Why Believe in a god?

[Tyrathca]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Does God exist?

Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

Why do you assume it is such a specific dichotomy? Can you really imagine no other alternatives than these two?

It goes like this...
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The universe itself has no beginning or end, time does. Time is an internal dimension of the universe, therefore we can't make the same assumptions with confidence about it based on what happens in it.

What is north of earth? It's a similar type of question to what is before time.

Then there is the possibility that only universe that we see has a cause (big bang) but that was not the start of everything but instead a part of an infinite series.

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?

If universes were coming into existence would we know?

If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

I'm not sure you understand what atheists are saying... I don't think anyone is claiming the universe as we see/know it doesn't have a beginning. The Big Bang Theory is pretty widely accepted .

This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

I'm not sure how any of what you said could adult to the multiverse (if it exists) and imply it has a beginning.

And since the universe can't cause itself

Why not? The limitations of time don't necessarily apply to something that IS time.

, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like... God.

Or literally anything else that you can imagine with those attributes. Sentience, omnipotence and a peculiar interest in the asexual habits of a single species in the whole universe are not required.

Maybe it was simply a space less and timeless immaterial "thing" which only did one thing, cause the universe. It did not think or plan the universe,it did not think at all. Let's call it Alpha, occams razor would prefer this over your complex and unnecessary god.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
It goes like this...
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The universe itself has no beginning or end, time does. Time is an internal dimension of the universe, therefore we can't make the same assumptions with confidence about it based on what happens in it.

Even if we go with your nonsense argument...you still seem to be arguing that time itself had a beginning.* So, you still are back to the cause. Everything we know of that begins to exist has a cause.*

Then there is the possibility that only universe that we see has a cause (big bang) but that was not the start of everything but instead a part of an infinite series.

So you are suggesting that an uncaused cause existed eternally?

If universes were coming into existence would we know?

Multiverse beliefs are an unscientific attempt to explain away evidence that points to an uncaused cause... a super intelligence.

The Big Bang Theory is pretty widely accepted .

Lets see....Here are a few zany ideas / beliefs aired recently on BBC... (Along with interesting analysis from the BBC)
Dr Andrei Linde,Professor of Physics at Stanford University wrote:
Just after matter first appeared, rather than a messy explosion, there was instead a massive and unprecedented growth in the size of the universe. This is called Inflation. If one assumes there was a period of exponential expansion of the universe in some energetic vacuum-like state, then you can explain why the universe is so large, why the universe is so small at a very large scale, why properties of the universe in different parts are so similar to each other. All these questions can be addressed if one uses inflation.

BBC comment “Inflation was a pre-existing condition that has been there, well, for ever. For Prof. Linde, the big bang wasn’t really a starting point at all; he thinks that it was simply the end of something else. The universe appeared out of what he calls eternal inflation. Out universe is not the only one. There are others, all co-existing. He has counted them. There are ten to the power 10 to the power 10 to the power 7. His ideas of a multi-verse, as odd as they seem, are now within the scientific mainstream. For many cosmologists eternal inflation is in itself a reasonable explanation of what existed before our universe. For others it’s utter nonsense.”

Dr Singh, Theoretical Physics wrote:
The principal mathematical objection [to the universe expanding from nothing] is that as the clock is wound back and Hubble’s zero hour is approached, all the stuff in the universe is crammed into a smaller and smaller space. Eventually that space will become infinitely small. And in mathematics, invoking infinity is the same as giving up, or cheating.....Instead of emerging from nothing, our universe owes its existence to a previous one that had the misfortune to collapse in on itself. Then, thanks to some clever maths, rebounded to what we see today. So the big bang was not a bang at all. It was rather a big bounce. … Of course it might all be nothing more than a fantasy world of maths and little else, and there’s always the nagging question of what started the infinite bouncing in the first place. It was certainly not the big bang. That is impossible.

BBC comment "No big bang at all; just the big bounce, again and again and again."

Dr Michio Kaku, Theoretical Physics wrote:
How can it be that everything comes from nothing? (as in the Big bang)If you think about it a while, you begin to realise it all depends on how you define ‘nothing’! I think there are two kinds of nothing. First there is something I call absolute nothing: no equations, no space, no time, no anything that the human mind can conceive of, just nothing. Then there is the vacuum which is nothing but the absence of matter....So for me the universe did not come from absolute nothing—that is a state of no equations, no empty space, no time; it came from a pre-existing state—also a state of nothing. Our universe did in fact come from an infinitesimally tiny little explosion that took place giving us the big bang, and giving us the galaxies and stars we have today.

BBC comment "For Prof. Kaku, the laws of physics did not arrive with the big bang. The appearance of matter did not start with the clock of time. His interpretation of nothing tells us there was, in short, a ‘before’."

Prof. Smolin, researcher wrote:
There is a bounce inside every black hole. Material contracts and contracts and contracts again, and then begins to expand again, and that is the big bang which initiates the new region of the universe...Before the big bang there was another universe much like our own. In that universe was a big cloud of gases. It collapsed to form a massive star. That star exploded. It left behind a black hole and in that black hole there was a region, if you were misfortunate enough to fall in, you would find it becoming denser and denser and denser. You wouldn’t survive this but imagine you did—then all of a sudden you would explode again and that would be our big bang.

BBC comment “Smolin’s natural selection idea proposes that for a universe to prosper it must reproduce and for that to happen it must contain black holes that, according to Smolin, spawn offspring universes.”

Dr Neil Turok, Executive Director of the Perimeter Institute wrote:
There are essentially two possibilities at the beginning. Either time did not exist before the beginning; somehow time sprang into existence. That’s a notion we have no grasp of and which may be a logical contradiction. The other possibility is that this event which initiated our universe was a violent event in a pre-existing universe....We live on an extended object called a brane (short for membrane). … You can’t have only one; there must be at least two, separated by a gap. These two branes collide. When they collide they remain extended; it’s not all of space shrinking to a point. … They fill with a density of plasma and matter, but it’s finite. Everything is a definite number which you can calculate, and which you can then describe using definite mathematical laws. That’s the essential picture of the big bang in our model.

BBC comment "For many cosmologists this is mathematical sleight of hand.”

Sir Roger Penrose,Mathematics prof at Oxford wrote:
(the)current picture of the universe is that it starts with a big bang and it ends with an exponentially expanding universe, where it eventually cools off with not much left except protons. … This very expanded universe is the equivalent to a big bang of another one. … This universe is one eon of a succession of eons. Each expanding universe accounts for the big bang of the next.

BBC comment “Because of this a nearly infinitely large universe could just as well be the infinitely small starting point for the next one. A simplistic system with a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. Quite a bold thrust for a man who was until five years ago a pre-big-bang denier.”

BBC conclusion...They would be easier to dismiss as the half-baked musings of the lunatic fringe were it not for the fact that some of the very people who constructed the everything-from-nothing big bang model are themselves starting to dismantle it.


Interesting that atheists are willing to believe in all types of things without evidence.....yet are unwilling to follow evidence leading to the omnipotent, omniscient Creator God of the Bible.
Perhaps we should add one more possibility into the mix of ideas....

 

[popsthebuilder]

P.Z.Meyers is a leading promoter of the atheist belief system. He says that because you Christians are unable to answer basic questions; atheism is end result.

God's Word tells us to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect
God's Word tells us." So..... lets see if Christians can answer P.Z.Meyers questions...

Question, and statement 1
Why should I believe in any god? We don't need an intelligent authority to explain the universe..

The fact that all observable existence can be exactly defined mathematically lends credence to intelligent design.

The fact that we are the only observable planet with complex life lends credence to our dominion and potential, our significance, if you will.

The fact that all humans have a conscience to some level, and altruism can be seen in societal animals in nature lends credence to the will of life to live and advance as a whole, and as such, can be viewed as the will of GOD through creation. The more one sets aside selfish wants and attempts to do good for the sake of others, the closer they get to true peace and happiness. How can this be if it wasn't meant to be, and ultimately formed for such purposes?

We can, to some minor extent, observe the laws that bind all existence, yet we cannot begin to find the origins or reasons for these laws.

There is seemingly infinite energy in the form of potential in the Universe such as stars and black holes. There is also seemingly limitless potential within the spirit of life that dwells in every living thing.

Really; the origins of existence cannot be accurately defined by science, and the more they learn, the more it really does look like some sort of intelligent design.

In fact; you will find that many "atheists" are actually closet deists. Their argument being wholly that if there is a God then it created or set things in motion initially and then basically forgot about us because of our insignificance within this vast existence. Then you just have to remind them that we are the only observable life within that vast existence; and all of a sudden; we aren't so insignificant!!!

If people could only realize the potential that life as a whole has for peaceable advancement of all. This will never happen with people divided over fear, or greed, or pride, or hate, or willful ignorance.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why would a Good God allow evil?

For the sake of it's creations freedom, and that they might learn, in due time, of what is right and good for all existence.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I thought that once upon a time. In fact, I remember telling someone something that sounded pretty similar to what you just said, something along the lines of there had to be an Ineffable Good to balance the roiling evil. Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe when we die, we just die. And we either got some breaks in life, or we didn't.

And to you that leads to the idea that there is no GOD?

In my humble opinion; GOD, or the lack there of, shouldn't equate to us getting to live forever, or rather; one shouldn't determine the other within ones own thoughts. They aren't exactly synonyms though GOD and the will there of are eternal.

Just my opinion though.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes because it is morally reprehensible, arising from bad character, causing discomfort, repulsion and harm.

Then again if I were to follow the examples of the old testament I'd have to conclude it wasn't. Since there are fairly lax excuses in it for rape being OK (like having trouble finding a wife). Does that mean the bible is evil?... :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

The bible does not excuse rape.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Because it doesn't appear to be true.
The question then arises, what is your experience representative of? Is it experiencing an external stimulus or is it all (quite literally) all in your head? An experience brought about by your neurology rather than your theology.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

And why would that exclude GOD as the source ultimately?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Based on your continual faulty assumption that if you think something looks designed then that means it was designed and not only that designed by an omniscient omnipotent being who is obsessed with the sexual activities of one of its hairless ape creations. That or your assumption that if evolution (or physics, geology, archeology, etc) hasn't explained something perfectly yet then therefore creationism is right (the "we don't have an explanation there we have an explanation" chestnut)

When you have a logical objective test that "an intelligent authority" caused anything let me know and we'll start to apply it rigorously.

What about the fact that removing self from any moral equation makes all moral decisions objective?


Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Only if our mind persists after death. If not I'll never know I was right. Yes. The mind is something inescapably tied to the structure and function of the brain. Alter the brain and you alter the mind, completely destroy a part of the brain and that part of the mind ceases to function. There is little reason to believe that if this occurs to the whole brain this is somehow different to part of it.

Could I be wrong? Of course. This is an untestable question. But the problem of brain-mind link leads me to think that even if something does persist of me after death it would be almost unrecognisable as my "mind", before death most people's minds undergo a gradual damage and decay over hours, days or years which can drastically alter a person's personality and thinking. What then persists? Is it the mind that is there at death (i.e. not much/nothing) is it the mind shortly before death? (which for a sudden death might be recognisable as "me" but for a slow one would leave my remanent a "me" in name only - if it even knows my name still) or it the mind many years prior? (in which case what becomes of the more recent "me" that may have had distinct difference because of altered neurology?). Or maybe it's some as yet undescribed amalgamation of all versions of my across my lifespan (me as a child merging with me as an adult merging with me [hopefully] as an elderly).

Do I like this answer? No. I dislike the idea of my life having a "time limit" but I don't decide how the universe works, I just have to be thankful I existed at all. Al so note that the existence or nonexistence of an afterlife is separate from the question of the existence of a god. There could be a god/s and they have created no afterlife for us, or there could be no god/s and yet there is an afterlife emergent from the properties of the universe (not something I believe and it sounds weird and unlikely but it's not impossible, science fiction has some nice "what if" ideas)

(Apologies if this was a bit rambling or confusing)

I'd like to think that though our mind or recollection of who or what we were may not come with us, or we may not have any cognition at all, but that some form of energy or spirit could still be present or gathered up, back to its source. I find it hard to believe that life is technically and literally only a culmination of it's physical parts. There is some substance to life that isn't restricted to the material. It seems like some sort of energy or force, and we know energy can't be destroyed, but only converted so.....

Yeah that's sorta partially why and how I feel on that topic.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

How salvation has any thing to do with the existence of God? Besides, reading the NT, I came about Jesus saying that salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) What did he mean?

Salvation is of the Jew.

As in the pious, patiently persevering will be saved.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The atheists say that all that Christians claim was made by God, came out into existence as a result of the big bang. As I can see from your replies is that only by faith is possible to believe in the existence and creation of God. Is that so?

Big Bang... Let there be light....

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why not perfection? Don't you try to make things safe for those you love?

To shelter from all dangers is imprisonment, and removes experience from life.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

The bible does not excuse rape.

Have you actually read the old testament? Even if you don't think it is relevant now it was for a long time god's law (if you assume it to be correct).

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Clearly these women were forced to have sex with them, given marriage revolved around this. Where I come from having sex under compulsion is considered rape.

And why would that exclude GOD as the source ultimately?

It doesn't exclude it, it does negate it as an inclusion and thus merely one of many options, several not require the assumption of anything not already known to science.

I'd like to think that though our mind or recollection of who or what we were may not come with us, or we may not have any cognition at all, but that some form of energy or spirit could still be present or gathered up, back to its source.

This is both wishful thinking and technically actually true in a way you won't like. Technically much of your body's chemical energy is returned to the environment from which you came as you decompose. In addition your bodies elements re-enter the environment (eg the carbon cycle and nitrogen cycles). It has a much less vague and mystical feel to it though if you describe it like that though....

I find it hard to believe that life is technically and literally only a culmination of it's physical parts. There is some substance to life that isn't restricted to the material. It seems like some sort of energy or force, and we know energy can't be destroyed, but only converted so.....

Not only wishful thinking but you completely don't understand what energy is, instead again giving it vague and mystical qualities which it does not actually have. Calling it energy or force is like calling WWE a real fight.

I've seen life begin, I've seen it slowly ebb away and I've seen it suddenly taken away. I've seen nothing mystical in any of it, life is fascinating, impressive and interesting but there is no special "energy or force" so far as I have seen.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Have you actually read the old testament? Even if you don't think it is relevant now it was for a long time god's law (if you assume it to be correct).

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Clearly these women were forced to have sex with them, given marriage revolved around this. Where I come from having sex under compulsion is considered rape.
It doesn't exclude it, it does negate it as an inclusion and thus merely one of many options, several not require the assumption of anything not already known to science.
This is both wishful thinking and technically actually true in a way you won't like. Technically much of your body's chemical energy is returned to the environment from which you came as you decompose. In addition your bodies elements re-enter the environment (eg the carbon cycle and nitrogen cycles). It has a much less vague and mystical feel to it though if you describe it like that though....
Not only wishful thinking but you completely don't understand what energy is, instead again giving it vague and mystical qualities which it does not actually have. Calling it energy or force is like calling WWE a real fight.

I've seen life begin, I've seen it slowly ebb away and I've seen it suddenly taken away. I've seen nothing mystical in any of it, life is fascinating, impressive and interesting but there is no special "energy or force" so far as I have seen.

That isn't condoning rape.

Why not read the actual law of old which states that a man will be put to death for the rape of a woman.

As far as the spirit of life is concerned; it's spiritual so I wouldn't have expected you to be able to see it in a physical form.

I'm quite aware that our bodies decompose and that the physical body throughout decomposition releases energy and sustenance in many ways for other life. That isn't what I was talking about though.

Why do you consider it wishful thinking?

As if I said we will all have physical bodies in heaven or something.

Peace. Thank you for attempting to address some of my points.




Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

Even if we go with your nonsense argument...you still seem to be arguing that time itself had a beginning.* So, you still are back to the cause. Everything we know of that begins to exist has a cause.*

If you're going to be specific you need to be very specific. Especially when talking about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Thus being specific, nothing we see ever begins except that which is uncaused. What we see is the re-arranging of that which has been there for all of time (matter and energy) and the beginnings are simply when it changes arrangements or appears as a recognizable arrangement. When we do see something beginning it is uncaused, specifically random quantum fluctuations in the form of virtual particles. Ergo the most we can really say is that changes in arrangement of matter and energy have a cause... most of the time.... unless it's really small and then quantum mechanics comes in and then uncaused stuff can still happen..... But macroscopically it averages out to still caused.... sort of..... my head hurts.... (Actual science when you learn it can turn out to be bloody weird. Especially quantum mechanics, which ties in knots the brains of people far more intelligent and experienced int he field than me)

The sum conclusion I take away though is that when we say everything has a cause we aren't actually talking about the actual existence of anything just its configuration. The actual beginning of matter, energy, space and time is something we have never ever observed except for the closest analogue of virtual particles, and they are uncaused.

So you are suggesting that an uncaused cause existed eternally?

I'm suggesting it's a possibility, one of many. (techically I'd prefer the term atemporal since eternal implies an infinite passage of time rather than not actually being a part of time)

Multiverse beliefs are an unscientific attempt to explain away evidence that points to an uncaused cause... a super intelligence.

Multiverse is no more unscientific than your pet idea. At least it is born out of some potentilly one day testable models of physics. But really to me it is a potential possibility, one which has a non-zero chance of being true and thus any idea you may have must actually show itself to be right rather than try to argue it is the only possible explanation.

Lets see....Here are a few zany ideas / beliefs aired recently on BBC... (Along with interesting analysis from the BBC)

Most of those ideas I have already mentioned and don't contradict the big bang theory but instead add some details to it. Particularly the big bounce if you actually read about it is basically the big bang repeating itself, though current observations make that option unlikely unless there is a reversal in the build up of phantom energy within the universe (which given how little we know about it who knows really - the ultimate fate of the universe is a hotly contested topic which is both fascinating and to a degree depressing). That you think them "zany" is just your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. They are well researched and mathematical extrapolations from what we know based on tested and potentially further testable models.

Yet again you refuse to follow the evidence where it points, instead you just dismiss what you don't understand/like as zany etc. You do realise how "zany" the one of the most successful models of reality we have is? That model being quantum mechanics in its various iterations which is to put it plainly absolutely bonkers and completely counterintuitive and yet also demonstrably true with a mindboggling precision.

 

[Tyrathca]

That isn't condoning rape.

Why not read the actual law of old which states that a man will be put to death for the rape of a woman.

Your assumption seems to be here is either that there are no contradictions or there are no exceptions to that rule within the bible.

As far as the spirit of life is concerned; it's spiritual so I wouldn't have expected you to be able to see it in a physical form.

It seems it does not have any form which can be sensed at all so far as I can tell. And I've seen a lot of life and death.

I'm quite aware that our bodies decompose and that the physical body throughout decomposition releases energy and sustenance in many ways for other life. That isn't what I was talking about though.

I know it's not what you meant but it was fairly close to what you described however unwittingly. That should indicate to you either what you describe isn't what you think it is and/or you haven't described it well.

Why do you consider it wishful thinking?

Because you described it as such. "I'd like to think...." followed by no reason why what you'd like to think would be true or how you could know. I'd like to think I could be superman and I just don't know it yet.

As if I said we will all have physical bodies in heaven or something.

I never implied or thought anything of the sort. Apologies if I made it seem I do.

 

[6days]

Big Bang... Let there be light....

Big Bang is a rejection of God and His Word.

Big bang says the earth came billions of years after the stars...God says the earth came first.
Big bang 'says' earth began as a hot molten blob... God says it began as water
ETC ETC... many other differences.

The Big Bang is a false belief of the past, and teaches (and leads) many to a false belief in the future...a Godless eternity.

 

[Tyrathca]

Big Bang is a rejection of God and His Word.

Big bang says the earth came billions of years after the stars...God says the earth came first.
Big bang 'says' earth began as a hot molten blob... God says it began as water
ETC ETC... many other differences.

The Big Bang is a false belief of the past, and teaches (and leads) many to a false belief in the future...a Godless eternity.

Why then do so many Christians believe it and champion it in science? The big bang theory has become the consensus because of not in spite of Christian scientists.

How do you reconcile this?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Hawkins]

Why then do so many Christians believe it and champion it in science? The big bang theory has become the consensus because of not in spite of Christian scientists.

How do you reconcile this?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Because it is reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist when one chooses to enter the profession of science. This however has nothing to do with what a truth is.

BBT is rather a theory under the assumption that God doesn't exist. Under the assumption that God exists, it simultaneously means that BBT is not necessarily a truth, whether it's a human consensus or not.

 

[6days]

Why then do so many Christians believe it and champion it in science? The big bang theory has become the consensus because of not in spite of Christian scientists.
How do you reconcile this?

You likely know the answer to this one Ty.
Christians have often been wrong when they tried to marry God's Word with secular ideas. (For ex. some bought into the idea of scientific racism)
Likewise, evolutionists have often been proved wrong by science when they oppose Scripture. (For ex. when they claimed our body was full of useless biological remnants)