Nevlach Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 William Lane Craig consistently wins gold medals in mental gymnastics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 Spoken like a true atheist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yeah that's what I said. Big bang theory was the beginning of this universe, so either matter or god either existed before. Just not nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 Ah, I think I read your post too fast. My Fair point in regards to time as we know it not existing before the Big Bang. I guess I see this hypothetical configuration sort of like the following graph: No matter how far to the left on the curve you go, you'll never reach a "beginning". The line stretches out to infinity. The same holds true for following the curve to the right. Say we're at 1 now, you could say that there is an "infinity" of line before you get to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I think the argument is that if everything must have a beginning, then how can God be exempt from that? It's special pleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 This is exactly what I'm saying. My last post was written at 3am, so I apologize if it was convoluted and poorly worded. I find it hilarious that the best explanation a believer can come up with is "god was always there". Having to create a special set of rules and laws to explain something isn't explaining anything. If a believer can say that god breaks the rules, an atheist can just as equally say that the big bang transcends the laws of physics and happened beyond the realm of our understanding. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Nothing. So both are therefore faith based. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Honestly, I don't even know how I got goaded into a debate about god. This discussion will never get anywhere. We cannot prove that god exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I would agree that at least at this point in time, our understanding of the universe is so limited that any postulations about it would require a certain degree of faith. That being said, the important thing is the method in which each seeks the truth. Science at least attempts to explain things by searching for answers by doing research, observation, creating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and then trying to understand the world through repeatable, testable theories. Religion? Nope. Just believe what we tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Honestly, I don't even know how I got goaded into a debate about god. This discussion will never get anywhere. We cannot prove that god exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Yeah but that's the definition of science. If science didn't attempt to find the answer to how things work then it wouldn't be science now would it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 In the context of the graph, I see what you're saying and why you thought what you were thinking. It's just that through background cosmic radiation we can provide evidence to a 'beginning' point. Now, if you want to talk about how 'long' it took for the conditions to be right so that there could be a beginning, then you're talking about the furthest reaches and edge of our knowledge...which is pretty mind-blowing stuff, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 We can provide evidence for space and time to be compressed into a singularity. It's certainly the beginning of our universe as we know it, but that also means that there was something "before" the rapid expansion of space and time, so the Big Bang not an absolute beginning of everything. There could have been an eternity "before" that moment, but we really have no way of knowing right now. That's what I'm referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 William Lane Craig consistently wins gold medals in mental gymnastics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Honestly, I don't even know how I got goaded into a debate about god. This discussion will never get anywhere. We cannot prove that god exists or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Essentially, the universe is moving from nothing to nothing. It came from nothing...but physics tells us that even nothing can produce something and as 'time' goes on, 'everything' will become nothing as everything, even galaxies, will move away from each other faster than the speed of light, till there's nothing and noone left....and THAT will go on for infinity and there won't be anything 'after' that, just as there was 'nothing' 'before' the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 On the other hand, I can say that the PRIMARY SOURCE writings of Jesus show he definitely entwined with real life people. The High Priest Phinehas, Pontius Pilate, and Herod the Great. All of these people are real. To defy Jesus existence is to pretty much deny the existence of real life people like Herod the Great. Do you deny his existence??? Logic points to the reality of Jesus. Just take the time to think about it. We are flawed, we are ignorant, however God is able to reveal himself to humanity IN OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING. It's called a book, its called people, it's called research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 Taking a page from Colbert then: If everything came from nothing. And god is nothing. Then everything came from god. You are now a sort of deist. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I'm a little late to the party on this one but I think this is a perfect example of what I have been saying. It may not be possible to disprove god but that doesn't mean it isn't possible to disprove many of the assumptions about god written in holy books and in this case his son. How do you explain the uncanny similarities between the story of Jesus and so many other religious characters that preceeded him, particularly that of Osirus-Dionysus? There are many other characters that also share his "unique" traits such as Promethius, Krishna, and others. I would post links and quotes but that would take far too long so maybe someone else could help me out. The similarities are impossible to deny and lend to the fact that many of the stories of Jesus are borrowed/made up. Like so many arguments about the existence of god it may be impossible to prove whether or not Jesus existed and I for one believe he did. What comes into question are the characteristics he is attributed being the son of god. Being unable to disprove god certainly does not lend creedence to his existence as we can simply disprove all of the assumptions people have of him. All we know of god is what is written in holy books and made up in our heads. These are the assumptions that can be disproven by science, history, and philosophy and take away from the credibility of organized religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 Jai604 how long have you been thinking bout God and philosophy? Have you seriously understood all the arguments for both sides? Reading all your posts, it really sounds like you're a new student in ethics, morals, logical reasoning, and philosophy. There is evidence towards God. The notion of God makes him beyond human comprehension. Just because we can't explain him fully doesn't make God less of a God. It's funny that you believe so hard that there is no God. Where is your evidence? How do you hold so strongly to atheism? What is your most solid evidence? Jai, if you were to imagine a God, what kind of properties would he have? In your mind, what constitutes a God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.