Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:41 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Anajo wrote:
This is an example of how God talks about the weather. It was much easier for His people to understand, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." THEN in the New Testament, after Jesus came and the relationship was developed, it could be revealed in a way so that the people would finally understand, "Turn the other cheek."
I've told you, everything that I've explained was from my classes and not my personal belief. Hence, my three post long explanation of what ARE my beliefs. This explanation was from my Mass/Sacraments class, last semester. I had issues with it anyway. It was all based on the Bible, so it was really a class for a person who had total faith in the Bible itself. That wasn't me.

Re: your comic. The inverse is slightly different than the original statement. It should read one of two ways:

1. Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?
Inverse: Here is the conclusion. What facts can draw from it?

2. Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it.
Inverse: Here are the facts. What conclusions can draw to support them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:47 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Tommy,

The cartoon was not implying that science is the inverse of religion.

But if you want to state the inverse, wouldn't it be?:


1. Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

Inverse: Here are the conclusions. What facts can we draw from them?

2. Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it.

Inverse: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we find to support them?

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Anyway, science begins with facts and then states the following:

Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them, or what conclusions can draw to support them, or what conclusions can we find to support them? Pretty much six of one half dozen of another sort of way of saying the same thing.

But it doesn't end there.

Image

Religion begins with conclusion(s) and then asks, what facts can we draw from them (it), what facts can we find to support them (it)?

This makes no sense because a conclusion is what is arrived at after logical reasoning.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
All of your questions can be answered within my post. I will go in order:

"If God exists, then what created God?"
In this question, you're assuming God exists. And there are two types of existence. Existence out of necessity (such as numbers) and existence from an external cause (such as mountains and people, etc.)

Since the universe (space and time) does NOT exist out of necessity -- since it had a beginning at the Big Bang -- then, it has a cause. It was created and therefore has a creator. Since it has a creator, then it can only be that the creator is OUTSIDE of space and time. (i.e. A creator can't exist within the confines of its creation.)

So since it is OUTSIDE of space and time, it never had a beginning. Therefore, to answer your question, God doesn't *have* a cause. It *is* the cause.
==============================

"If God is beyond creation, why would it not be the same for the universe?"
That is not possible because the universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. It is within creation. It had a creator.

==============================

"When science has provided an explanation for what is before the Big Bang, will you adapt your current story, or stick with it?"
That is impossible because that's what the Big Bang is. If there was something before the "Big Bang", then THAT would be the Big Bang.
==============================

"How do you know that there is an infinity before the Big Bang? Was that infinity created by God? If yes, how can it be called infinity since it was created?"
Infinity? Are you describing something that exists out of necessity? This is the idea of something that is eternal. In earlier posts, Tushka explained how no matter how small Matter becomes, it can still be cut into Matter. This is eternal. In geometry, a line goes on forever. This is eternal.
==============================
==============================


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:21 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
Anajo, I haven't mentioned religion once. What does that have to do with anything?

Re: the inverse.

I thought about that too - but is there more than one conclusion? Are there two existences? Do you belong in this world, as well as another? Existence is existence. It is what it is. We are where we are. One conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Quote:
there MUST be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe

Tommy, that is a religious statement.


http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion
Religion:
Quote:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny


Let me ask it this way then. If a transcendent cause beyond space and time created the universe, then who who created the transcendent cause beyond space and time? If the transcendent cause beyond space and time is beyond creation, then why would it not be the same for the universe? When science has provided an explanation for what is before the Big Bang, will you adapt your current story, or stick with it? How do you know that there is an infinity before the Big Bang? Was that infinity created by the transcendent cause beyond space and time? If yes, how can it be called infinity since it was created? If not, infinity must have been self-created, so what did the transcendent cause beyond space and time do?

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Last edited by Anajo on Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:39 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Quote:
I thought about that too - but is there more than one conclusion?


You'd have to be more specific about what particular conclusion you speak of.

Quote:
Are there two existences?

I have no idea and science cannot answer this question. I consider this an unknown and I'm not willing to just make something up to fill the void. Explaining a mystery with another mystery doesn't work for me.

Quote:
Existence is existence. It is what it is. We are where we are.


Well, yes.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 2349
By that definition, religion is the same thing as belief. That is not true because I don't believe in God because of Religion. That is exactly I posted my 3-post-long belief. There MANY people who belief in a creator and they eat pork, they skip church on Sunday, don't visit Mecca, f--- before they're married, abort babies, euthanize a dying grandma.

The belief that a supreme being exists has NOTHING to do with religion. Where religion comes into play is when things such as not eating pork, going to Church, visiting Mecca, waiting for your spouse to f---, keeping a child out of wedlock, not killing grandma because is a drooling vegatable -- these are rules and standards that religion sets and that, again, has NOTHING to do with the simple belief that the universe was created.

Insert "transcendent cause" into your questions, and you get the same answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:50 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Tommy,
Did you read the definition of religion?

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:50 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Quote:
Insert "transcendent cause" into your questions, and you get the same answer.


So how would you answer the questions?

Oops! I missed your answer up above. I'll look at now,.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:34 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Tommy,

To begin with, let's understand more clearly what the Big Bang is.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
Quote:
When astronomers think about the Big Bang, in general they don’t actually mean that one singular moment when the Universe burst into being. It’s really the name given to the model used to describe what happened an infinitesimally thin slice of time after that moment.


Stephen Hawking explains it best.


Quote:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Quote:
Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all the ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined.

Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:11 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Tommy,
It seems that your ideas are being discussed a lot by religious people such as William Lane Craig.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html
Quote:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause.

2. The universe (including any singular state) exists.

It follows from (1) and (2) that the universe has an explanation of its existence. Premiss (3) states:

3. The universe (including any singular state) does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

4. Therefore, the universe has an external cause.

The explanation of the universe must be found in a being which transcends space and time, is metaphysically necessary ,and is changeless and immaterial.


[url]blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/01/22/theistic-critiques-of-atheism-part-11[/url]
Quote:
For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:35 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Here's an article which debunks the Kalam Comological Argument used by William Lane Craig.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... kalam.html

One needs to read the entire article to really understand what the author is saying, but here are a few excerpts from the beginning and the author's conclusion.

Quote:
Since an actual infinite is impossible, Craig argues, the universe must therefore be finite in time. In other words, the universe must have begun to exist.

Thus, the modern version of the kalam cosmological argument is (1) everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence; (2) the universe began to exist; therefore (3) the universe has a cause of its existence (1979, 63).

Clearly, the use of "permanence" in this argument is lacking because under his criterion of the impossibility of an actual infinite, everything (to include God) must owe its existence to something else.

Our depth grammar with respect to the notions of "God" and "eternity" has produced intractable problems because we are unsure of what these utterances really mean. In the absence of clarity, we stumble around with these words and attempt to use them in a way that lacks sense or purpose.

In conclusion, I find that the kalam argument is a very convincing proof for the notion that the universe began to exist. I must admit to sharing Craig’s existential concern that something should exist rather than nothing. But further than this I cannot go. There are limits to human reason and the desire to push beyond those limits will produce only confusion. The kalam argument’s conclusion that a particularizer acted as the universe’s cause centers around two equivocal notions of eternity. When Craig argues that the universe’s cause must have been God because a temporal effect arose from an eternal cause, he does so on the assumption that the particularizer chose freely to create the universe within time. However, the universe and God are both eternal in the weak sense that no temporal moments precede either being. To say that the universe fails the test in a strong sense is really saying that the universe is a positive fact that requires a sufficient reason for its existence. However, that the principle of sufficient reason can be employed against everything that exists, including God, should make us suspicious of the usefulness of this principle in the argument. Simply put, the kalam argument carries too heavy of a burden in its task to show God as the first cause. It must assume that time is real and infinite in order to generate the puzzle of why the Creator chose to create it "now" rather than "later." Yet, it must also fall back upon a relational view of time in order to conclude that the universe is finite.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:28 am
Posts: 4297
Tommy, where are you? I've been looking forward to your response.

_________________
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
~Bertrand Russell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:00 am 
Offline
Philosopher
Philosopher

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:04 am
Posts: 958
Location: Belgium
I'll just throw something in here.

Scientists assume there was something that lead to the big bang, something that led to that something, etc. They are almost certain that the big bang wasn't the beginning: Every time a scientists discovers something new, a thousand new questions come up, theory today is that there was never a beginning, nothing has ever been created, everything has always been. And this one's from me "Science has driven God back from our own hearts to the beginning of the universe, and when we know more, he'll be knocked back just a little further". I guess you get my point.

Another thing is that if you can't prove something, it isn't truth but speculation. That's how science works. If you say God exists, you have to prove it, and not just believe it. Again, God has never been more than mere belief, never anything happened that could prove his existance, ever.

Religion has nothing to do with knowledge nor with science. Religion is abstraction. The only questions religion answers are questions that don't have an answer yet, or questions that will never have an answer.

I like the picture Anajo posted earlier.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 166 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group