the Existence of GOD. (prophex and sidelined only)

Thomas Aquinas' philosophy in regards to the existence of God. These proofs, are logical analysis using reasoning, to prove God's existence, they make a great deal of sense, and I wonder about Atheism, and how it counteracts such theories.But the main point is, that without God, there is nothing to live for. Human Life would be meaningless. What is it that we live for, and strive to become, and why do we show passion for life?I believe that life, is a precursor to an eternal life to come. But is there meaning beyond the thought of this afterlife, is there meaning for living without the idea of a Divine Being?(Not to strengthen my beliefs, justified with wonder, and debate.)
(If not enough is given, just close it, maybe passion for debate, and discussion has left me.)This message has been edited by prophex, 11-10-2005 08:36 PMedited by AdminJar to fix titleThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-12-2005 09:06 PM

Sorry for the delay.

quote:

---

What does it mean for an unmoved mover to move in the first place? If we say that god required no prior movement we need explain how this is accomplished since it does not extinguish the original difficulty without bringing in this other one.

---

I think that when Aquinas stated this "way", he referred to the phenomenon of the original move. As the Big Bang puts it the original move expanded a ball of energy and matter, but the question goes on to, what exactly gave life, gave energy, exerted some kind of force, for movement to come to exist. Althought the details of the unmoved mover are sketchy, and at best speculation and opinion, the basis remains, where was the first energy, and where did it come from? How or why this event happened should not take precedence over what seemingly had to happen.

quote:

---

If god originated somewhere then a further layer is required to deal with this as well.

---

But we agree that, there requires an originator of some kind, any kind? For many, God is viewed as ever-existant. And an origin for the originator is non-existant. God as the word for the mover, not applying common conceptions and beliefs about the mover itself.

quote:

---

since without a beginning god cannot exist as the first motor.

---

A truly hard concept to put faith in, let alone grasp. The beginning is erased, left with no beginning, and although contrary to any human thinking and reason, is eternal, has and ever will be. Do you believe that a 'beginning' is an essential part to everything that exists?

quote:

---

Cause and effect do not hold beyond a certain level because of the nature of the structure of things.There is model in physics known as the uncertainty principle that states that the product of certain characteristics of the world cannot be less than a minimum amount. Position and momentum of particles cannot be infinitely precise because nature is not infinitely precise due to the wavenature of matter.

---

In chemistry recently, we learned of the uncertainty principle, developed by Werner Heisenberg. The physical universe is not determinable, particles of mass randomly move, and nothing can in effect, predict the future movement of a given particle. So occurences and movement in nature are not precise in nature as you said. Although the principle was contested by Albert Einstien, I will for the sake debate accept that the principle holds true in nature, which I imagine it does, entropy reigns here I see. But the fact remains that as random as this universe seems in it's movement, an original cause for the particles to randomly move needs to exist. I see no reason to exclude cause and effect because of the inability to determine movement of particles in the universe. (Einstien was dedicated in the latter part of his life in connecting all of everything into a universal understanding, he was unable to, but his work has led to work on String Theory as I know it.)

quote:

---

That something exists does not neccesitate that there must be a first existence that before which nothing was.

---

I don't believe this is true. If nothing existed, nothing would exist, Or ever exist in the future. Where is there problem with this statement. Exclude any idea of God for this, nothing > nothing. Aquinas argues that a divine God is the reason for existance, and that without God, no idea has yet been produced to determine where existance as a whole, as we know it came from.

quote:

---

I would further that and state that all good and all evil are only the result of the actions and decisions of men. I will await your response to that position.

---

But can't you see that the actions of men are not what our existance is limited to? Of course we view these actions and decide for ourselves where they go on the scale, but there must be some sort of free will, a creation to where goodness, and evil must come from. As cumbersome Aquinas' thoughts seem, even illogical in this "way", I think I see what he was trying to convey with an origin to goodness.

quote:

---

Reality has an order,yes, in that regularity does occur.It also has irregularities and broken symmetry at the most fundemental levels. This also does not imply that the order is a consequence of god since a universe need occupy some form of order just by simple interaction of the prevalent forces alone.

---

The order that you speak of is in direct contradiction to the randomization of the universe, and entropy that supposedly is increased in a cosmic scale. Order in our universe is said to exist only when the use of energy comes into play. The order of chemical bonds, and atomic functions is a result of energy, this energy is of need for a creator. I understand the prevalent forces apply as well, but these forces could not occur upon, if not summoned originally.

quote:

---

I disagree wholeheartedly. I live to see my friends and family . To enjoy the beauty of the world.To avoid the states of mind that do harm to myself and others. To participate in the life you encounter and to help others when they have a heavy load. I cannot be worried over the meaning because I think we make our own choices based on who we are and in that choice we also carry the full responsibilty.

​

Being atheist I cannot hope but I also cannot despair because the world is not made for me alone but is a vehicle I happen to be sharing a ride in.I simply do my best to enjoy the view while I have it.

---

As beautiful as that last paragraph you made was, I believe that this view, the interactions you speak of, and the choices you make on earth hold far too much significance to pass away, and be erased. By losing faith in an originator, one loses any importance within social interactions and relationships, and love.The personal relationships, feelings, love, and interactions are not fleeting, these things are too great to be buried with us.

---

well sure as planets come, i know that they end
and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend?
please bury me with it
i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit

bumper balls - mario party

---

well sure as planets come, i know that they end
and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend?
please bury me with it
i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit

Where the heck is he lol?

---

these walls are paper thin
and everyone hears every little sound.

quote:

---

We therefore ask the question how can a value apear for a rules of the universe if the universe ever had a zero value. The uncertainty principle itself denies this possibilty, however,due to the uncertainties inherent in the structure of the universe it can occupy a state such that the energy exists {though not manifest itself as we in this universe observe it but in a state in which it can have any value whatsoever as long a the time in which it does so is brief enough.}Time can also any value as long as the energy is feeble enough to prevent violation of the minimum product of the two.

---

Do you believe that the universe has an age?So the energy existed at a value of Zero for what you call a "brief moment in time", then sort of enacted naturally, and gave rise however slowly to the concept of a "Big Bang". (This is a summary of the argument in the above paragraphs, if it is inaccurate, please tell me in the reply.) This energy that sort of "appears" and dissipates at will, the question still remains, what of it's origin? Where did the energy's existance begin. Has the energy always been? These thoughts and questions were the beginning sentiments to the ideas of a God on earth, these ideas to this day have been recycled as truth.

quote:

---

Here we enter into realms that require far greater imagination to resolve than I can claim to possess.This does show though that the universe has properties that defy our commonsense notions of how the world operates.

---

These realms that you speak of are not of the imagination, rather the conclusive results of this important thought process of ancient times. The thought; "God exists" is not part of an imaginative creation, rather is backed with reason, which has become totally seperate in the world of philosophy, religion, and spirit. Claiming that we do not understand the way that the universe has worked in this way, replaces God, with the creation. Is the universe ever-existant? Is energy also not without a creator, or original force? To say that it is beyond us might be true, but to give that as the reason that we have called upon a God for understanding is false. Beyond ourselves, but you can't exclude any alternatives, and simply state that thought beyond the universe doesn't make sense, or is merely human creativity. Because the ideas are at the heart of the thought of humanity.The existance of God is truly undeniable.

quote:

---

No,on the contrary, as I described previously the universe can occupy a state where it is absent as we know it and yet is present regardless. We even have evidence of this in the zero point energy that can be demonstrated to be actual in direct agreement with the equations of the uncertainty principle.

---

Direct agreement being 0 = 0?0 = 1 existing, living universe?These ideas are not behind common sense notions. Your evidence is that of mathematic equations that seem to be 0 = 0, and 0 = 1. And they propose that universe matter, and energy, space, and time can stop existing. Or become beyond human radar. The math doesn't work here.The concept of it being beyond us is the real "non-answer".

quote:

---

To say that the universe is the result of god does not answer the question of origin but,rather, it displaces it with a non-answer.

---

So anyway that you look at it, we stay at the same conclusion. Something has to be ever-existant. Right?You believe that energy/universe is ever-existant?I believe that God is ever-existant, and created what we see as the universe/energy.

quote:

---

Well I am not after what I believe to be the case but rather what the universe demonstrates to us to be the case.We define the universe through the concepts of spacetime and we find that what spacetime is is already more stunningly subtle and intricate that we ever imagined yet it is comprehensible to varying degrees.

---

The question is fundemental. Can a beginning exist? Must there be a God, or energy eternal? Tell me what you believe.

quote:

---

An original cause doen not need to be the case since that is the consequence of the uncertainty principle.

---

So what you are saying is that there is NO beginning to the universe. Where does that put you? Eternal God? Eternal Universe? Eternal, yet dissipating temporarily energy?

quote:

---

But this is a result of our commonsense notion of nothing. The zero point energy or vacuum energy does not exist in our universe because it obeys the uncertainty principle.Nothing does not exist or rather there is no situation in the universe by which there is a complete absence of the universe or a nothing. Of course it is absurd to believe that the universe came from nothing and our research shows that this is not the case.
To the contrary, the universe need only require a state wherein time energy position and momentum are incapable of being resolved {within the context of the properties of the "universe as a whole" we inhabit} in order to be able present a model in which the universe can have a big bang origin that is not the whole of the picture.

---

Fact is, if it is beyond human reasoning, then you claim that no answer can exist. Because all we have is human reasoning. You are sort of forcing me to accept that we can't know of the UNIVERSE's origin, even then, our own. If it is beyond us as you say, the only viable alternative is of intelligence far greater than humanity. Intelligent Design

quote:

---

Entropy is not the disappearence of energy but the gradual dissipation of a difference in potential of energy being available to perform work.One day the universe will no longer have a temperature difference by which processes of any kind may occur that would allow for life to exist.The order of chemical bonds is dependent upon the electroweak force in which energy is shuffled between states of potential difference.We do not even know what energy itself actually is. We only know that a quantity is conserved in all interactions of matter and this is the concept of mass energy. Now try to explain how a god holds any kind of existence in which he can manipulate the universe without leaving evidence.

---

It is not of the manipulation, but of the Creation itself.You see, that none of the laws of the universe would even exist without a creator. As I tell you that God can be proven using reason, not even the concept of faith that many have begun to rely on, but the concept of true thought processes that have given us religion, tribal conceptual thought of God/s, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Roman and Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc, etc, etc, etc... God has shown himself to us through our own minds, and we can still say these non-answers, giving us reason to not believe. We can honestly tell eachother that the workings of the universe are way beyond mere humanity, but when logic can show us that there is demand for the concept of a creator we still deny it, in ignorance, and disbelief. Sir, there must be an original push, I asked you where the energy came from, and you told me that it is eternal, and has the power to dissipate and reappear randomly. This was not a response of value to me, instead it has shown me that there needs to be an intelligent mind to invent energy. You have replaced God with a creation of God, a law, something that like God, cannot even be seen, is a thought, energy.You

quote:

---

Being atheist I cannot hope but I also cannot despair because the world is not made for me alone but is a vehicle I happen to be sharing a ride in.I simply do my best to enjoy the view while I have it.

---

Me You

quote:

---

That is crazy. I have no problem with social interactions, relationships and love any more than another person does.How does this statement hold water?

---

Because these interactions would be gone without God. They would be all forgotten, and would not matter, because everything would cease to exist after life.Thanks so much for helping me, you have stimulated thoughts within me, that discussions with anyone else would not have come about.

---

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

quote:

---

I never said that energy was eternal since time does not apply at less than plancktime.{Man have I beat this term to death}

---

What is Plancktime. Man's time?

quote:

---

If time were to fall to zero then the product of the time and energy would also fall to zero and thus violate the uncertainty principle since it would be less than this certain amount.The laws of physics governing time and energy, particle position and particle momentum,do not apply before this time.

---

Time is eternal therefore. It seems that this is the logical conclusion because of the existance of the uncertainty principle. But this becomes a subjective speculative conjecture, because we are left with another viable alternative still. I believe that God is eternal, and the laws created by him. You believe that everything has always existed, because time is never zero, and so these laws have always existed. So science points to this? This abyss of emptiness, is that what we have observed? Time is ever-existant, everything is product of randomness, and laws that govern this universe?Time is the invention of God, and so are these laws that pertain to the universe. Without God, what we see, as Time, would have to be eternal, and nothing would be beyond time itself. But Time is a measurement, and has no real value beyond the clocks in humanity's heads. Sir this all leads to one thing, because of there being these laws, that are present in a universe that has always been, there must be an originator.You are circulating through the thought that time is eternal, and that it is beyond measurement, and rather is the factor that allows the universe to exist, the laws of the universe to exist. But read this back,

quote:

---

I was pointing out that there likely is no such thing as Zero time. The reason for this is the uncertainty principle itself.
The uncertainty principle maintains that the two parameters position and momentum as well as that of time and energy cannot be less than a certain minimum amount.

---

quote:

---

The concept of the big bang is based upon observation of the universe and certain aspects of it that we measure which if we "run the clock backward" so to speak brings us to the idea of a big bang.

---

Your reasoning is purely nonsense, tell me a law that states that matter is also eternal, that the laws that govern the universe can create matter from the expanses of time. Can't you see that it all ends somewhere? That these ideas all reach to the thought of a beginning?

quote:

---

To say a god is the reason for such things is not an explanation since we are no closer to an understanding of how it began.This simply is an nonexplanation that diverts us from the hard work of investigation into the world.

---

Wrong, you divert from attaining any reasonable answers by stating that the blocks that are discussed arose from nothing, with no impetus, rather a void of empty space and time, with universal laws, that dictate the motion of non-existant particles. Where have these particles begun? You are failing to explain to me how one can discuss origins, and the universe without applying the ideas of a Creator.

quote:

---

There is no evidence to show that a god is a cause and indeed, such a position does not clarify the nature of the universe.

---

The scientific approach used by yourself and others, has been an example to me on how without a creator, there is nothing but jargon, and empty thought.Time is eternal.
Laws govern the Universe.
Creation was always there, but in different form.
God is a non-answer.Observation has given us no real answers to how the universe behaves, and how space and time even exists. We will continue the research in vain, trying to understand God without understanding God.

quote:

---

But the reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny since there is no verifiable means of demonstrating its validity to others.

---

Demonstrate to me, that the human notions of our universe have always been.

quote:

---

The default position is gooddidit and no further explanation is forthcoming.

---

Resist, but it is the only option that makes sense to humanity. That at the root of this existance is a creator. Not empty time, or eternal energy, and matter.

quote:

---

That is a logical fallacy since it assumes that the only viable alternative is ID which is shown to be unsupportable since many other ideas exist some of which are reasonable some borderline and others downright absurd.

---

Please tell me of a "reasonable" idea to explain the universe's origin, as it is, it's laws, and time.

quote:

---

First, explain why none of the laws of the universe can exist without a creator.You might also explain what laws govern the creator and where those laws came from.

---

Because the implication that the universe has always existed, replaces the idea of an eternally existant God, with an eternally existant universe. This implies that nothing that we see has ever been created. So there is no beginning or end. This is simply wrong. An origin must exist for something to exist. Nothing is able to be in existance without at first being non-existant.

quote:

---

Also,again, you must explain the origin of the creator without falling into the fallacy of infinite regression by saying that god always existed since this implies that there never was any beginning and therefore without an origin which is contradicting what you are debating for in the first place.

---

No, there was never a beginning to God, but a beginning to everything that we see, our universe is evident, the origin of the universe is exactly what we are debating. So far, you have said that it has always existed, so far I have said that God is the only ever-existant.

quote:

---

And lastly please explain what is the nature of this intelligent mind and what are the properties of its existence and also how do you arrive at this conclusion?

---

There is an apparent beginning to this universe. There is much more beyond this universe. It is usually called Transendance.

quote:

---

Since I never had a faith in an originator could you please explain how I,therefore lose any importance in social interactions relationships and love. I think my life is a direct contradiction of that since I am no different from any other human in these respects that I am aware of.

---

Love would be lost to space and time, and would be eventually gone in an existance without a God, and without a "God-given afterlife."Your entire being, and existance, your soul, would not mean anything, you would cease to exist after life. With a God, your life matters, and everything you do matters, because it will never be buried with you, and never be erased. This is the beauty of the afterlife. There is more to life than what we are able to observe. Because there is God.

---

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

sidelined are we done? I enjoy this.

Sounds Good man.