Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 3:22 PM
159 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,587 Year: 2,624/19,786 Month: 706/1,918 Week: 294/266 Day: 31/35 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   if Nothing is Nothing then why a God?
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 16 of 40 (47337)
07-24-2003 6:45 PM


Dan, I am with you all the way. Good job!

Funny, my life has an enormous amount of meaning and I am extremely fulfilled in it, yet I have no god in my life. If Culverin's version of the universe were true, then this should not be possible.

Yes, very funny, indeed.


    
zephyr
Member (Idle past 2593 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 17 of 40 (47342)
07-24-2003 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Culverin
07-24-2003 5:26 PM


Re: So lazy it's hazy
Every statement you made implies that we should choose a belief based on how it makes us feel about the world. I don't care how much better it makes you feel, or how badly you imagine (and I do mean imagine) you would live if you didn't believe in God, that is no reason to decide he exists. I could dream up all kinds of things that would make me feel better about the world, and maybe act better, but I wouldn't choose to believe them just because of that.

I think it's odd that the only reason you don't hate me is that God told you not to. You're saying that the real you would hate me, whom you do not know at all, just because I'm here? You can give credit to God for your good qualities if you want, but you're getting carried away when you take it that far. Some day you'll realize that people can love each other without believing in God. I do it all the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Culverin, posted 07-24-2003 5:26 PM Culverin has not yet responded

  
:: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5227 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 18 of 40 (47419)
07-25-2003 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Culverin
07-24-2003 5:26 PM


Re: So lazy it's hazy
Culverin writes:

Logic dictates that there is no way to prove that God DOESN'T exist.


Not really. Many definitions of God are subject to falsification via reductio ad absurdum.

Culverin writes:

I doubt that I will have time in my limited hours and days of breath to work out where God or the universe came from.


You don't need that many hours to reason that the universe did not "come from" anywhere or anything at all.

Cluverin writes:

It has yet to be philosophized or theorized into a scientifically provable method in the 3,000 to 4,000 years of recorded history so I can be pretty certain that I won't be given an answer in the near future.


The answer is rather clear, actually. Your inquiry assumes that the universe had to have "come from" something or somewhere, which is a faulty assumption.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, we have no purpose.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, we also do not have a concrete foundation upon which to lay mores of Good and Evil.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, everything is relative.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, you have no reason to expect an afterlife and therefore, to expect consequences to your actions in this life.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, you are justified to do what you like, when you like, to whatever or whoever you like, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions, in this life.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, love has no rational long term reward and it is logically proveable that there is greater pleasure in seeking material gain and stepping on those that get in your way.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God, the universe has no meaning.


False.

Cluverin writes:

Without God I hate you all because it does not matter that I do.


Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Cluverin writes:

But with God, I have purpose. Love has purpose.


No, with God love has another purpose beside the one we give it individually. Farmer's raise pigs for ham and bacon -- does that mean that this pig's purpose is to be slaughtered?

Cluverin writes:

With God, there is a chance that there is more to our existence than meets the eye.


This is also possible without your God.

Cluverin writes:

With God, right and wrong, good and evil, up and down are all only subject to God's creation and not man's ideals.


So then you have no problem stating that right and wrong are subjective, correct? Do you realize that by postulating your God as the supreme moral arbiter you've reduced morality to "might makes right"?

Cluverin writes:

With God, I can explain my existence in terms that do not lead to dispair, hatred and separation of self.
With God, I am defined and do not have to worry about my own self definition.


Again, sounds like a personal problem to me.

Cluverin writes:

With God, I love you all because he put Christ in me and now there is a good reason to.


Where is Christ in you, exactly? If we performed some exploratory surgery, where would we look to find Him?

Blessings,

::

[This message has been edited by ::, 07-25-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Culverin, posted 07-24-2003 5:26 PM Culverin has not yet responded

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 40 (47430)
07-25-2003 1:21 PM


That was a perfect example of creationists being lazy thinkers. They use God as an explanation to avoid those difficult philosophical questions, and above all, believe because it feels good. Talk about intellectual bankruptcy.
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by thomasian, posted 07-26-2003 10:58 AM Beercules has not yet responded

  
thomasian
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 40 (47516)
07-26-2003 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Beercules
07-25-2003 1:21 PM


hello! i am not neccesarily replying to the last post..im a newbie here..

just want to say that st. thomas' 5 proofs of God's existence and st. Anselm's Ontological Proofs are excellent resources for your topics.that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Beercules, posted 07-25-2003 1:21 PM Beercules has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2003 12:35 PM thomasian has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 40 (47518)
07-26-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by thomasian
07-26-2003 10:58 AM


just want to say that st. thomas' 5 proofs of God's existence and st. Anselm's Ontological Proofs are excellent resources for your topics.

Didn't Kant dispose of those pretty easily? (Maybe it was somebody else). The Ontological proof in particular is rather hollow. Perhaps you'd like to paraphrase it here, and we could discuss it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by thomasian, posted 07-26-2003 10:58 AM thomasian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by thomasian, posted 07-27-2003 9:12 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 40 (47519)
07-26-2003 12:47 PM


Yes, Kant trashed the silly ontolgical argument on the grounds that it treated existence as a property of objects. Even without that objection, the argument is so poor that I kant understand how anyone could find it convincing.

[This message has been edited by Beercules, 07-27-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by doctrbill, posted 07-26-2003 1:34 PM Beercules has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 23 of 40 (47521)
07-26-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Beercules
07-26-2003 12:47 PM


Beercules writes:

... I can understand ...


Don't you mean "Kant understand."?

db

------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Beercules, posted 07-26-2003 12:47 PM Beercules has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 24 of 40 (47528)
07-26-2003 3:29 PM


why does the universe need meaning? why does anything? and how does a god give t a good one?
    
thomasian
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 40 (47563)
07-27-2003 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
07-26-2003 12:35 PM


ok.but how about st.thomas'? its pretty convincing...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2003 12:35 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 07-27-2003 10:56 AM thomasian has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 40 (47565)
07-27-2003 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by thomasian
07-27-2003 9:12 AM


I assume you mean St. Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps you could briefly explain what you find convincing about his arguments? I don't see much that is striking.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by thomasian, posted 07-27-2003 9:12 AM thomasian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by thomasian, posted 07-27-2003 11:35 AM John has responded

  
thomasian
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (47567)
07-27-2003 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by John
07-27-2003 10:56 AM


the whole lot of it is very convincing.nothing causes Him but He causes everything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John, posted 07-27-2003 10:56 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 07-27-2003 12:31 PM thomasian has not yet responded
 Message 31 by DC85, posted 07-27-2003 2:15 PM thomasian has not yet responded

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 40 (47569)
07-27-2003 12:02 PM


Aside from the outdated argument for morality, he came up with some decent arguments, namely the contingency, the prime mover, etc. The problem is, for each argument he arbitrarily posits God as an explanation. For example, he argues for the existence of something non-contingent, otherwise if everything had the ability to fail to exist, there would be nothing in existence. The logic is sound (almost) but all it does is argue for something, anything non contingent, and there is nothing to suggest that must be a God.

So in light of that, I don't see anything all that convncing about his arguments.


  
John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 40 (47574)
07-27-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by thomasian
07-27-2003 11:35 AM


That is a statement, not an argument.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by thomasian, posted 07-27-2003 11:35 AM thomasian has not yet responded

  
sup32string
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 40 (47575)
07-27-2003 1:03 PM


I just thought i would chime in with a few known things that science knows about "something coming from nothing" According to the Uncertainty priciple (remeber principle means a law that has been proven by experiments and agrees with all observations) that even in the vacuum of space(nothing) there still exist a small amount of energy (something) determined by the uncertainty princible. The uncertainty principle is defined as such: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/u1/uncertai.asp . or that one can never know the posistion and the velocity of a particle. The more one knows about the velocity the less one can know about the posistion and vice versa.
"The Casimir Effect is a small attractive force which acts between two close parallel flat metal plates place near eachother in a vacuum, The pressure is due to a reduction in the usual number of virtual particles in the space between the plates."(The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawkings p202)
Virtual particles are defined as: "In Quantum mechanics, a particle that can never be directly detected but whose exsistance does have measurable effects. Also see Casimir Effect.") (The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawkings p. 208)

paraphrasing the following from "The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawkings p 44-45)

"According to quantum theory, the ground state, or lowest energy state of a system is not just sitting at the lowest energy state. That would have a definite position and velocity of zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. The ground state of any oscillating system must have a certain minimum amount of what are called zero point fluctuations."
This is the background on how in space which we call the vacuum there actualy exists energy there, and because of E=mc² if you have energy you can have mass. So thus this is how something can come out of seemingly nothing. I hope this has helped

------------------
--ignorance is humankinds worst enemy--

[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]

[This message has been edited by sup32string, 07-27-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by thomasian, posted 07-28-2003 2:53 AM sup32string has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019