation for how the universe came about but feel totally satisfied with the rationale that god always existed? (hint: it's because you've been brainwashed since birth to think that way)

Why can't the universe, the one we know, be self-existing?

Because there was a beginning of the universe, the one we know, and we know it has a beginning.

Why then can't things which have a beginning not be self-existent?

Because there was a time or a point between non-existence and existence when things having a beginning belong to the non-existence camp, they were still nothing but at most possibilities.

Then some entity that is existing prior to these non-existing things except as possibilities turns them from nothing but possibilities into really existing things and not only possibilities, and this is the beginning of their real existence, for which they owe it to the prior to them existing entity.

And the ultimate prior existing entity that starts the chain of prior existing entities bringing about the beginning of posteriorly existing things, the ultimate last most anterior and end prior existing entity is the one and only self-existing entity which is God.

That is why I say that God belongs to that category of being which is self-existent, and God is the only member of this category.


As a concrete example, every man was nothing but a possibility until a man and a woman prior to him conceive him and the woman bears him in her womb so that at full term she gives birth to him.

The man from his mother and father has a beginning and therefore it cannot be a self-existing entity.

Now everything in the universe we know has a beginning for owing their existence to some prior agents, which prior agents have a beginning and thus are also not self-existing beings.

Until the chain of prior entities giving rise to posterior entities, reach the ultimate end anterior entity which is self-existent and is the only one agent that is self-existent, that agent is God.

Susmariosep

You still can't explain why God doesn't need to have a beginning. All you say is that God has to be so because if he is not your logic fall apart.

Now everything in the universe we know has a beginning for owing their existence to some prior agents, which prior agents have a beginning and thus are also not self-existing beings.

Until the chain of prior entities giving rise to posterior entities, reach the ultimate end anterior entity which is self-existent and is the only one agent that is self-existent, that agent is God.

If this God had a beginning then He would not be God, but the One before Him, Which One before Him finally the end anterior ultimate last before Whom nothing, that is God.

Why not an endless series of anterior agents each giving rise to his immediately posterior agent, so you have an endless series of anterior agents and from any point in this series you have an endless series of posterior agents?


That is not possible in reality and not possible in your thinking.

Not possible first in thinking even though it seems possible, because your brain does not work endlessly, when you die your brain stops working.

Not possible in reality because if each agent depends on another agent to exist and operate, and no agent is independent from any agent, i.e., self-existing, then the whole series does not exist and does not operate -- the whole series is just in your thinking which thinking you presume to be also endless from a priori and from a posteriori (from before and from after), wich is a fallacious way of thinking, and therefore not genuine thinking.

Let me give you two examples why such a series is bereft of real existence much less operation:

1. You are driving a car and your fuel is running low, so you borrow fuel from the motorist of the car behind yours, and he borrows from the motorist of the car behind his, and on and on and on, endlessly, but no one can produce fuel, do you think such an endless series of cars can run in this endless convoy in reality?

2. You borrow money from someone and this someone borrows money from someone else, and on and on and on endlessly, but no one is earning money, do you think such an endless line of borrowers can have any money at all in their pocket?

To make a long story short and quick:

Since the universe has a beginning before which point of beginning it did not exist, it was nothing, then ultimately it must come from a self-existing entity which is God; if there were no God then no universe and we are not here exchanging thoughts about atheists engaging in wrong concepts of God.

About my logic falling apart if there is no God, the fact of the matter is that there is God, and we know it from the existence of the unniverse, and I am not using any logic you have in mind, but just my inborn reason and intelligence.



Susmariosep

[susmariosep]

In which case I would presume that you don't have any educated guess to contribute in this thread, but you are just a witness to the messages transmitted here by people who do care to engage in a spirit of dialogue on the question what or who made the universe, at least earth and heaven known to man.

Susmariosep

I said I don't know if there was a "maker" - a creative intelligence that had any part in the creation of the universe, ie your god. Most presumably there wasn't any maker. I never said I had no idea how the universe came to being (I have a pretty good idea how it came to being). You should really read and respond to whole posts.

See my explanation to jackinbox above in post #33.


Susmariosep

[cathological]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

[jackinbox]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

[susmariosep]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? -- cathological

No, I never said that and I never thought that.

What I said is that the universe as we know it has a beginning, so it did not exist prior to its beginning, wherefore it owes its existence to another entity or still another entity or still another entity, but at the very ultimate last end there has got to be a final self-existing entity never having any beginnig which it owes to a previous entity, which self-existing agent is God.

Why can't there be an endless line of entities each depending on another for its existence and operation?

Because then they can't exist because none of them has intrinsic capability and actuality to exist and operate and impart existence and operation to all the others.

See my two examples in post #33, above.



Susmariosep

[susmariosep]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. -- jackinbox

God in my posts is not only defined but reasoned out intelligently to be existing.

To pray to God or not to pray to God after having been shown to you that reason used intelligently proves the existence of God, it is a matter of your free choice; like if you happen to have been shipwrecked and luckily got washed ashore in a private beach, it is your free choice to extend some recognizance to the owner of the beach, and it is his free choice to throw you back to the deep seas and let you get washed ashore elsewhere.

The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. -- jackinbox

Actually in my posts I am not imagining that God exists, I am proving from reason and intelligence that God exists.

This is my reasoning: the universe exists and it has a beginning, therefore before the beginning it was not existing.

Now when it was still in the camp of non-existence and nothing, it could not have brought itself into existence and thus transited to the camp of existence, because nothing cannot for being nothing realize itself into something.

It needs an agent to effect its transition from nothing to something and that agent is God.


I define God as maker of heaven and earth. Look at the moon and the sun and you will be reminded of the planetarium where you can see the models of the moon and the sun and the earth.

Now, if you had come from a most simple distant very pre-technological society and knew nothing about the earth and the solar system, and you were brought to a planetarium, and saw the wonderful movements of the model earth and its moon and how both together revolve around the model of the sun, you would be delightfully amazed.

Then your host led you to a room where there are technicians busy with instruments and mechanical equipment and structures which are linked to the model earth and moon and sun outside the room, and which control them; here in this room your host informed you that the marvelous show outside is operated by the men inside this room.

Later in the day toward dusk your host pointed out to you the real sun outside the planetarium, looking like a giant fiery disk slowly but visibly sinking down on the horizon, And your host asked you:

"See something similar in the planetarium?"

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So, jackinbox, if your mind is pure and clean and candid then you will also like the child from a remote distant pre-technological society apprehend and comprehend as he has with reason and intelligence, that the universe owes its existence to God.


Susmariosep

[jackinbox]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. -- jackinbox

God in my posts is not only defined but reasoned out intelligently to be existing.

To pray to God or not to pray to God after having been shown to you that reason used intelligently proves the existence of God, it is a matter of your free choice; like if you happen to have been shipwrecked and luckily got washed ashore in a private beach, it is your free choice to extend some recognizance to the owner of the beach, and it is his free choice to throw you back to the deep seas and let you get washed ashore elsewhere.

The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. -- jackinbox

Actually in my posts I am not imagining that God exists, I am proving from reason and intelligence that God exists.

This is my reasoning: the universe exists and it has a beginning, therefore before the beginning it was not existing.

Now when it was still in the camp of non-existence and nothing, it could not have brought itself into existence and thus transited to the camp of existence, because nothing cannot for being nothing realize itself into something.

It needs an agent to effect its transition from nothing to something and that agent is God.


I define God as maker of heaven and earth. Look at the moon and the sun and you will be reminded of the planetarium where you can see the models of the moon and the sun and the earth.

Now, if you had come from a most simple distant very pre-technological society and knew nothing about the earth and the solar system, and you were brought to a planetarium, and saw the wonderful movements of the model earth and its moon and how both together revolve around the model of the sun, you would be delightfully amazed.

Then your host led you to a room where there are technicians busy with instruments and mechanical equipment and structures which are linked to the model earth and moon and sun outside the room, and which control them; here in this room your host informed you that the marvelous show outside is operated by the men inside this room.

Later in the day toward dusk your host pointed out to you the real sun outside the planetarium, looking like a giant fiery disk slowly but visibly sinking down on the horizon, And your host asked you:

"See something similar in the planetarium?"

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So, jackinbox, if your mind is pure and clean and candid then you will also like the child from a remote distant pre-technological society apprehend and comprehend as he has with reason and intelligence, that the universe owes its existence to God.


Susmariosep

Outside of its property of being self-existent, could you elaborate on what others attributes you believe this thing has and why you believe it to have those attributes?

[Cyberbrain]

Since the universe has a beginning before which point of beginning it did not exist, it was nothing, then ultimately it must come from a self-existing entity which is God; if there were no God then no universe and we are not here exchanging thoughts about atheists engaging in wrong concepts of God.

This is your problem right here. Like many Christian fundamentalists, you're stuck with the 1960's notion that the Big Bang was a singularity and that before it there was nothing. However, physicists have proven this wrong for over 30 years. The Big Bang was not a singularity, and there were things that existed before it. The most leading theory to explain how the Big Bang resulted is M-Theory (string theory). So before you start crusading around forums, do some research.

This basic video might give you a taste of string theory:



And before you try to refute science, reread this statement (which I'm tired of repeating to theists):

Fundamentalists may point out that there are holes or gaps in science and that science doesn't explain everything. Well of course science currently doesn't explain everything; we've only begun our journey to exploring the macrocosmos of the universe and the microcosmos of the subatomic world. Just because every time there is a crack in a theory doesn't mean we have to revert to superstition in order to fill it. We're a young species that have only begun to under stand our surroundings.

Spirituality should only be used as a personal way to achieve inner harmony (to conquer existential anxiety, fear, etc). It should be limited to the walls of your head, house and church. It should not be a substitution to science and it should not be made into a public endeavor.

[cathological]

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So you're saying that basic Newtonian mechanics is god?

[susmariosep]

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So you're saying that basic Newtonian mechanics is god?

We can only know things that are not directly perceived by our senses by way of comparing them with things directly perceived by our senses.

Thus when we say that the Big Bang is the beginning of the known universe, we are certainly and everyone knows that who do some reasoning, thinking intelligently, that we do not mean the beginning of the universe is an explosion of a firecracker which we know from our sense perception, namely, the noisy and sparkling burst of a small rolled pack of explosive materials.

At the minimum we mean that it can be reminiscent of a firecracker explosion.

Coming to your inference that I am making out God to be basic Newtonian mechanics, from my mention of planetarium and the solar system, I regret but I have to for the sake of viable communication, I have to politely request that you not dwell in a literal sense on my words, but on the analogical sense, otherwise this conversation between you and me would be impossible.

If you keep proceeding in this manner, then I would suspect that when you were a child you repeatedly insisted that your dad implied mountains wear shoes because he mentioned once when looking at a mountain that at the foot of that mountain he could see a small village.

I could imagine that your mom brought you to the school's guidance counselor asking him what was wrong with you because you could not get your dad's meaning in his use of the phrase, foot of the mountain, when your siblings did not have any difficulties whatever.

Please forgive me for this illustration, but I hope you get my request.

And what did the guidance counselor tell your mom? To be patient with you because you could be a late-bloomer.



Susmariosep

[susmariosep]

Since the universe has a beginning before which point of beginning it did not exist, it was nothing, then ultimately it must come from a self-existing entity which is God; if there were no God then no universe and we are not here exchanging thoughts about atheists engaging in wrong concepts of God.

This is your problem right here. Like many Christian fundamentalists, you're stuck with the 1960's notion that the Big Bang was a singularity and that before it there was nothing. However, physicists have proven this wrong for over 30 years. The Big Bang was not a singularity, and there were things that existed before it. The most leading theory to explain how the Big Bang resulted is M-Theory (string theory). So before you start crusading around forums, do some research.

This basic video might give you a taste of string theory:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...wSk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And before you try to refute science, reread this statement (which I'm tired of repeating to theists):

Fundamentalists may point out that there are holes or gaps in science and that science doesn't explain everything. Well of course science currently doesn't explain everything; we've only begun our journey to exploring the macrocosmos of the universe and the microcosmos of the subatomic world. Just because every time there is a crack in a theory doesn't mean we have to revert to superstition in order to fill it. We're a young species that have only begun to under stand our surroundings.

Spirituality should only be used as a personal way to achieve inner harmony (to conquer existential anxiety, fear, etc). It should be limited to the walls of your head, house and church. It should not be a substitution to science and it should not be made into a public endeavor.

No, I am not any fundamentalist but a rational theist of my own school of rationalism, which is focused on man's innate reason and intelligence to know reality outside his mind and also the conceptual things inside his mind.

You are telling me that there are

"physicists [who] have proven this wrong for over 30 years. The Big Bang was not a singularity, and there were things that existed before it. The most leading theory to explain how the Big Bang resulted is M-Theory (string theory). So before you start crusading around forums, do some research."

Do you mean to tell me also that according to these physicists those "things that existed before it [Big Bang]" were self-existing, thus without beginning but always been existing, or they also had a beginning and therefore not self-existing?



Susmariosep

[susmariosep]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. -- jackinbox

God in my posts is not only defined but reasoned out intelligently to be existing.

To pray to God or not to pray to God after having been shown to you that reason used intelligently proves the existence of God, it is a matter of your free choice; like if you happen to have been shipwrecked and luckily got washed ashore in a private beach, it is your free choice to extend some recognizance to the owner of the beach, and it is his free choice to throw you back to the deep seas and let you get washed ashore elsewhere.

The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. -- jackinbox

Actually in my posts I am not imagining that God exists, I am proving from reason and intelligence that God exists.

This is my reasoning: the universe exists and it has a beginning, therefore before the beginning it was not existing.

Now when it was still in the camp of non-existence and nothing, it could not have brought itself into existence and thus transited to the camp of existence, because nothing cannot for being nothing realize itself into something.

It needs an agent to effect its transition from nothing to something and that agent is God.


I define God as maker of heaven and earth. Look at the moon and the sun and you will be reminded of the planetarium where you can see the models of the moon and the sun and the earth.

Now, if you had come from a most simple distant very pre-technological society and knew nothing about the earth and the solar system, and you were brought to a planetarium, and saw the wonderful movements of the model earth and its moon and how both together revolve around the model of the sun, you would be delightfully amazed.

Then your host led you to a room where there are technicians busy with instruments and mechanical equipment and structures which are linked to the model earth and moon and sun outside the room, and which control them; here in this room your host informed you that the marvelous show outside is operated by the men inside this room.

Later in the day toward dusk your host pointed out to you the real sun outside the planetarium, looking like a giant fiery disk slowly but visibly sinking down on the horizon, And your host asked you:

"See something similar in the planetarium?"

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So, jackinbox, if your mind is pure and clean and candid then you will also like the child from a remote distant pre-technological society apprehend and comprehend as he has with reason and intelligence, that the universe owes its existence to God.


Susmariosep

Outside of its property of being self-existent, could you elaborate on what others attributes you believe this thing has and why you believe it to have those attributes?

Since I know that God is the maker of the universe and everything in it, I conclude with certainty that God is very intelligent and very powerful; otherwise he could not have made the universe and He could not have made man who is a conscious intelligent being.



Susmariosep

[cathological]

Whatever your almighty nonexistent god is Susmariosep, it's still Newton's bitch.

[luv2increase]

The way I see it, atheists are busy with the wrong concepts of God.

For example, they call God an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Celestial Teapot, Santa Claus.

With such kinds of names and presumably concepts of God, they are missing the genuine God as He can be known by man's inborn reason and intelligence.

If they were using their inborn reason and inborn intelligence they should know that those names do not represent God and much less the objective entity that is God.


So, stop calling God those names, get serious and think reasonably and intelligently, then atheists you will realize that God is really an entity much greater than any you can imagine.



Susmariosep

Not every soul is to know God. This world and dimension would be in vain if this were to be the case. Think of this world as a stepping stone for those predestinated to ultimately end up in God's kingdom, which is Heaven. Understanding and coming to know and live for God is Divine.

Edited by luv2increase, 21 October 2008 - 02:51 AM.

[jackinbox]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. -- jackinbox

God in my posts is not only defined but reasoned out intelligently to be existing.

To pray to God or not to pray to God after having been shown to you that reason used intelligently proves the existence of God, it is a matter of your free choice; like if you happen to have been shipwrecked and luckily got washed ashore in a private beach, it is your free choice to extend some recognizance to the owner of the beach, and it is his free choice to throw you back to the deep seas and let you get washed ashore elsewhere.

The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. -- jackinbox

Actually in my posts I am not imagining that God exists, I am proving from reason and intelligence that God exists.

This is my reasoning: the universe exists and it has a beginning, therefore before the beginning it was not existing.

Now when it was still in the camp of non-existence and nothing, it could not have brought itself into existence and thus transited to the camp of existence, because nothing cannot for being nothing realize itself into something.

It needs an agent to effect its transition from nothing to something and that agent is God.


I define God as maker of heaven and earth. Look at the moon and the sun and you will be reminded of the planetarium where you can see the models of the moon and the sun and the earth.

Now, if you had come from a most simple distant very pre-technological society and knew nothing about the earth and the solar system, and you were brought to a planetarium, and saw the wonderful movements of the model earth and its moon and how both together revolve around the model of the sun, you would be delightfully amazed.

Then your host led you to a room where there are technicians busy with instruments and mechanical equipment and structures which are linked to the model earth and moon and sun outside the room, and which control them; here in this room your host informed you that the marvelous show outside is operated by the men inside this room.

Later in the day toward dusk your host pointed out to you the real sun outside the planetarium, looking like a giant fiery disk slowly but visibly sinking down on the horizon, And your host asked you:

"See something similar in the planetarium?"

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So, jackinbox, if your mind is pure and clean and candid then you will also like the child from a remote distant pre-technological society apprehend and comprehend as he has with reason and intelligence, that the universe owes its existence to God.


Susmariosep

Outside of its property of being self-existent, could you elaborate on what others attributes you believe this thing has and why you believe it to have those attributes?

Since I know that God is the maker of the universe and everything in it, I conclude with certainty that God is very intelligent and very powerful; otherwise he could not have made the universe and He could not have made man who is a conscious intelligent being.



Susmariosep

Many things happens without the intervention of an intelligent being. Actually, everything that is not made by man. Evolution is a very good example of something complex arising without intervention. Some geological formations are quite impressive, carved by water and wind.

[Cyberbrain]

You are telling me that there are

"physicists [who] have proven this wrong for over 30 years. The Big Bang was not a singularity, and there were things that existed before it. The most leading theory to explain how the Big Bang resulted is M-Theory (string theory). So before you start crusading around forums, do some research."

Do you mean to tell me also that according to these physicists those "things that existed before it [Big Bang]" were self-existing, thus without beginning but always been existing, or they also had a beginning and therefore not self-existing?

Susmariosep

Did you at least see the video? Before the universe, time didn't exist in the conventional way (past and future, ie one dimension), there were higher dimensions and there were also higher dimensions of space as well (according to string theory, eleven in total). So there couldn't ever of been a conventional beginning to "everything". To put it more clearly, our universe is only one in a sea of infinite universes (each one having a unique set of physical laws). This sea is called the Multiverse. The Big Bang was the result of the collision of two parallel universes.

[susmariosep]

Whatever your almighty nonexistent god is Susmariosep, it's still Newton's bitch.

Well, I would think that the word bitch in reference to God is not called for.

After all the authors of the founding documents of the USA invoke God, so every American must accord some politeness to the word God, if not the Agent represented.

For example, in The U.S. Declaration of Independence:

http://www.law.india...eclaration.html

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [...]

[...]

I really regret that you are losing your temper in this forum, that goes to show that in many an atheist their attitude is the number block to the admission of the existence of God.



Susmariosep

[susmariosep]

So you'd consider something like the big bang to be god? Your argument is that god exists if you redefine him so that he's nothing like any religion defines god as. You can redefine god as science and physics if you like, but everyone else is still going to call it science. What's the significance of "god" if you just define him as some big bang type event? Who cares? Does that still give you a gooey spiritual feeling?

I was to post to same thing. Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. The human mind as difficulties imagining the world without the existance of time. We are forced to see time as linear and going one direction only. The currently accepted theory suggests that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Is definition of God is simply "Something that caused the creation of the universe and didn't need a cause itself". Nothing worth praying. -- jackinbox

God in my posts is not only defined but reasoned out intelligently to be existing.

To pray to God or not to pray to God after having been shown to you that reason used intelligently proves the existence of God, it is a matter of your free choice; like if you happen to have been shipwrecked and luckily got washed ashore in a private beach, it is your free choice to extend some recognizance to the owner of the beach, and it is his free choice to throw you back to the deep seas and let you get washed ashore elsewhere.

The fact that we are able to imagine this definition doesn't means the defined entity exist. -- jackinbox

Actually in my posts I am not imagining that God exists, I am proving from reason and intelligence that God exists.

This is my reasoning: the universe exists and it has a beginning, therefore before the beginning it was not existing.

Now when it was still in the camp of non-existence and nothing, it could not have brought itself into existence and thus transited to the camp of existence, because nothing cannot for being nothing realize itself into something.

It needs an agent to effect its transition from nothing to something and that agent is God.


I define God as maker of heaven and earth. Look at the moon and the sun and you will be reminded of the planetarium where you can see the models of the moon and the sun and the earth.

Now, if you had come from a most simple distant very pre-technological society and knew nothing about the earth and the solar system, and you were brought to a planetarium, and saw the wonderful movements of the model earth and its moon and how both together revolve around the model of the sun, you would be delightfully amazed.

Then your host led you to a room where there are technicians busy with instruments and mechanical equipment and structures which are linked to the model earth and moon and sun outside the room, and which control them; here in this room your host informed you that the marvelous show outside is operated by the men inside this room.

Later in the day toward dusk your host pointed out to you the real sun outside the planetarium, looking like a giant fiery disk slowly but visibly sinking down on the horizon, And your host asked you:

"See something similar in the planetarium?"

And you answered with glee, "Yes! It is like the sun in the planetarium."

Then your host told you that:

"As inside the planetarium similarly also outside you can witness the real sun in that big fiery disk disappearing slowly over the edge of the distant horizon, and realize that some greatly powerful entity is enacting that pageant, we call Him God."

So, jackinbox, if your mind is pure and clean and candid then you will also like the child from a remote distant pre-technological society apprehend and comprehend as he has with reason and intelligence, that the universe owes its existence to God.


Susmariosep

Outside of its property of being self-existent, could you elaborate on what others attributes you believe this thing has and why you believe it to have those attributes?

Since I know that God is the maker of the universe and everything in it, I conclude with certainty that God is very intelligent and very powerful; otherwise he could not have made the universe and He could not have made man who is a conscious intelligent being.



Susmariosep

Many things happens without the intervention of an intelligent being. Actually, everything that is not made by man. Evolution is a very good example of something complex arising without intervention. Some geological formations are quite impressive, carved by water and wind.

I beg to disagree that evolution arose without intervention whatsoever by any agent outside of the evolution event.

Evolution has a beginning, so it is also subject to the reality that whatever has a beginning depends on something anterior to it for its existence and operation.

About water and wind bringing about geological formations which are quite impressive, these water and wind also have beginnings.

And that our artistic appreciation for the impressive formations of geological monuments from nature is due to our aesthetic sense, that aesthetic sense testifies to an agent which endowed us with such a sense by which we can delight in the wonders of geological formations.

[ Thanks, jackinbox, that we two are having this exchange in polite language. ]

Susmariosep

[Moonbeam]

I've noted so many logical holes in every atheistic argument I've heard that I've simply given up trying to reason with them.

:lmao: Yes, I think admitting that you've given up on reason is the best thing for you to do.

Usually the atheists who create arguments approaching logical consistency are those that are actually on the edge regarding atheism. Those are the ones I like to speak to.

:rofl: What's an atheist "on the edge"? Oh, maybe the next thing you said answers that question...

I want to smash his stupid face in. The act would certainly beautify the planet.

This may be why atheists are on edge around you.

I bet I can guess your favorite god.

[susmariosep]

You are telling me that there are

"physicists [who] have proven this wrong for over 30 years. The Big Bang was not a singularity, and there were things that existed before it. The most leading theory to explain how the Big Bang resulted is M-Theory (string theory). So before you start crusading around forums, do some research."

Do you mean to tell me also that according to these physicists those "things that existed before it [Big Bang]" were self-existing, thus without beginning but always been existing, or they also had a beginning and therefore not self-existing?

Susmariosep

Did you at least see the video? Before the universe, time didn't exist in the conventional way (past and future, ie one dimension), there were higher dimensions and there were also higher dimensions of space as well (according to string theory, eleven in total). So there couldn't ever of been a conventional beginning to "everything". To put it more clearly, our universe is only one in a sea of infinite universes (each one having a unique set of physical laws). This sea is called the Multiverse. The Big Bang was the result of the collision of two parallel universes.

The English word infinite is from the Latin, infinitus, infinita, infinitum, meaning etymologically not bounded, from in and finis, in = not and finis = border.

But according to stock knowledge of every reading person the amount of matter in the universe is finite.

Since the physicists you consult hypothesize an infinite number of universes, then each universe is finite in the quantity of matter, and thus the infinite number of universes is infinitely limited or finite in their quantity of matter.

Again, if I may, granting though not conceding that this kind of a hypothetical Multiverse is in accordance with the reason and intelligence of man, it should be an infinitely finite quantity of matter: because each universe is finite in its respective quantity of matter, wherefore an infinite number of finite quantities is infinitely limited in quantity of matter.


But I like you to consult further with your physicists of multiverses on exactly how infinite is the number of the myriad universes that exist prior to the Big Bang, which each universe is not subject to the laws of physics.

And since your physicists also hypothesize exemption from the laws of physics for their multiverses, then what is there to talk about further if at all, since everything is already exempted from any order by which science and hypothesization is at all possible.




Susmariosep

[Cyberbrain]

But according to stock knowledge of every reading person the amount of matter in the universe is finite.

True, but matter makes up a very small percentage of the universe. Don't forget that there are other things in our universe: energy, dark energy, anti-matter, and dark matter.

Since the physicists you consult...

By that I'll take it that you mean the scientific community.

Since the physicists you consult hypothesize an infinite number of universes, then each universe is finite in the quantity of matter, and thus the infinite number of universes is infinitely limited or finite in their quantity of matter.

Our universe has matter. The same can't be said for other universes since they are hypothesized to have their own unique physical laws.

Again, if I may, granting though not conceding that this kind of a hypothetical Multiverse is in accordance with the reason and intelligence of man, it should be an infinitely finite quantity of matter: because each universe is finite in its respective quantity of matter, wherefore an infinite number of finite quantities is infinitely limited in quantity of matter.

Assuming that each universe has matter, than your logic is incorrect. If I have a glass of watter that is half full, both the glass and the water represent a finite quantity. But if I have infinite glasses of water, I would have an infinite amount of water. If you don't understand infinity, you may want to retake Pre-Calculus again.

But I like you to consult further with your physicists of multiverses on exactly how infinite is the number of the myriad universes that exist prior to the Big Bang, which each universe is not subject to the laws of physics.

Why not look it up yourself? The internet has everything you'll need. Btw, I like how you are persistent to put down any theory that conflicts with there being a "god" or as you like to put "a maker". Therefore, I think the immediate question is not whether God exists or whether he/she/it was responsible for the creation of the universe, but: Why is it that you have such a strong desire to believe that there is a God in the first place? The issue at hand deals more with psychology rather than science.

[cathological]

Well, I would think that the word bitch in reference to God is not called for.

I really regret that you are losing your temper in this forum, that goes to show that in many an atheist their attitude is the number block to the admission of the existence of God.

How is saying that god must obey the laws of physics "losing my temper"? You are hardly above using insults; as a matter of fact you started it. You lost your temper. It's plain to see what a flawed, hateful, evil person you are right below the surface. I find it interesting how religious people try to convince everyone that they're morally upright and trustworthy. Nothing could be further from the truth and, I hope, nobody is going to fall for it. Everyone should watch their back around nut jobs like you. You are below my level.

After all the authors of the founding documents of the USA invoke God, so every American must accord some politeness to the word God, if not the Agent represented.

For example, in The U.S. Declaration of Independence:

http://www.law.india...eclaration.html

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [...]

[...]

Thomas Jefferson, the man that wrote The Declaration of Independence, was an atheist.

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson

I think he made his views quite clear don't you?

[Cyberbrain]

In fact, the Constitution also doesn't mention Christianity, or God, at all. It is a secular document outlining the structure of what would become the new government of this nation.

[susmariosep]

But according to stock knowledge of every reading person the amount of matter in the universe is finite.

True, but matter makes up a very small percentage of the universe. Don't forget that there are other things in our universe: energy, dark energy, anti-matter, and dark matter.

Since the physicists you consult...

By that I'll take it that you mean the scientific community.

Since the physicists you consult hypothesize an infinite number of universes, then each universe is finite in the quantity of matter, and thus the infinite number of universes is infinitely limited or finite in their quantity of matter.

Our universe has matter. The same can't be said for other universes since they are hypothesized to have their own unique physical laws.

Again, if I may, granting though not conceding that this kind of a hypothetical Multiverse is in accordance with the reason and intelligence of man, it should be an infinitely finite quantity of matter: because each universe is finite in its respective quantity of matter, wherefore an infinite number of finite quantities is infinitely limited in quantity of matter.

Assuming that each universe has matter, than your logic is incorrect. If I have a glass of watter that is half full, both the glass and the water represent a finite quantity. But if I have infinite glasses of water, I would have an infinite amount of water. If you don't understand infinity, you may want to retake Pre-Calculus again.

But I like you to consult further with your physicists of multiverses on exactly how infinite is the number of the myriad universes that exist prior to the Big Bang, which each universe is not subject to the laws of physics.

Why not look it up yourself? The internet has everything you'll need. Btw, I like how you are persistent to put down any theory that conflicts with there being a "god" or as you like to put "a maker". Therefore, I think the immediate question is not whether God exists or whether he/she/it was responsible for the creation of the universe, but: Why is it that you have such a strong desire to believe that there is a God in the first place? The issue at hand deals more with psychology rather than science.

I think the immediate question is not whether God exists or whether he/she/it was responsible for the creation of the universe, but: Why is it that you have such a strong desire to believe that there is a God in the first place? The issue at hand deals more with psychology rather than science. -- Kostas

Touche! [ with the acute accent mark at the ending e. ]


Now, read this:

I think the immediate question is not whether God exists or whether he/she/it was responsible for the creation of the universe, but: Why is it that you have such a strong desire to not believe that there is a God in the first place? The issue at hand deals more with psychology rather than science. -- Susmariosep

That is also my insight, that at the end of the day psychology should be a better engrossment for us both, to know what psychological factors make a person go for theism and another for atheism.

Perhaps some genes?


But I will confess that for me theism offers more advantages in all respects than atheism.

For one theism makes for a more beautiful life than atheism -- for myself that is.

Then if you are a US citizen -- I am not one though, and you believe in God, you can count yourself to be in the vaster God-believing majority of the US populace which is a more advantageous ascription, than being counted in the minority of some 3% of the US citizenry who are atheists.

Why more advantageous? Because the US is a democracy that adheres seriously to the rule of the majority; wherefore the majority who are God-believing will rule the minority 3% who are atheists.


But my thread is actually on my statement that "Atheists engage in wrong concepts of God," which is true.

If they but read the founding documents of America they will get the correct concepts of God, for example read my quotation above on the preamble of The Declaration of Independence:

QUOTE
http://www.law.india...eclaration.html

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [...]

[...]

See, according to the wise men founders of the USA:

>> God is the author of nature and God endows Americans with the right to separate and equal status from England.

>> God is the creator of mankind, He made all men equal, endowing them with inalienable rights foremost of which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Should American atheists ever succeed in turning all fellow Americans to conceive of God as a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Celestial Teapot, or just the fat chubby senile Santa Claus, then I fear the worst for your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



Susmariosep

[platypus]

Since I know that God is the maker of the universe and everything in it,

Just how do you "know" that? Mind you that your internal mental states (like your level of convincedness) don't affect the truth value of any statement about the external world.

[Cyberbrain]

Now, read this:
I think the immediate question is not whether God exists or whether he/she/it was responsible for the creation of the universe, but: Why is it that you have such a strong desire to not believe that there is a God in the first place? The issue at hand deals more with psychology rather than science. -- Susmariosep

It's true that I don't have a desire to believe in God, because unlike you I demand evidence. I don't want to have false hope. In the end all that religion really is, is the placebo affect. But, contrary to what you may think, I don't hate the concept of God nor do I have a strong desire to avoid God and claim 100% that he/she/it is none existent. I place my hopes in other things. Things that are more tangible and more reliable such as technology and science.

Also I explained this before ...

according to the theory of knowledge, reality is relative; any religion can be true, God could be an alien programmer, we could be living in a simulation - there's infinite possibilities to what may be reality.

People are spiritual because they have a desire to be so. And as long as that desire exists and as long as they remain moderate to their beliefs, I have no problem with people being spiritual.

But if you want to know the full extant of my personal opinion, this is it in a nutshell:

The existence of a creator both benevolent and omnipotent in a world of inevitable pain is logically incorrect. The existence of some sort of creative intelligence is a perfectly logical possibility. But in the absence of evidence that such an entity either exists, wishes to make its presence known, or plays any part what so ever in our lives, the only logical attitude is to presume we are alone until further notice, and to seek our own "salvation", that is, ever-increasing survivability and well-being, through benevolence and reason, aided by science and technology.

I have nothing against the existence of a higher being, if anything I would love it if there were some sort of higher force watching and protecting me. But like I said before, given the lack of evidence, I personally find it more fulfilling to pursue my own salvation through my own means through science and technology. I can not say that I believe in "god" in the same way I believe the sky is blue or that one plus one will always equal two. Religion revolves around the concept of faith - belief in something without evidence. Well I need evidence. For most people in this world, faith is fulfilling. Religion works for most people and that's fine, I got nothing against that!

That is also my insight, that at the end of the day psychology should be a better engrossment for us both, to know what psychological factors make a person go for theism and another for atheism.

At the end of the day, you're religious because it makes you happy, and I'm not because I have other things to make me happy. Overall, it's all about maximizing well being, don't you agree?

Perhaps some genes?

Perhaps, but I think it has to do more with sociology, group psychology and environmental factors.

But I will confess that for me theism offers more advantages in all respects than atheism.

For one theism makes for a more beautiful life than atheism -- for myself that is.

And the same could be said for billions of other people around the world! I have nothing against with people being religious. Actually spirituality is a great thing because it helps a lot people deal with their problems. It helped my cousin deal with the death of his father, it helped my friend who needed to stop smoking, and it helps people in my community to have a more fulfilling life. We all want to be something greater than our selves, we all want to be loved, to feel warmth and security. We all want to know that at the end of a hard working day that everything will be OK in life. In a way, we are all still children who need the caring love of a parent. My grandmother who is 81 told me that when see falls asleep, she likes to think that God is hugging her - watching and protecting her. Different things work for different people, if being religious works for you that great!

But when you try to force your beliefs on others and when you mix up science with religion and when religion becomes mixed up with politics .. then we have a different story.

Then if you are a US citizen -- I am not one though, and you believe in God, you can count yourself to be in the vaster God-believing majority of the US populace which is a more advantageous ascription, than being counted in the minority of some 3% of the US citizenry who are atheists.

Why more advantageous? Because the US is a democracy that adheres seriously to the rule of the majority; wherefore the majority who are God-believing will rule the minority 3% who are atheists.

About 15% of US citizens call themselves atheist and about 30% call themselves either atheist, agnostic or secular. If this is your argument to try to convert me to a theist - it is a very weak one. America is and will always be a secular nation, as intended my the founding fathers.

But my thread is actually on my statement that "Atheists engage in wrong concepts of God," which is true.

So let's true to stick to the topic, instead of talking about cosmology and politics. Btw, "athiests" don't engage in the wrong concepts of god. All they're saying is that in the same way that god can't be proven to exist so can't a giant potato hiding in the kuiper belt. Or the god's of Hinduism or Buddhism.

If they but read the founding documents of America they will get the correct concepts of God, for example read my quotation above on the preamble of The Declaration of Independence:

The declaration of independence is not a federal document and does not outline the structure of government. The constitution does. So before attacking this great nation of American (which I'm a proud citizen of) you might want to do better research of it's history.

Should American atheists ever succeed in turning all fellow Americans to conceive of God as a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, a Celestial Teapot, or just the fat chubby senile Santa Claus, then I fear the worst for your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[cathological]

If they but read the founding documents of America they will get the correct concepts of God, for example read my quotation above on the preamble of The Declaration of Independence:

See, according to the wise men founders of the USA:

>> God is the author of nature and God endows Americans with the right to separate and equal status from England.

>> God is the creator of mankind, He made all men equal, endowing them with inalienable rights foremost of which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson

So I take it you think Thomas Jefferson was religious then? If you found some quote of Dawkins saying "god damn it" will you also assert that he is religious? Just so you know many of the founding fathers were atheists. I'm sure you'll ignore that fact just like you do with all the other facts we have here in reality.

[DukeNukem]

We used to need the myth of god to explain the star-filled heavens, the vanishing of the sun and its rising, storms, shooting stars, sickness, and so much more we could not then know. Now, most of these things are clearly understood not to need god as part of the explanation. But, there are still some unanswered questions, like how the Universe began, that people still use God as the answer. But, just as all of these other god-driven myths have been settled by science, so will the beginning of the Universe. God's little corner of influence keeps shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. But, religion will always find new questions, I'm sure, for which a God can be the only explanation. For example, where does our soul go when we die? of course, the question itself is strictly religious, and so therefore only a religious answer will work. Using this technique, religion will never be defeated by science and logic, as it will always have an illogical basis of defense.

Edited by DukeNukem, 20 October 2008 - 09:49 PM.