the Existence of GOD. (prophex and sidelined only)

Thomas Aquinas' philosophy in regards to the existence of God.

Five proofs for the existence of God Aquinas shows five "ways" to indicate the existence of God, some of which are developed in detail in his Summa Contra Gentiles. The first way (Prime Mover) "It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement" ("Contra Gentiles," ii. 33). This proof, like much of Thomas Aquinas's thought, is taken from Aristotle, whose "unmoved mover" forms the first recorded example of the cosmological argument for God's existence. The second way "We discern in all sensible things a certain chain of efficient causes. We find, however, nothing which is its own efficient cause, for that cause would then be anterior to itself. On the other side, it is impossible to ascend from cause to cause indefinitely in the series of efficient causes....There must therefore exist one self-sufficient, efficient cause, and that is God" ("Contra Gent." i. 22). The third way "We find in nature things which may be and may not be, since there are some who are born and others who die; they consequently can exist or not exist. But it is impossible that such things should live for ever, for there is nothing which may be as well as not be at one time. Thus if all beings need not have existed, there must have been a time in which nothing existed. But, in that case, nothing would exist now; for that which does not exist can not receive life but from one who exists; . . . there must therefore be in nature a necessarily existent being." The fourth way Any category has its degrees, such as good and better, warm and warmer. Each also has one thing that's the ultimate of that measure, like good and "best", warm and "hottest". And whatever is the most of that category is the source of that category, as fire (or, in modern terms, energy itself) is the source of heat, and God must therefore be the source of goodness. The fifth way Everything, sentient or otherwise, progresses in an orderly way. Planets move in their orbits, light breaks from and combines into its spectrum, et cetera. Reality has a natural order, which could not have come from nothing, yet which precedes mere humans. Some believe that the Fifth Way is equivalent to what is now called Intelligent Design. However, this is not an accurate presentation of Aquinas' thought, and is subject to the Cosmogonical Fallacy. -Wikipedia.org.

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 PM

edited by AdminJar to fix title

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-12-2005 09:06 PM

prophex

Let us investigate this together shall we?

The first way (Prime Mover) "It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement" ("Contra Gentiles," ii. 33). This proof, like much of Thomas Aquinas's thought, is taken from Aristotle, whose "unmoved mover" forms the first recorded example of the cosmological argument for God's existence.

This proof unfortunately fails in a fundamental way. Placing a god that requires no movement to initiate an action only dispels the problem to another location. 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.

If god originated somewhere then a further layer is required to deal with this as well.If we say he did not have a beginning then the problem is the same as in the sentence above,

. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement"

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

Next we have this

The second way "We discern in all sensible things a certain chain of efficient causes. We find, however, nothing which is its own efficient cause, for that cause would then be anterior to itself. On the other side, it is impossible to ascend from cause to cause indefinitely in the series of efficient causes....There must therefore exist one self-sufficient, efficient cause, and that is God"

This is an interesting point as the normal experience of our senses seems to discern this as correct.However our senses are inadequate for the detection of most of what goes on in the world. 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. The great thing about the principle is that it predicts things that we have measured and found to be within the predictions made.
But that is a further tangent we will pursue only if necessary.

The third way "We find in nature things which may be and may not be, since there are some who are born and others who die; they consequently can exist or not exist. But it is impossible that such things should live for ever, for there is nothing which may be as well as not be at one time. Thus if all beings need not have existed, there must have been a time in which nothing existed. But, in that case, nothing would exist now; for that which does not exist can not receive life but from one who exists; . . . there must therefore be in nature a necessarily existent being."

This is a similar arguement to the first and just as problematic.First the concept of what constitues existence in the first place is not established. Do we limit it to that which is ,in our view, conscious or can we consider rock or atoms to be existent? That something exists does not neccesitate that there must be a first existence that before which nothing was.
If we allow for a first being then we can just as readily ask what was existence before this being and we arrive at the same difficulty.

Onward we go.

The fourth way Any category has its degrees, such as good and better, warm and warmer. Each also has one thing that's the ultimate of that measure, like good and "best", warm and "hottest". And whatever is the most of that category is the source of that category, as fire (or, in modern terms, energy itself) is the source of heat, and God must therefore be the source of goodness.

This is a strange one I must admit Since what is best in one aspect of life is no good in another. The best swimmer need not be the best climber the best runner need not be the best skier etc etc.It is a statement without qualification that god is the source of goodness because we can quite readily make god the source of evil and not establish that the reason for it is gods existence. 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.

The fifth way Everything, sentient or otherwise, progresses in an orderly way. Planets move in their orbits, light breaks from and combines into its spectrum, et cetera. Reality has a natural order, which could not have come from nothing, yet which precedes mere humans.

Realiy 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.

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 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.

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?

I find there is but this is a personal thing that each must experience and decide for themselves.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

{Quibus - It's not a matter of your messages content. The topics of "The Great Debate" forum are for debate between two designated members. In the case of this topic (as per the topic title), it is Prophex and Sidelined. That said, welcome to . Post away in the non-Great Debate topics. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-12-2005 11:14 PM

The Great Debate is a place for two people to discuss a subject. It is restricted to those two participants.

I realize that you are new here and did not understand all the procedures and customs, however I am going to remove the content from your message and ask you to respect the nature of a Great Debate.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out: "Post of the Month" Forum "Columnist's Corner" Forum See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

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

He is not ignoring you but doesn't have an internet connection at the moment.

He will return shortly.

Just wanted you to know.

Where the heck is he lol?

---

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

Sorry Prophex I am still going to be about a week before I am up and running. Between work and christmas i am stretched for funds to get the new computer
I will soon be back to continue our discussion

prophex

Sorry for the delay

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.

The error he is in the question you ask.Where was the first energy? It is similar to the question what came before the big bang.

Since the formation of the universe includes the formation of spacetime itself questions of where and when lose their standard meaning.We should ask instead what was the state of the universe that involves a violation of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The uncertainty principle states that the product of the uncertinties of position and momentum of a particle as well as the product of the uncertinties of time and energy cannot be less than a minimum amount as per the equations Delta{x} x Delta{p} is greater than h-bar/s and Delta{E} x Delta{t} is greater than h-bar/2.

Now here is where the equations show us some counterintuitive situations.If the universe started as nothing then the values of p{position}, x{momentum}, E{energy}, and t{time} also fall to zero and therefore violate the uncertainty principle which is itself a consequence of the structure of the universe and is a result of the universe having a wavelike nature.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.

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.

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.

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.

To have god be ever existent is the same as saying that he never had a beginning. If he never had a beginning he never existed in the first place.For god to exist he must occupy some realm where time and space are present or we must redefine what is meant by time and space as pertains to god.In doing this we must also close the gap on just what the heck constitutes a god if god does not occupy space and time.
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.

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?

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.

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.)

Cause and effect are not inherent in the individual particles of the universe though it would take a great deal more work than I can present here o show you why this is the case. We have phenomena where,even in classical physics, it is impossible to predict when an event will occur within the phenomena.An original cause doen not need to be the case since that is the consequence of the uncertainty principle.

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

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.

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.

Why do you seperate good and evil from the actions of men making decisions whether it is freewill or not? Evil and good are only a reference made by people to the conditions imposed upon them by circumstance of chance or the planned actions of others.
If I come across a man wandering the street searching in garbage cans for sustenance there is no compelling force that makes me take him out to dinner nor to ignore him and walk on about my business.Do you take all your spare money that is not required to live on and search these unfortunate people out? No you choose one or the other in complex fashion by weighing your own greed and wants against theirs.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I apologize again for taking so long but it was unavoidable. Talk to you soon.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

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

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.

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

prophex

Do you believe that the universe has an age?

Of course.

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".

Not quite. 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.

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.

You see we apply zero time incorrectly because time itself as we know it does not exist before this plancktime.

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.

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.

We do not know if the energy began since this is a temporal concept that has no meaning befoe the "big bang". Also it is worth noting that we have no idea what energy is in the first place.Energy is simply a value that is conserved in all interactions in nature that we can so far observe.
Here is an explanation of that point by Richard Feynman

"There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law--it is exact so far as we know. The law is called conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that here is numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism. or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watch nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Some thing like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves-details unknown-it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.) Since it is an abstract idea, we shall illustrate the meaning of it by an analogy.
Imagine a child, perhaps "Dennis the Menace," who has blocks which are absolutely indestructible, and cannot be divided into pieces. Each is the same as the other. Let us suppose that he has 28 blocks. His mother puts him with his 28 blocks into a room at the beginning of the day. At the end of the day, being curious, she counts the blocks very carefully and discovers a phenomenal law--no matter what he does with the blocks, there are always 28 remaining! This continues f or a number of days, until one day there are only 27 blocks, but a little investigation shows that there is one under the rug--she must look everywhere to be sure that the number of blocks has not changed. One day, however, the number appears to change-- there are only 26 blocks. Careful investigation indicates that the window was open, and upon looking outside, the other two blocks are found. Another day, careful count indicates that there are 30 blocks! This causes considerable consternation, until it is realized that Bruce came to visit, bringing his blocks with him, and he left a few at Dennis’ house. . . .What is the analogy of this to conservation of energy? The most remarkable aspect that must be abstracted from this picture is that there a re no blocks.. . . .It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas fo r calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives "28"--always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas."

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.

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.

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

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.

It is not a matter of denying the existence of a god. It is that a god itself need also be explained in the same way the universe is and this is never attempted at all ever. The default position is gooddidit and no further explanation is forthcoming.

The universe does make sense though likely not in the way you would consider it.

sidelined writes: 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".

The problem here is that you are still attributing temporal characteristics to a universe when that universe itself is governed by rules that do not allow for spactime beyond the limit of plancktime.It is futile to try to picture what occurs "before" since before ceases to have meaning here.The simple fact is that the universe is structured in such a way that it cannot have a value of zero without violating its structure in the first place.Here is where the realm of real mystery lies and which will require walking a logical tightrope in order to produce a model that accounts for these observations about the world.

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.

No. "Something is ever existant" first requires a structure that employs spacetime as we experience it.As I have mentioned this cannot be done when spacetme itself falls apart at less than plancktime.

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

My beliefs are not pertainent. I do not know what the case is because we have not yet been able to study it, but if you insist on using time relationships where none are definable then you are shooting yourself in the foot and claiming self defense.In other words you need to see what the universe itself offers up as evidence before you can postulate what possible things could occur.

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?

You are employing further words that deal with time which are again not applicable at these levels.

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.

I am not forcing you to anything. These are the properties of the universe that science has discovered through careful analysis,reasoning and logic. I am not claiming that no answer can exist only that we cannot at present devise a means to test any of the ideas that are proposed.

If it is beyond us as you say, the only viable alternative is of intelligence far greater than humanity. Intelligent Design

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.

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.

Could you please present your arguements to back up what you say here?
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.

Second You say there must be an original push.Why must there be an original push if the universe cannot be shown to hold spacetime properties at less than the plancktime? 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.

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

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

I have not helped you yet though as is always my position debate and discussion must be used to help us understand others positions and views. Far more important is that we help ourselves and learn to tolerate,if not accept, others who hold a different perspective.

That said I also dislike not taking your own viewpoint and giving it the most horrendous dissection on a regular basis to see if what you acquire actually is worth its salt.

Anyway I must fly off to work and see if I can earn a wage to feed my decrepit mortal body yet another day. Goodday siir.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

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.

---

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.

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

{Sorry, but the various "Great Debate" topics are for designated participents only, in this case, prophex and sidelined. Feel free, however, to post at topics in other forums. - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-11-2006 11:47 AM

sidelined are we done? I enjoy this.