Originally posted by The Chess ExpressNo. You really don't listen. Or remember. One of the two. Maybe both.
That is a great argument that the universe is not eternal! If it were eternal, the universe would have become heat and light an eternity ago as I said.
The universe had a beginning around 15 - 18,000,000,000 years ago. It has also existed for all eternity, since time is an inherent property of the universe. The universe has existed for all eternity, because eternity started when the universe came into existance.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSome have difficulty imagining time having a beginning.
No. You really don't listen. Or remember. One of the two. Maybe both.
The universe had a beginning around 15 - 18,000,000,000 years ago. It has also existed for all eternity, since time is an inherent property of the universe. The universe has existed for all eternity, because eternity started when the universe came into existance.
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo. You really don't listen. Or remember. One of the two. Maybe both.
No. You really don't listen. Or remember. One of the two. Maybe both.
The universe had a beginning around 15 - 18,000,000,000 years ago. It has also existed for all eternity, since time is an inherent property of the universe. The universe has existed for all eternity, because eternity started when the universe came into existance.
Where have you said these things before?
The universe had a beginning around 15 - 18,000,000,000 years ago. It has also existed for all eternity, since time is an inherent property of the universe. The universe has existed for all eternity, because eternity started when the universe came into existance.
Maybe I don’t remember you ever saying this because it makes no sense. Eternity means it lasts forever. Eternity has no beginning. Perhaps you could explain to us how something other then God (If you say God I might accept it) could exit outside of time.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressEternity - Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
[b]No. You really don't listen. Or remember. One of the two. Maybe both.
Where have you said these things before?
The universe had a beginning around 15 - 18,000,000,000 years ago. It has also existed for all eternity, since time is an inherent property of the universe. The universe has existed for all eternity, because eternity ...[text shortened]... us how something other then God (If you say God I might accept it) could exit outside of time.
(From Wiki)
See, eternity basically means 'for all time'. For 'eternity' we need time as a concept. As time only exists within the universe then you cannot have a 'before the universe'. Eternity is all the time that has ever existed. Nothing can exist outside the universe (and therein time) since the universe contains everything. If it doesn't it's not the universe.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSee, eternity basically means 'for all time'. For 'eternity' we need time as a concept.
Eternity - Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
(From Wiki)
See, eternity basically means 'for all time'. For 'eternity' we need time as a concept. As time only exists within the universe then you cannot have a 'before the universe'. Eternity is all the time that has ever existed. Nothing can exist outside the universe (and therein time) since the universe contains everything. If it doesn't it's not the universe.
Why? Science believes that time existed before humans were here to conceive of it right? If the universe had no life in it time would still exist. Things would still get old, etc. A earth year would still be the same.
As time only exists within the universe then you cannot have a 'before the universe'. Eternity is all the time that has ever existed. Nothing can exist outside the universe (and therein time) since the universe contains everything. If it doesn't it's not the universe.
So you reject that there are other universes? As I understand it science is currently more inclined to believe that our universe is not the only one.
Consider what I said about the lines on the paper. Does this not show that there can be any number of infinities and things out side of them as well?
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungoriginally posted by The Chess Express
[b]The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.”
I've heard that term refer to the state the universe would be in after a great deal of time, when it reaches a state of maximum entropy. It's a state, not a process - at least as I've heard and understood it.
A universe that cycles through expanding and co y because we exist."[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[/b]
Typically the atheists claim that “matter is not created, but it is self-existing.” For this statement to be true, it is necessary for matter to have been generated out of nothing. If we assume that matter had a beginning and that it wasn’t deliberately created by a supreme intelligence, it would have had to appear out of nothing and by accident.
No; matter could have always existed, even if it were in the form of a singularity. The idea of the singularity only describes one state of the universe in the past; it's not a description of the beginning of the universe, but rather, the beginning of the state of the universe in which the curvature of time-space are finite. At least, that's how I understand it. So, technically this is incorrect:
Well, I’ve found out something new. In a singularity, the laws of physics no longer exist. That is inherent in the definition of a singularity, and it is why Quantum Mechanics is applied where new laws are involved. That means that the laws of charges and masses no longer work, so electrons, protons, neutron, etc will no longer exist.
In the big bang you have energy at temperatures that are on the order of 50 million degrees+, so energy is all you have, no matter.
originally posted by The Chess Express
This point is referred to as a singularity. According to science this would be the beginning.
It is therefore logical to assume that one day science and religion will merge and support each other.
Only if you assume that scripture is correct. If we're arguing for the existence of God, this is not an assumption we should be making.
It is in regards to there being a beginning, also in regards to the above argument.
originally posted by The Chess Express
The still controversial “anthropic principle” attempts to scientifically explain that the universe must have been designed.
No it doesn't.
the anthropic principle in its most basic form states the truism that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, "If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist; then it is true simply because we exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
It’s a matter of how it is applied. See…
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm
originally posted by The Chess Express
A universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle.
What? Where does it lose that energy to? Where did you get this idea?
If it were true that the universe was eternal, according to the second law of Thermodynamics which says that eventually the universe will tend towards heat and light the universe would have become nothing but heat and light a long time ago.
I’ve recently discovered that science has now shown that the cosmos in accelerating in its expansion, so there is no possible collapse anyway. This is further proof of there being a beginning.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOriginally posted by The Chess Express
[b]If you argue for the existence of hell, then you accept Heaven as well.
Not true. What if everyone went to Hell after death and there was no Heaven?
What are the infinite other possibilities?
The person simply ceasing to exist. Or an afterlife with a complete lack of anything but conciousness with nothing to see, nothing to do ...[text shortened]... f the infinite other possibilities besides Heaven and Hell more reasonable for "evil people".[/b]
If you argue for the existence of hell, then you accept Heaven as well.
Not true. What if everyone went to Hell after death and there was no Heaven?
Interesting idea, but probably not possible. Evil cannot exist without good. Light cannot exist without dark. There has to be a contrast, so if hell exists, so to must Heaven.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
What are the infinite other possibilities?
The person simply ceasing to exist. Or an afterlife with a complete lack of anything but conciousness with nothing to see, nothing to do, and no pleasure or pain. Or a situation in which the person cycles between tremendous misery and tremendous ecstacy. Or Hades. Or Valhalla. Or Nirvana. Or a situation where you feel great pleasure and great pain at the same time. Or infinite reincarnation. Etc.
My point was simply that if one accepts hell (and I’m not saying that Scott does) the possibilities become rather limited. For example it makes no sense then that we would cease to exist, or that we would just exist and nothing more.
The different religions have different ideas about Heaven and hell, but if one looks at the different religions as different paths to God, then it is easy to see the similarities.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWe've been over this.
Interesting idea, but probably not possible. Evil cannot exist without good. Light cannot exist without dark. There has to be a contrast, so if hell exists, so to must Heaven.
Before Creation, when there was just God, was He Good?
In heaven/paradise, wherever, is there just Good?
How about you justify this claim, instead of just asserting it. Dark can and does exist
without light. Why do you so firmly believe that there has to be a contrast?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioBefore Creation, when there was just God, was He Good?
We've been over this.
Before Creation, when there was just God, was He Good?
In heaven/paradise, wherever, is there just Good?
How about you justify this claim, instead of just asserting it. Dark can and does exist
without light. Why do you so firmly believe that there has to be a contrast?
Nemesio
If all that existed was good then how could he be?
In heaven/paradise, wherever, is there just Good?
Probably, but heaven doesn’t represent all of creation.
How about you justify this claim, instead of just asserting it.
What are you looking for, scientific evidence? This is all philosophy.
Dark can and does exist without light. Why do you so firmly believe that there has to be a contrast?
Darkness can be defined as the absence of light. If there is no light anywhere in all of creation, then darkness cannot be defined because light cannot be defined.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
If all that existed was good then how could he be?
I think you just threw my question back at me. Are you
saying that before Creation God was both Good and Evil?
Probably, but heaven doesn’t represent all of creation.
Okay. Let's set up a scenario. Let's say God created the
universe, but because of your criterion that Good must have
Evil in order to exist, God set it up this way:
On earth, He created only Good. People were honest, loving
compassionate, and so forth. And, on another planet a zillion
lightyears away, He created a people that only knew evil; they
lied, they stole, they murdered and cheated.
Neither planet knew of the other.
Would this fulfill your definitions? If not, why not?
What are you looking for, scientific evidence? This is all philosophy.
Just because it is philosophy doesn't mean you can assert things
and not defend them! Defend them with philosophical reasoning and
rhetoric. I'm not asking for a 'good gene' that is dependent on an
'evil gene.'
Darkness can be defined as the absence of light. If there is no light anywhere in all of creation, then darkness cannot be defined because light cannot be defined.
Why not? You've just repeated yourself. I'm asking for a
justification of this position.
Consider this example: A person blind from birth doesn't see light,
and so has never known it. Does that mean that light cannot be
defined to him? Is he required to experience light in order to
understand in any way what it is?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI think you just threw my question back at me. Are you
Originally posted by The Chess Express
If all that existed was good then how could he be?
I think you just threw my question back at me. Are you
saying that before Creation God was both Good and Evil?
Probably, but heaven doesn’t represent all of creation.
Okay. Let's set up a scenario. Let's say God created the
universe, but becaus ...[text shortened]... he required to experience light in order to
understand in any way what it is?
Nemesio
saying that before Creation God was both Good and Evil?
No, I’m suggesting that he was neither. As I have said light cannot exist without dark and vise versa.
Okay. Let's set up a scenario. Let's say God created the
universe, but because of your criterion that Good must have
Evil in order to exist, God set it up this way:
I’m not suggesting that God needs evil to exist. I’m suggesting that there has to be evil for there to be good.
On earth, He created only Good. People were honest, loving
compassionate, and so forth. And, on another planet a zillion
lightyears away, He created a people that only knew evil; they
lied, they stole, they murdered and cheated.
Neither planet knew of the other.
Would this fulfill your definitions? If not, why not?
Sounds like you are talking about Heaven and hell. If you are, then you have to realize that God and those who are in Heaven know what evil is. They know about hell, and my guess is they have lived here on earth or some other place like it.
Your scenario is not so good because you don’t say whether or not the people have this knowledge.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Darkness can be defined as the absence of light. If there is no light anywhere in all of creation, then darkness cannot be defined because light cannot be defined.
Why not? You've just repeated yourself. I'm asking for a
justification of this position.
Consider this example: A person blind from birth doesn't see light,
and so has never known it. Does that mean that light cannot be
defined to him? Is he required to experience light in order to
understand in any way what it is?
Yes, he does. Try and explain color (which is a form of light) to a person who could never see. You can’t. The blind person has to experience it in order to know it.
Try to write with white ink on a white sheet of paper, you won’t be able to read it. It is necessary for there to be a contrast.
Hi,
It's not easy to understand, so, i'am sorry for my english.
Just to say, my parents are from seventh-day adventist church, in France. I had a (little) christian education. I don't go to the church today, but, I believe in the existence of God. The subject is delicate. Prove the existence of God, it is interesting, but it is impossible to answer it. Today, I respect the men who try to solve the existence of the universe, even if I don't agree with their theory. Sorry, i can't explain my ideas in english, but, thank you for this thread.
Cordially
4 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI’m not suggesting that God needs evil to exist. I’m suggesting that there has to be evil for there to be good.[/b]
[b]I think you just threw my question back at me. Are you
saying that before Creation God was both Good and Evil?
No, I’m suggesting that he was neither. As I have said light cannot exist without dark and vise versa.
Okay. Let's set up a scenario. Let's say God created the
universe, but because of your criterion that Good must hav e sheet of paper, you won’t be able to read it. It is necessary for there to be a contrast.
No; what is true is that we could not have a concept of moral goodness without having a concept of evil. This does not require evil to actually exist. We can e.g. imagine a world of no evil, where every act is good.
This is irrelevant to the original point, however; to say "there may only be hell" could mean that there is only one destination after death, and that consists of eternal, unimaginable pain. It is quite conceivable that this is the case.
Imagine that the creator is not your Christian god, but a bizarre and evil god who allows us to have a concept of good and perhaps even leads us to believe that by doing good acts we will get to a lovely place called "heaven". When we die, however, he makes sure we ACTUALLY all go to the same place - a horrible place.
The existence of that place would in no way require the existence of an opposite place.
3 edits
Originally posted by dottewellNo; what is true is that we could not have a concept of moral goodness without having a concept of evil.
I’m not suggesting that God needs evil to exist. I’m suggesting that there has to be evil for there to be good.
No; what is true is that we could not have a concept of moral goodness without having a concept of evil. This does not require evil to actually exist. We can e.g. imagine a world of no evil, where every act is good.
This is irrelevant t lace.
The existence of that place would in no way require the existence of an opposite place.
That is pretty much what I said.
This does not require evil to actually exist. We can e.g. imagine a world of no evil, where every act is good.
This is where I disagree with you. We can only imagine a world like that because there is so much evil here on earth. Evil has to exist in order to be known. It has to be experienced in order to be understood.
If we look at the act of mugging somebody, what do we see on face value. If successful the mugger will get something for nothing. So why shouldn’t we all try to mug people? Only by experiencing evil can we undestand the nature of evil and realize why it is wrong. This is why God gave us free will.
Lets look at the opposite end of the spectrum. We’ll take the world that you mentioned were every act is good. If it were impossible to do anything but good, then there would be no good. It would not be good to do good, because that would be the only possible thing to do. There would be no free will.
Example: A crane that lifts a horse out of a pit is not doing good or evil, it’s the people, who have the power to choose, and who choose to save the horse rather then watch it suffer and die that perceive the act to be good.
This is irrelevant to the original point, however; to say "there may only be hell" could mean that there is only one destination after death, and that consists of eternal, unimaginable pain. It is quite conceivable that this is the case.
“Eternal, unimaginable pain,“ hmmm, I don’t believe that anybody can conceive of that. I know I can’t. Human beings cannot really imagine any sort of eternity. An eternity of unimaginable pain is even more impossible to conceive of.
Imagine that the creator is not your Christian god, but a bizarre and evil god who allows us to have a concept of good and perhaps even leads us to believe that by doing good acts we will get to a lovely place called "heaven". When we die, however, he makes sure we ACTUALLY all go to the same place - a horrible place.
The existence of that place would in no way require the existence of an opposite place.
Such a scenario would contradict most religions, and near death experiences. If God was evil, there would be no reason for him to give us free will, and send us to earth. This all starts to make more sense if one starts from the assumption that God is good.
For the sake argument though, earth would contrast such a place. There is plenty of both good and evil on earth, so we conceive of both good and evil. You were able to conceive of a place of pain because you’ve experienced both pain and pleasure here on earth.
Originally posted by OmbelineWelcome to the forums! Especially to this mad-house! I guarentee that you'll find someone who thinks the same as you on some subjects but not others! Please, we're interested to hear your thoughts, don't worry about your english - you can get away with mistakes!
Hi,
It's not easy to understand, so, i'am sorry for my english.
Just to say, my parents are from seventh-day adventist church, in France. I had a (little) christian education. I don't go to the church today, but, I believe in the existence of God. The subject is delicate. Prove the existence of God, it is interesting, but it is impossible to answer it. ...[text shortened]... ry. Sorry, i can't explain my ideas in english, but, thank you for this thread.
Cordially