Opinions on Life/Reality

[Morrone]

10 characters

Moronne you're off in your own little world now. What in the bible convinced you that God can't be one with the universe? He created us and we are a part of him as is our world, if you believe that kind of thing. That's no radical threory at all, that's just one interpretation of the bible.

And the Bible is 100% fact and completely true? That infintey can be reached? The Bible says infinitey can be reached? God is him? Since when did God have a penis? So what you are saying is our Universe is made of penis and God is also in it.

Next just know that your articals don't prove or explain anything at all. Before they start making any sense you have to take a leap of faith and believe that God exists outside of reality. That is two leaps of faith actually, one to say that God exists, and another to say that he does not exist in the universe he created for us. If you don't believe in either one then your articles make little to no sense whatsoever. It's too easy for you to just accept something for fact but tough for you when somebody else doesn't feel the same way.

Perhaps you should read the articles because it doesn't sound like you have. The articles explain but not without dispute the reasons why a God most likely exists. You don't already have to take a leap of faith to believe that God exists or that he does not exist inside the Universe. God can enter the Universe at any given time because God is exempt from it but that doesn't mean God lives in it and is forced under it's rule. The Universe doesn't rule God, God rules the Universe.

The universe DOES exist outside of our own rules of laws and math. We have NO clue as to what is outside of our universe or if there is anything outside of our universe. We're trapped inside of it and so there is no way that our laws of physics could extend beyond the Universe and into the void of nothing, or other dimensions. That nullifies your "theory" that reaching infinite is impossible.

How so? Of course we can't experiment outside of our Universe but you must not understand the meaning of infinite, because perhaps if you did you would have ceased talking because you have no support. No scientist in his right mind believes in an infinite Universe anymore. You, yourself said the Universe has physical boundaries which in itself suggests it hasn't been around forever. Ironic how you tell me how I am in my own world, when you are in your own. Your all alone with this theory of infinite being reached. The whole point of infinite is not reaching. Forever extending. I'm sorry this is beyond your comprehension.

You are tripping over your own ideology. Just because you believe in God doesn't make you right, but you seem to think it does. That is the principle behind these articles. If you don't believe in God at all, these articles don't prove anything. If you have faith it will just make it stronger. Therefore, it is no argument for believing in God, only an act of justifying a faith that is already there.

You need to read the articles. The articles suggest God exists. You can know nothing of a creator and these articles give reason to believe. There has to be a beginning and therefore a cause and a personal cause. A super natural force had to create the Universe. This is what the articles say. Read them.

Edit- And when I say that the human mind cannot comprehend infinite, I am *not* talking about your articles, I am talking about common sense. There is no way human beings could logically or even illogically comprehend something that follows another set of rules altogether from this Universe and has existed infinitely.

Perhaps YOU can't. Perhaps you can't understand simple words. You are suggesting the Universe existed infinitely and now you are saying infinite follows a different set of rules from the Universe. So you are suggesting that the Universe holds a property that is not a property of it which is nonsense.

The Universe itself, for example. You seem to think that by the Universe I mean inside of the universe, but I don't. Fill up a baloon with water and roll it along the ground. Inside of that baloon is the universe. What is outside of it? What rules are applied by the room that the baloon is rolling around in to the baloon itself? If the room exists outside of time, and time only exists inside of the Universe, then how could you suggest that it could not have existed infinitely long by our standards of time?

Ok, with this balloon/room scenario we might actually get somewhere. We know the balloon, not the room. What we know is that whatever is inside the room does not exist in the balloon because it took a super natural force in the room to create the balloon. We know the properties of the balloon but not the room so we can't say that there is time or even matter inside the room beside the balloon. We can't prove anything but that something in the room that is not in the balloon is super natural. The ballon can't be infinite but the room can because we don't know the room but we know it is impossible for the balloon. Also because the supernatural force in the room created the balloon it is more likely that such properties of the room do not apply to the balloon but that can not be proven, only logically analyzed.

 

[SailorAlea]

I find it amusing that anyone is trying to 'prove' something with Philosophy. It's all a matter of personal opinion. Philosopher's almost never agree.

Besides, if you're trying to make people aware of arguments for the existence of god, I'd start with someone like Renes Descartes or Spinoza, not straight out to Leibniz..

The biggest "joke" of a Philosopher I'd say, would have to be Immanuel Kant. Some of his work is good, but he never left his small little village in his entire life.. You can't have a true understanding of the world if you haven't experienced any of it except a small village.. which makes some of the things he says unacceptable, such as his position on lying.

Anyway, I've rambled long enough..

 

[Hitokiri]

Many scientists theorize that the universe in its tiniest state (you know, the teeny ball that exploded etc) had absolutely no laws built into it, and if the universe were to revert to that state, all laws would cease to exist. What was the catalyst? It could've been the all-powerful Holy Lord etc. that is described in your texts, but just as equally it could've been a random reaction inside the ball, or a massive sub-space hamster flying through friggin' space, there is no proof of a great benevolent entity or however you like to think of him, other than that one single action of KABOOM.

It does take a leap of faith to believe in God. After that leap of faith you can go ahead and decide if God lives inside or outside of the universe, if he is a nice guy who likes to golf, etc., but the initial belief is complete, blind faith, as it is with all religions. Either you think he's there, or you don't, there is no true proof or disproof other than your gut feelings. You can read those articles and have reason to believe there is a God. You can read the BIBLE and have reason to believe there is a God. In fact, I have reason to believe there is a God, because I believe that it is simply POSSIBLE. But actual belief, the way that YOU believe, that God without a shadow of a doubt exists, is a LEAP OF FAITH.

The universe is made out of penis? He didn't say anything about that, what the hell are you smoking?

"In the Universe something has to create something else. God isn't forced under the same properties of the Universe. That's why it explains it's hard to understand if you can't understand that God is exempt from the rules of the Universe." Here you act as if the existence of God, and his being exempt from the universe is a plain fact. It is EQUALLY likely that, provided there is a "God," that this God was created by something else, and that by something else, etc.

Something being exempt from universal laws, existing outside the universe, that was just "there" is not confusing at all. Just don't act like it's so perfectly true since there is no way as of yet, of knowing. That little ball of the universe could have simply "existed", as you say God has, because at the point it's theorized the universe had no laws.

 

[SailorAlea]

I'm agnostic, in that.. I don't acknowledge the existence or non-existence of any deity specifically.. and I usually try to remain analytical rather then just 'accepting.'

Throughout all my research in astrophysics, I have yet to come across an explanation for the creation of the Universe. Yes, it explains that at one time, all the matter in the Universe was a singularity.. an infinitely dense point, or an alternate theory that the Universe has been exploding and contracting in what we call the 'Big Bang,' and the 'Big Crunch,' but both of these theories fail to explain where that infinitely dense point of energy/matter originated from.

Who created it? Where did it come from?
Merely saying that everything that is, was once one point.. in no way explains the origin of the Universe, just how it is shaped into it's current form.

The only explanation I've been able to come up with, is that someone or something beyond the realm of our perception placed it there.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a deity, but it may be well be something that 'beings of our existence' would call a deity.

Sorry if this confused anyone.

 

[Hitokiri]

Good to see another agnostic round here :]

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

Morrone... I would like to respond to you point by point... but that is just too much.

I'll start off like this.

What the **** are you talking about?

What the ****?

Ok, now that that is out of the way, we shall begin.




Quote: "And the Bible is 100% fact and completely true? That infintey can be reached? The Bible says infinitey can be reached? God is him? Since when did God have a penis? So what you are saying is our Universe is made of penis and God is also in it."

Response: When the **** did I ever bring up God having a penis or the bible being 100% correct? Why did you even mention that? You aren't making any ****ing sense. How the **** is the universe made up of penis? Morrone you need to start thinking before you post crap like this. Not only is that offensive because you're twisting my words, it doesn't make any sense either. Saying the bible isn't 100% correct doesn't help your argument AT ALL either, one way or the other.


Quote: "Perhaps you should read the articles because it doesn't sound like you have. The articles explain but not without dispute the reasons why a God most likely exists. You don't already have to take a leap of faith to believe that God exists or that he does not exist inside the Universe. God can enter the Universe at any given time because God is exempt from it but that doesn't mean God lives in it and is forced under it's rule. The Universe doesn't rule God, God rules the Universe."

Response: You speak just as though what you're saying is fact. Like, exactly like what you're saying is fact. Morrone, telling me that God can waltz in and out of the universe doesn't prove it, or make any kind of argument for it. Those articles do, but like I said, you HAVE to take a giant leap of FAITH to believe in a God at all, let alone that God exists outside of our planar sphere of reality. Yes, it is called faith, it is that thing you have when you can't prove something but you choose to believe it. I have no idea why you are trying to tell me that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to believe that some massive omnipotent ruler is standing outside of our universe following none of our rules of logic, physics, or our perception of time, and yet has a say in or control of part of our lives.


Quote: "How so? Of course we can't experiment outside of our Universe but you must not understand the meaning of infinite, because perhaps if you did you would have ceased talking because you have no support. No scientist in his right mind believes in an infinite Universe anymore. You, yourself said the Universe has physical boundaries which in itself suggests it hasn't been around forever. Ironic how you tell me how I am in my own world, when you are in your own. Your all alone with this theory of infinite being reached. The whole point of infinite is not reaching. Forever extending. I'm sorry this is beyond your comprehension."

Response: I expected this to a degree. You completely misinterpreted what I was talking about. I was referring to TIME not PHYSICAL SPACE. It has existed for an INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME not that it is INFINITELY LARGE. It has existed for an infite amount of time by OUR standards because OUR scientific standards tell us that an object's perception of time is affected by the speed at which he moves across the fabic of space-time. If you aren't moving at *all* and the universe isn't moving inside of itself because that would be impossible, which means that it is not moving, then your perception of time stretches to infite. You would see everything that could ever happen in an instant. I am using that to say that you cannot tell me that the universe hasn't always existed. You seem to think God had to create it and I'm telling you that if you think God could have existed forever then why could the universe have?

Quote: "You need to read the articles. The articles suggest God exists. You can know nothing of a creator and these articles give reason to believe. There has to be a beginning and therefore a cause and a personal cause. A super natural force had to create the Universe. This is what the articles say. Read them. "

Response: Morrone, no offense, but that is completely and utterly ridiculous. You are a devout believer of God, and you cannot tell me for one second, not one fraction of a second, not ever, that you could know for a fact that those articles give athiests a reason to believe or even make them want to believe at all. I am an aethiest. I read the articles. There is just as much chance of a God existing forever as there is of the Universe existing forever. Your perception is helplessly skewed by your own system of beliefs. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, after all, you could be correct, but it doesn't help your argument at all.

Quote: "Perhaps YOU can't. Perhaps you can't understand simple words. You are suggesting the Universe existed infinitely and now you are saying infinite follows a different set of rules from the Universe. So you are suggesting that the Universe holds a property that is not a property of it which is nonsense."

Response: Infinite is a mathematical term refering to something that cannot be measured. Obviously if it lies outside of our scientific understanding it cannot be measured. End of story.


And as for your last quote... it is far more reasonable than the rest of what I read, but you still *have* to *assume* that there is a supernatural force in the room. I didn't say that, you did. It all blends in with the rest of your skewed perception. Like I said, that isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't help your argument.




Excuse me for being angry. I just could not for the life of me understand why you would respond to my argument in such a manor. You'll have to fill in some of those holes with your next post.

 

[Hitokiri]

Predicted counter argument: "The universe can't have simply "existed" because that would be defying the laws of the universe, and it can't violate itself."

It's said by some that the universe had no laws when it was in it's infinitely dense, compact form, and thus simply "existed." Which is just as possible as a higher entity simply "existing", these two things are just as likely in their own confusing, incomprehensible ways.

If God simply "existed," what triggered God to create the universe? Nothing, right? Because God needs no trigger, no creator, God's plane of existence has no laws. A universe with no laws is NO different. Why should it need another force? Once that random, illogical event occurs, then the laws of the universe, through whatever means, were created. That's simply how it COULD have happened. All I'm saying is the Big Bang occuring on it's own for some random reason due to a lack of laws (or a different set of them), is just as likely as God moving to trigger this for some random reason due to a lack of laws (or a different set of them.)

 

[Morrone]

Ok Hitokiri has provided me witrh point and game, I was waiting for someone to mention my "blind faith".

Many scientists theorize that the universe in its tiniest state (you know, the teeny ball that exploded etc) had absolutely no laws built into it, and if the universe were to revert to that state, all laws would cease to exist. What was the catalyst? It could've been the all-powerful Holy Lord etc. that is described in your texts, but just as equally it could've been a random reaction inside the ball, or a massive sub-space hamster flying through friggin' space, there is no proof of a great benevolent entity or however you like to think of him, other than that one single action of KABOOM.

So you are now admitting that it takes an EQUALLY BLIND FAITH to believe in a creator as it is to not. However, this is expectant of the religious because they believe we are supposed to have faith but it is the atheists that are compromise theirs beliefs on logic and here you help me by explaining that atheist views are all BLIND FAITH. So the entire base of atheism(logic) is shot out the window. And not to mention it is also logically proven that anything that has a beginning has a cause, so it infact takes MORE OF A BLIND FAITH to NOOOOT believe in a Creator.

It does take a leap of faith to believe in God. After that leap of faith you can go ahead and decide if God lives inside or outside of the universe, if he is a nice guy who likes to golf, etc., but the initial belief is complete, blind faith, as it is with all religions. Either you think he's there, or you don't, there is no true proof or disproof other than your gut feelings. You can read those articles and have reason to believe there is a God. You can read the BIBLE and have reason to believe there is a God. In fact, I have reason to believe there is a God, because I believe that it is simply POSSIBLE. But actual belief, the way that YOU believe, that God without a shadow of a doubt exists, is a LEAP OF FAITH.

I do agree, it is not provable as fact that there is a creator, this entire time I have been trying to explain that the chances of a creator are more likely than the chances of no creator, and not trying to make the existence of the Creator undeniable.

The universe is made out of penis? He didn't say anything about that, what the hell are you smoking?

People who call God "he" seem to think God has a penis, so the world is in essence made out of penis.

Here you act as if the existence of God, and his being exempt from the universe is a plain fact. It is EQUALLY likely that, provided there is a "God," that this God was created by something else, and that by something else, etc.

NOT EQUALLY. It is more likely that the creator of an object does not have the same properties of the object. This is what I am talking about. I am not trying to prove anything 100% but that the chances are in God's favor.

Something being exempt from universal laws, existing outside the universe, that was just "there" is not confusing at all. Just don't act like it's so perfectly true since there is no way as of yet, of knowing. That little ball of the universe could have simply "existed", as you say God has, because at the point it's theorized the universe had no laws.

The Universe HAD to have a beginning. It IS fact. You are correct though in saying we can't prove whether God had a beginning or a creator or whatever.

 

[Morrone]

I just wrote a long ass response to what you said Sonic and when I hit 'reply' it said 'page can not be displayed' and I lost everything so what I am going to do is post a few segements of what I added and let you think from that:

The first such scientific breakthrough arose from Einstein's theory of general relativity. Subtracting one set of his famous field equations from the other yielded the surprising result that everything in the universe is simultaneously expanding and decelerating. The only physical phenomenon satisfying simultaneous expansion and deceleration is an explosion. But, if the universe is the aftermath of an explosion, then sometime in the past it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then there must be a Beginner.


All this evidence has become somewhat academic. In 1968 and 1970 three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, extended the solution of the equations of general relativity to include space and time.10, 11 Their papers showed that if these equations are valid for the universe, then, under reasonably general conditions, space and time also must have an origin, an origin coincident with that for matter and energy. In other words, time must have a beginning. In 1970 general relativity still had not been overwhelmingly established by observations. But by 1980 observations removed any doubts.12

Three independent lines of research (color-luminosity fitting of globular cluster stars, nucleochronology of supernovae nuclides, and the Hubble time for the expansion of the universe) yield a definite and consistent age for the universe of 16 +/- 3 billion years. With the knowledge that time has a beginning, and a relatively recent beginning at that, all age-lengthening attempts to save agnostic science should cease. Moreover, the common origin of matter, energy, space, and time proves that the act(s) of creation must transcend the dimensions and substance of the universe—a powerful argument for the biblical doctrine of God.

All this evidence has become somewhat academic. In 1968 and 1970 three British astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, extended the solution of the equations of general relativity to include space and time.10, 11 Their papers showed that if these equations are valid for the universe, then, under reasonably general conditions, space and time also must have an origin, an origin coincident with that for matter and energy. In other words, time must have a beginning. In 1970 general relativity still had not been overwhelmingly established by observations. But by 1980 observations removed any doubts.12

Three independent lines of research (color-luminosity fitting of globular cluster stars, nucleochronology of supernovae nuclides, and the Hubble time for the expansion of the universe) yield a definite and consistent age for the universe of 16 +/- 3 billion years. With the knowledge that time has a beginning, and a relatively recent beginning at that, all age-lengthening attempts to save agnostic science should cease. Moreover, the common origin of matter, energy, space, and time proves that the act(s) of creation must transcend the dimensions and substance of the universe—a powerful argument for the biblical doctrine of God.

It has be reasoned that the Universe had to have been created a finite time ago because it is impossible to count infinity, it is never ending, there is no last number to count to. So if the universe is infinite and had no beginning then the present moment would have been preceded by an infinite number of earlier moments. If this is so, then the present moment could never have arisen because it is impossible to count or cross infinity. You see, if the Universe is infinitely old then an infinite amount of time would have to have passed to get to our own present day, but because an infinite amount of time would be simply never ending it would therefore be impossible for the universe and time to reach the present...it would have to have out lasted infinity which of course is impossible. The Universe would basically be trapped within it's own infinity and never able to get out of it and precede to the present day.

 

[Naz]

Naz I think you would understand this far more clearly if you read the information on the sites I posted.

God doesn't need to be created by something because that is a property of the Universe. God can be infinite because the impossibility of infinite is only restricted to the Universe not to God, the creator of the Universe. Just like time:

"It is not easy for the human mind to envisage the concept of no time, but if one accepts that time is only a dimension of the physical world the idea becomes more acceptable."

That's just an excerpt from the second article. It's hard for the human mind to understand such things because he feels confined to the rules of the Universe in which state that one thing can't exist unless created by another. This only applies to the "physical" world, not "God's" world.

that might be, but you can't use that as an argument, in holland we call this "sluitende redenering". It means that you argue with unprooved facts and stating them as facts that stand.

At this moment I could tell you a bee created the total universe, but our mind isn't advanced enough to understand this. You wouldn't be able to proove me wrong because, quite simply, you're mind isn't advanced enough fo it, get my point?

Either way we're talking about opinions here anyway, there's no such things as facts in this matter. I stick to my opinion it might be god, but it might not be god, it might as well be something else, however, I do think that there was a creator, and also a creator of the creator. You however, can believe in god, but that's too simple for me, something as complex that my human inferior mind cant understand is not going away with being capable of doing everything and being endless and beyond all laws.

grtz Naz

 

[Morrone]

A bee could not have created the Universe because it does not have the super natural properties or energy. There is fact.

 

[Pain]

seeing how far weve come in the past few hundred years technologically and inteligence wise, i say we will know the greatest secrets of the universe within the next 1 thousand years. of course well all be dead by then.....

 

[SailorAlea]

It could've been a superbee from another universe, who created it. It just happens to look like a Bee from Earth. It's entirely plausible. o_o

 

[majin goketa]

I don't think God orwhatever created the Universe has an origin because the concept of an origin is something we created because we live in a Universe where time flows in one direction.

 

[Morrone]

It could've been a superbee from another universe, who created it. It just happens to look like a Bee from Earth. It's entirely plausible. o_o

Lol, yes the superbee, how did I miss that? Well now that you say its a superbee I'm going to have to reconcider .

 

[Pain]

a massive sub-space hamster flying through friggin' space

im gona go with hitokiri on this one

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

I still don't understand your infatuation with whether or not God has a penis, or what this penis has to do with creating the universe.

And I don't understand how those paragraphs that you posted twice in a row make your point. I am no more convinced that there is a God than I was before I read them 3 times. All we know for sure is that the universe couldn't have created itself. We don't know that it didn't always exist in one form or another and we don't know what exists outside of it. There *is* a theory that the universe just expands and collapses on itself, becomming infinitely dense, then explodes again and relives out its life span before collapsing one more time. lather. rinse. repeat. What put the ball there? Maybe it was God. Maybe it was another ball next to it that divided itself into 2 balls. Maybe we are just one marble in a sack of marbles that some kid is using to play marbles. Maybe that kid is God. Maybe that kid is Mighty Mouse. Nobody can prove anything, not God, not that there even is anything outside of the Universe. Nobody can prove that this isn't all there is and all there will ever be. Arguing something that has no chance in hell of *ever* being proven at all let alone without a doubt is nonsense. If you believe in God, great for you. You can use those articles to help you justify what you believe. I don't, and there is nothing in this modern universe that will sway me aside from God walking up to my front door and proving it to me.

 

[Hitokiri]

Neither "god created the universe" or "the universe simply went shabang" is more proboble. You just have to take a step back with the God theory: it's improboble to believe that there is a being that has existed forever, outside the rules, that moved without definable reason to create the universe. Just as improboble, at least, than it is to believe the universe moved by itself. Both theories involve an unexplained creation or existence.

And the thing you said, about how time could never get to the present? It's called a paradox. Here, let me show you:

You drop a ball from 1 meter off the ground. The drop point we will call A, the ground we will call B. Now, in order for the ball to move from point A to point B it must pass halfway between the two points, a point we will call point C. In order to pass point C the ball must then pass through the halfway point of A and C, a point we will call point D. In order to get to point D the ball must pass through the middle of A and D, which we'll call point E, and half of that, and half of that.

In other words, there are an infinite number of points this ball must pass through. So technically this ball should never reach the ground, since it is passing through an infinite number of destinations.

Except the ball hits the ground. My point being that if something that small can defy that exact logic, so can something as big as the universe exist infinitely. Try and explain that eh?

 

[SailorAlea]

That analogy is flawed, because those points are not of an equal distance.

The distance from point A to C, is different from the halfway point of A to C, which you call D.

You could argue distance is an illusion because there are an infinite number of points between any two places.. except that the points take up no space in themself, so the argument is quite pointless.

The ball reaches the ground because it is travelling from one point to another at a speed greater then zero. The amount of points inbetween are of no consequence.

 

[Sonic the Vampire]

He was just using that example to prove that it is possible reach a mathematical infinite. Using scientific measurements you could do the experiment for an eternity. There is no way that it could ever possibly reach the floor. It does reach the floor, and in order to do so it passes through an infinite number of measurable points. He just meant that it *is* possible to reach infinite using science without transcending the realm of reality.