Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 362 of 868 (827174)
01-19-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by ICANT
01-12-2018 4:40 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:
In other words I took it you were referring to the theory in the BBT but that you were referring to a BANG with the BB abbreviation. I can't read minds and don't think I would like to be able too.
No, I was simply referring to the inflation again.
There is no actual BANG anywhere when talking about the BB or the BBT.
It's simply a bad name, and the lesson of your confusion because of naming things badly should be learned here and applied to your intended bad-name of "God" for anything-that-began-the-universe (which includes non-sentient, natural explanations.)
So you don't think it would require a huge abount of pure energy to cause the universe to begin to exist. I think the description of the Planck epoch describes a tremendous amount of energy. A quintillion degrees would require a lot of energy. Our sun is only 9,941F. So when we talk of the Planck epoch we are talking of a lot of energy.
A lot of energy once it's there - sure.
But how much energy is required to create or begin the universe?
I don't know.
And neither do you.
Might be a lot.
Might be a little.
Might be none.
Your insistence that your chosen answer of it requiring a huge amount is baseless and meaningless. Unless you have some more information you're holding back from us?
Any further implication that it must also require a God is at best confusing, and at worst just wrong.
A large amount of information is needed to be inserted in the creation to make everything work which would have to be supplied by whatever caused the universe to exist.
How could you possibly know such a thing?
Maybe a lot of information is needed.
Maybe a little.
Maybe none.
How many universes have you created?
How many universe creations are you able to fully study and understand?
And I keep giving you the answer. The universe exists today. Can't you understand that?
If neither of my ways of the universe beginning to exist is right then how did it get here?
You seem to be unwilling to entertain the idea that ICANT and Stile may not be able to fathom how it got here.
You claim that you don't know everything... then you claim that there cannot be something you don't understand about the beginning of the universe?
That's what we call a contradiction.
Perhaps the universe got here in a way that Stile and ICANT cannot fathom.
Perhaps it was not created and also is not eternal at all.
Or perhaps it is, but not in a way that Stile or ICANT can currently fathom.
I can't say it must be one of those, because I understand that I do not have all the information about the beginning of the universe and that my existing logic may not apply.
What makes you think that your existing logic MUST apply to the beginning of the universe?
Could you please explain how zero or a small amount of energy could produce a temperature of one quintillion degrees?
Of course not.
Just as you can't explain how a huge amount of energy could create a universe with a temperature of one quintillion degrees.
Remember... we're not talking about just 'producing'... we're talking about creating.
And you don't know how that works anymore than I do.
Maybe it takes a lot of energy to create a universe.
Maybe it only takes a little.
Maybe it doesn't take any at all.
I don't know.
And neither do you.
Or, at least, you've given no reason to suspect that you do.
So the universe existed eternally in the past? Is that what you are saying?
If so why did it wait so long to begin to expand?
Also what caused it to start to expand?
I'm saying we don't know.
Maybe it did.
Maybe it didn't.
Maybe it did something else that can't be explained by such a concept one way or the other, because ICANT and Stile simply cannot fathom such an idea.
I'm also saying that you don't know. Even though you simply claim to know. You seem incapable of backing up that claim with anything that makes sense.
The universe could not have existed eternally in the past. A profound statement, I will agree.
After discussing multiverses and eternal universes Mithani and Vilenkin came to say:
The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal".
That's not a profound statement. It's a baseless and therefore meaningless statement.
Your quoted authorities also agree with me, ICANT.
Mithani and Vilenkin said that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.
What if the beginning of the universe wasn't one of those scenarios?
Mithani and Vilenkin don't say that the universe could not have existed eternally in the past.
And neither can you.
Because you don't know.
Because Mithani and Vilenkin don't know either.
That only leaves one possibility as far as science is concerned.
The universe had a beginning to exist.
Except your logic is based on obviously flawed ideas, as shown.
Therefore, your conclusion cannot be trusted.
But if my God is the one who created the heavens and earth as He claimed to. The universe could have well exited eternally in the past just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and could be recharged anytime God so chose to do so.
This is very true.
Yay for you! You said something that's not wrong!
It's just also true if God doesn't exist at all.
It's even more probable that the universe could have existed eternally in the past, just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and may not even require one... all without God anyhere.
That's more probable because answers-that-do-not-include-God have been shown to be more likely than answers-that-do-include-God.
But which one accurately describes the reality behind the creation of our universe?
I don't know.
And neither do you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 4:40 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 401 of 868 (849471)
03-11-2019 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Phat
03-11-2019 10:30 AM


Re: Who Imagined Whom?
Phat writes:
I'm all for imagining God the way that we can justify.
Justifying God as-an-existing-entity-in-reality:
-Hasn't been able to be done, ever
-Most likely cannot be done
-Universe seems to work/act as it would if God does not exist
Justifying God as-a-Spiritual-Tool:
-very high gains here for some (eg - entry level motivation for things like charities, community spirit, morality, mental health...)
-very high negatives for others (eg - if you already have motivation for same things, it's easy to not see "the point" in God and then easy to assume there's no point for anyone)
That's my summary, anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Phat, posted 03-11-2019 10:30 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Phat, posted 03-11-2019 3:05 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 404 of 868 (849480)
03-11-2019 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Phat
03-11-2019 3:05 PM


Re: Who Imagined Whom?
Phat writes:
Its quite clear from scripture that humans have always sought to justify themselves rather than God. They simply use God as their answer as to why they justify themselves.
Sounds like one more thing scripture happens to be wrong about.
There's a lot of good stuff in scripture.
There's also a lot of incorrect things. This just happens to be one of the incorrect things.
Perhaps some humans have always sought to justify themselves rather than God?
Sure.
But any significant number?
No, I don't think so.
I think that anyone you're thinking about who would "justify themselves rather than God" simply doesn't care about God.
That doesn't mean they're "justifying themself..." it just means they are not justifying God.
It's not an either/or thing.
It's not like you "justify God" or you "justify yourself."
What if you "justify love?" or "justify all humans?" or "justify any intelligence?" or "justify any life at all?" or "justify anything that exists?"
None of those would be "justifying themselves." But they aren't "justifying God" either.
I suppose the next question is - what do you actually mean when you say "justifying?"
Keep as the highest authority? - That's what I was assuming, or something along those lines.
I think it would be much better if anyone trying to "use God as their answer as to why they justify themselves" in this sense would stop and try to "justify love" or any of the other examples I gave. Might make for a much less selfish population.
In morality, one must act a certain way or behave a certain way because of "God."
In Christian morality - yes.
In "morality" - no. God is not necessarily a part of morality. There are much better systems of morality available than those found in scriptures.
The book itself is presented as Gods word. Never is it suggested that some wish to justify all of us the way they justify themselves.
You'll really have to explain what you mean by "justify" for this to make sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Phat, posted 03-11-2019 3:05 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Phat, posted 03-11-2019 3:38 PM Stile has replied
 Message 406 by ringo, posted 03-11-2019 3:40 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 412 of 868 (849504)
03-12-2019 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Phat
03-11-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Who Imagined Whom?
Phat writes:
I mean like how fundamentalists think. They will say that the bedrock of their faith is belief. (Faith said that a lot. She would believe before anything else.) The book is used, as is God, to justify the belief. And the belief is used to justify God.
In and of itself - I don't have an issue with such an idea.
Belief can be powerful.
But that power can be good or bad.
Use that belief to give yourself motivation for positive things? (Helping others, living healthy, being part of your community...)
-Sounds great!
Use that belief to give yourself motivation for negative things? (Hurting others, living selfishly, claiming/lying about a 'search for truth about reality...')
-Sounds terrible!
All successful, serious pursuits I know of have very strict, constraining rules and regulations to ensure you're doing "positive" things.
-Science, governments, charities...
-If the rules are followed (cough, cough... looking at you, "governments...") then things prosper
-If the rules are bent/broken/disrespected... then things go terribly sour
Morality (and in some cases "religion") require the same guides/restrictions.
Without those, it's easy to fall into (sometimes accidentally) the problem of using the power of belief - but heading in a terrible, negative direction (like Faith does.)
You should be able to list your rules, and defend them against criticism of "being bad rules."
If you can't do that:
-maybe you don't understand your own beliefs (in which case, you're in danger of unknowingly falling down the negative, terrible path)
-maybe you don't want to understand your own beliefs (in which case, you're likely biased in the negative, terrible direction and trying to justify/hide it from yourself)
Phat writes:
Stile writes:
I think it would be much better if anyone trying to "use God as their answer as to why they justify themselves" in this sense would stop and try to "justify love" or any of the other examples I gave. Might make for a much less selfish population.
Perhaps this explains the mutation that humans who profess to be believers have that makes them often behave worse than unbelievers.
I wouldn't say this is a problem "for believers."
I would say that anyone doing anything that comes down to "...as to why they justify themselves" is a selfish problem.
A selfish problem that indicates with high confidence that one, indeed, is heading down the negative, terrible path.
The fact that some use "God" to do this is more human nature (and many humans happen to believe in God) rather than an issue with God.
It just goes to show that "beliefs about God" need to be under strict rules and regulations as well - ones you can define (understand) and defend (know that they are leading towards a positive direction.)
I would claim that to justify love is, in fact, justifying God.
On certain levels - I would absolutely agree with you.
On other levels (such as: "using God as an answer in order justify yourself") - I would absolutely refute you.
"Love" cannot be used to "justify yourself" in any way. That's just twisting words - like saying "this square has 5 sides!" It's just twisting words, and is simply wrong. That's not what a square is. And that's not what love is.
If you're thought is "well - that's how I think of God - therefore, using God to justify yourself is wrong as well!"
-This is a good start
-This should be, as previously mentioned, one of the strict "rules and regulations" used to govern thoughts/beliefs about God.
-Just remember to keep it in mind and apply it to ALL thoughts/beliefs about God
-Also understand that many others do not use such a rule, therefore - be doubly-on-your-guard (remember your defined and defended rules) when anyone else talks about "God" and make sure their thoughts/beliefs align with the rule as well - otherwise THEY are using the word "God" in a word-twisting way, just as "using God in order to justify yourself" twists the word "God" if "God" is equivalent to "love."
I used your quote in a reply to RAZD
No problem, you attributed your quote and that's all you need to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Phat, posted 03-11-2019 3:38 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Phat, posted 03-13-2019 8:21 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 417 of 868 (849577)
03-15-2019 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Phat
03-13-2019 8:21 PM


Re: Who Imagined Whom?
Phat writes:
Stile writes:
Use that belief to give yourself motivation for(...)claiming/lying about a 'search for truth about reality.
I'm not sure I understand. Can you elaborate on this point?
Start with any claim of reality based up on belief. For example, the idea of: "yes, there was a flood around 4000 years ago because I believe in God and the Bible."
-This is a claim on "the truth about reality"
-We have studied many, many approaches on how to identify "the truth about reality."
-It is overwhelmingly known that "...because I believe in God and the Bible" is a terrible way to identify truth about reality and has always, always turned out to be wrong. And never changes it's ideas when it's shown to be wrong. It gets stuck in "being wrong about reality."
-It is overwhelmingly known that testing/verifying ideas against reality (like Science) is our best-possible-so-far way to identify truth about reality, it is often wrong, but always leads in the right direction, and always moves closer to being right - discarding all ideas that are known to be wrong.
-Those that take their belief into a realm it is known to be terrible in ('searching for truth about reality') are headed down a negative, terrible path
-Best case result of this scenario is that the believer ends up with empty claims about reality
-Worst case result of this scenario is that the believer ends up supporting known-lies about reality - just to "defend" their belief
-This is a negative, terrible waste of spirituality and belief

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Phat, posted 03-13-2019 8:21 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 708 of 868 (859260)
07-30-2019 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by Phat
07-30-2019 8:18 AM


Re: All this is essential to the topic.
Thugpreacha writes:
Thats a man who embraces logic, reason, and reality but who has never met God.
Can one be a man who embraces logic, reason and reality but also meets God?
If not, why not?
-Does God hate logic?
-Is God unreasonable?
-Is God not a part of reality?
Perhaps you will be honest and say that there is no way you will surrender logic, reason, and reality for a fantasy. My point is that for me at least, it is no fantasy.
If it's is "no fantasy" as you say... .then you will not surrender logic, reason, and reality for a fantasy either.
Why would you expect others to do something you yourself were not willing to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Phat, posted 07-30-2019 8:18 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 740 of 868 (860809)
08-12-2019 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 739 by Phat
08-12-2019 10:03 AM


Re: Be careful what you teach.
Thugpreacha writes:
dwise1 writes:
And sadly you do harm by teaching that we humans can only succeed by being in Christ.
Stop for just one moment. What is so harmful with embracing just that?
Because that's how wars are started.
People are different.
Different solutions work for different people.
Forcing all people into one solution is, basically, what's caused pretty much all wars in human history.
Just because the conclusion for you is peace - doesn't mean others can't also reach that same conclusion in another way.
The idea that you should be asking "What's so harmful with embracing that?" is:
Let's allow all humans to reach the conclusion of peace anyway they desire - as long as they're not hurting anyone else.
But to take the next step and say "well, I like this method - therefore you ALL SHOULD BE USING this method!"
-is the path to war.
All that I (or any Baptist Divorce Group, perhaps) is doing is telling someone that a relationship with God(in the incarnation of Jesus) is the starting point for all other relationships to succeed in their life.
And that's a lie.
People can have very successful relationships in their life (even more successful than yours) without God at all.
Therefore - to state that God is "the starting point" is a lie.
Feel free to say you think it's the start - or that, for Thugpreacha - having God as the start is the most fantastic and amazing thing ever.
Then let others decide for themselves.
That's the difference. Forcing others to follow you, or allowing them to follow you.
Pick one.
One leads to war...
Granted I could hear the ghost of Stile whispering that "this works for some people,but not for me"
Heh heh... Imma ghost!
Freedom from religion and all that. lets make sure our kids grow up to be secular humanist critical thinkers!
Why not let our kids grow up however they like?
...as long as they're not hurting anyone.
Do you have such little faith in the method that works so well for you that you have to lie and force it upon others instead of letting them freely choose it for themselves?
Perhaps we need to consider the possibility that God exists and wants a relationship with us. Explain why this statement alone causes you to cringe?
Excellent idea!
Considering possibilities doesn't make me cringe.
But stating falsehoods in order to promote personally-desired-methods, does.
Can we not "consider the possibility" without saying incorrect things like "God is the starting point for all successful relationships?"
Perhaps our zeal will actually cause Armageddon as a self fulfilling prophecy.
Depends on how much your "zeal" causes you to force others into things instead of allowing them to see the possibilities freely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by Phat, posted 08-12-2019 10:03 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 746 by Phat, posted 08-15-2019 10:44 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 748 of 868 (861016)
08-15-2019 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by Phat
08-15-2019 10:44 AM


Re: Be careful what you teach.
Thugpreacha writes:
So what would you do if you someday found out that your solutions were wrong?
I would re-evaluate and change.
I actually do it a lot.
I'm wrong a lot...
Isn't it a bit ironic that most of Christian online defenders of the faith are not skilled or Christlike and end up doing more harm than good for the cause?
"Most" might be pushing it.
Let's say "most of the really loud ones."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Phat, posted 08-15-2019 10:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024