Originally posted by PawnCurryIt's funny: when I read comments by many theists such as yourself, I can replace God with 'the universe' or some aspect of it and they make perfect sense in the absence of supernatural beings. Indeed, pantheists believe that EVERYTHING is divine, but even for non-pantheists there are a lot of similarities. It's only when you get down to specifics like 'homosexuality is a sin' or 'the world is 8000 years old' that substantive differences arise.
I'm sure all the Sikh's, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists etc in the world are all equally convinced that their own religion is the truth.
Why does Christianity stand above those other religions? Surely it's because you have faith in your religion? Not because you have a lack of faith in science? And for the vast majority of people, their re ...[text shortened]... et and express my own relationship with <the universe>... looks like it will be a church of one!
The simplest answer to 'what caused X?' is 'Nothing', ie X is just a fact of life. If you find this unsatisfactory, answer the question 'what caused God to exist?' It seems that rwingett and the like believe that the universe and its laws exist 'just because', while for Christians, the material world exists because of God, while God exists just because. I don't see why this as a major step forward in understanding why things are the way they are.
So it seems that people believe in God because they 'feel' him in some emotional manner. This is fair enough if you believe 'the heart never lies', but my experience is that I (and other people, judging by their actions) have pointless fluctuations in mood which don't tell me anything useful or deep. It could be that God emerged to explain away the appearance that our thoughts and feelings are chaotic and irrational, by saying 'if you turn to God, he'll help you think straight'.
Originally posted by AcolyteI've just started reading up on Pantheism and agree with a lot of what you said.
It's funny: when I read comments by many theists such as yourself, I can replace God with 'the universe' or some aspect of it and they make perfect sense in the absence of supernatural beings. Indeed, pantheists believe that EVERYTHING is divine, but even for non-pantheists there are a lot of similarities. It's only when you get down to specifics like ...[text shortened]... gs are chaotic and irrational, by saying 'if you turn to God, he'll help you think straight'.
Indeed, from what I've seen and heard so far, I think it ties in with my own beliefs fairly well.
At the moment, I think my own belief is some kind of derivation of Pantheism, where there is also room for a Supreme Entity of some kind ( I don't profess to know it's nature...)
But this idea that God is the Universe and the Universe is God is intriguing. Who knows, the Universe may even be sentient. If a small lump of grey matter consisting mainly of proteins can harbour thoughts and the soul, why not the entire Universe? It would still be governed by the true Laws of Physics. Maybe this is where that "quantum entanglement" fits in... will have to think about this one.
I fully agree with you on why we created God - Voltaire had it right. However, there is also the possibilty that God does exist. And as far as I'm aware, noone actually "knows" whether God exists - and I'm a long way down the line in that particular queue!
The more I think about it, the more this "God/Universe duality" makes sense to me. Certainly explains being all around us, wherever we look, at all times, in all places. Not being a Bible expert (!), but it probably explains a lot of Bible stuff as well.. He made Man in his own image... well all the heavier elements on earth are believed to have been made in stars and ejected during supernovae, so that's that one covered for starters.
It would also explain his inability to act on Earth - God is also bound by his own Physical Laws.
It would explain that everyone is part of God (we are all part of the Universe, right?)
Yes, I definitely need to contemplate this one further!
Originally posted by PawnCurryHere's a weird idea that came to me while reading your post, PC - wouldn't it be amazing and kind of creepy if the elements of a sentient being were themselves sentient?
I've just started reading up on Pantheism and agree with a lot of what you said.
Indeed, from what I've seen and heard so far, I think it ties in with my own beliefs fairly well.
At the moment, I think my own belief is some kind of derivation of Pantheism, where there is also room for a Supreme Entity of some kind ( I don't profess to know it's n ...[text shortened]... are all part of the Universe, right?)
Yes, I definitely need to contemplate this one further!
That is, if the universe were sentient, part of the matter and energy that make up the universe would be people who are themselves sentient in a totally independent way yet serve by their existence to create and affect the sentience of the universe as a whole.
Or, looked at slightly differently, imagine if every cell in your body had it's own mind and was totally unaware of the mind that was created by the combination of all the cells...you'd be filled and made up with little independent beings that might have personalities totally different from your own.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYup, that's a weird one!
Here's a weird idea that came to me while reading your post, PC - wouldn't it be amazing and kind of creepy if the elements of a sentient being were themselves sentient?
That is, if the universe were sentient, part of the matter ...[text shortened]... ngs that might have personalities totally different from your own.
I suppose this leads us to another thread (which may have already been discussed on here, I've only been a member since December, and only started reading the forums recently), namely: at what point does a living creature become sentient? Humans are sentient, there's evidence to show that some primates are sentient.
Is there any evidence to show that the Universe is sentient? Maybe we need some kind of Universal Gaia theory... Elements sentient... maybe they are! lol
But this thread relates to God, and why man would invent him, and I think I've diverged enough already!
Originally posted by DarfiusGod can fast-forward over all the dull stuff? I wish I could do that on boring commutes.
Why do you persist in projecting time (a creation) onto God? I find it telling that you cannot do such a simple thing as postulate a God outside of time.
Don't worry about what is telling, I'm A-OK; there's a difference between mocking God and rattling some cages.
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusHe cannot do it because "outside of time" is meaningless. It's like saying, "north of the north pole," or "inside the very center of the earth." Placing a few words next to one another does not necessarily make a coherent phrase.
Why do you persist in projecting time (a creation) onto God? I find it telling that you cannot do such a simple thing as postulate a God outside of time.
You've confused the profound with the absurd. Of course, you've made this exact error some 10 or 15 times now. I find that very telling.
Originally posted by telerionI don't think you've proven your point. Calling something absurd does not work. And you examples do not fit.
He cannot do it because "outside of time" is meaningless. It's like saying, "north of the north pole," or "inside the very center of the earth." Placing a few words next to one another does not necessarily make a coherent phrase.
You've confused the profound with the absurd. Of course, you've made this exact error some 10 or 15 times now. I find that very telling.
North of the north pole implies you can continue on in a direction that terminates - but the direction north has a finite ending point. And inside the center is absurd because the center is a geometric point - and space can not occupy a point.
God being outside of time, or beyond time - means that God is not limited to time as we experience it. Your senses and experience does not account for anything that violates the dimension of time and space. So it appears absurd to you.
Einstein's theory of relative has been verified by experimentation. This is another case of science confirming a scripture concept. So if you don't take God's word for it, take the word of the god of science.
Originally posted by ColettiThe Theory of Relativity as I understand it, is not about things being outside or beyond time. Rather it describes how time affects different things depending their relative velocities within a given frame of reference. If I am mistaken, then I hope you will correct me.
I don't think you've proven your point. Calling something absurd does not work. And you examples do not fit.
North of the north pole implies you can continue on in a direction that terminates - but the direction north has a finite ending point. And inside the center is absurd because the center is a geometric point - and space can not occupy a poin ...[text shortened]... cripture concept. So if you don't take God's word for it, take the word of the god of science.
As of now, I think Darfius must demonstrate that there is an "outside" of time. Simply saying something is "outside of time" is meaningless if time does not have an "outside." In this manner my analogies fit. North Pole does not have a point more north of it and the very center of the Earth does not neighbor points more central than itself.
Basically, I'm not out to prove a point. I'm raising an objection to his statement that it is simple to postulate a God (sic) outside of time. I'm asking him to demonstrate what this phrase means.
You have come to his aid by making an allusion to the Theory of Relativity. I take issue with your characterization, but am open to instruction/correction if you can provide it. Once we have a working concept of what "outside" of time means, then we can more easily postulate entities "outside of time."
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionMy point is time is not inviolable. So there's no reason to assume that something can not exist outside of time as we experience it.
The Theory of Relativity as I understand it, is not about things being outside or beyond time. Rather it describes how time affects different things depending their relative velocities within a given frame of reference. If I am mistaken, then I hope you will correct me.
God being outside of time is another way of saying that God is omniscient. Omniscience is not limited to past and present, it also includes future.
I don't know what you mean by my "characterization" that you object too. I'm simply disagreeing with your observation of "outside of time" being absurd. There's no logical reason for considering it absurd unless it is logically impossible. You have not shown that.
Originally posted by telerionDid you ever get the sense you're trying to punch a lump out of a pillow and another one keeps popping up?
The Theory of Relativity as I understand it, is not about things being outside or beyond time. Rather it describes how time affects different things depending their relative velocities within a given frame of reference. If I am mistaken, then I hope you will correct me.
As of now, I think Darfius must demonstrate that there is an "outside" of time. ...[text shortened]... "outside" of time means, then we can more easily postulate entities "outside of time."
Some where the psuedo-scientist have read that science has no way of knowing what happened before the big bang. and just like in the totally bogus missing-link case : they think this proves there beliefs, which it don't, and then since now the have "proven god's existencr" it certainly ,in their minds, must be the god of the bible.
That it would prove no such thing never occurs to them.
Science, meanwhile, is begining to look past the bing bang using superstring T-duality. Which can model a pre-big bang universe by constructing extra dimensions, one example is the Ekpyrotic or the Big Splat: :According to this theory, there is a third three brane loose between the two bounding branes of the four dimensional bulk, and when this brane hits the brane we live on, the energy from the collision heats up our brane and the Big Bang occurs" ,,,,
http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html
There really isnt any proven that a force exists that will prevent a monopole gauge field ( gravition) pulling everything back to the singularity it started from. Making the universe cyclical
Originally posted by ColettiLook, you can't have it both ways. The Theory of Relativity postulates that the universe itself is composed of "space-time"; nothing in the universe can exist outside of "space-time" by definition. Thus you cannot logically use the TOR to "prove" that it is possible that there is a God of some sort who exists beyond "time"; the TOR is a scientific theory explaining this universe - it does not attempt to explain things which are claimed to exist outside the universe. The TOR says such things cannot be measured and therefore can be disregarded as they have no measurable effect on this universe. Again, the Theory of Relativity is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and therefore its predictions must be verifiable by observation. Many of the SPECIFIC predictions of the TOR have been proven to be absolutely consistent with observations made at a later time such as the gravitional red shift; no prediction of a God existing outside of time has been verified by the scientific method.
My point is time is not inviolable. So there's no reason to assume that something can not exist outside of time as we experience it.
God being outside of time is another way of saying that God is omniscient. Omniscience is not limited to past and present, it also includes future.
I don't know what you mean by my "characterization" that you object ...[text shortened]... al reason for considering it absurd unless it is logically impossible. You have not shown that.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you argree with TOR, and time and space are not fixed constanants. I agree. That's the point. God is not stuck in time because time is not a constant.
Look, you can't have it both ways. The Theory of Relativity postulates that the universe itself is composed of "space-time"; nothing in the universe can exist outside of "space-time" by definition. Thus you cannot logically use the TOR to "prove" that it is possible that there is a God of some sort who exists beyond "time"; the TOR is a s ...[text shortened]... ft; no prediction of a God existing outside of time has been verified by the scientific method.
Proof is not an issue. Science does not prove anything. Proof is a function of deductive reasoning and it's formal, not material. Science uses inductive reasoning to formulate good theory - therefore it does not disprove anything. But if you want to talk about proving a possiblity, science does nothing but. Science tells us that all things (that are not logical contradictions) are possible. If anything can exist outside of time, and there is no logical contradiction in that, then it is possible.
Originally posted by ColettiPossible, but unscientific therefore, you should not use scientific theories to boost an unscientific argument. The rest of your post is merely restating your hostility and ignorance of science; how'd the experiment I suggested work out?
So you argree with TOR, and time and space are not fixed constanants. I agree. That's the point. God is not stuck in time because time is not a constant.
Proof is not an issue. Science does not prove anything. Proof is a function of deductive reasoning and it's formal, not material. Science uses inductive reasoning to formulate good theory - there ...[text shortened]... g can exist outside of time, and there is no logical contradiction in that, then it is possible.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't have any problems with science. Science is wonderful. I don't know why you see me as being hostile too it. I use the fruits of science on a daily basis.
Possible, but unscientific therefore, you should not use scientific theories to boost an unscientific argument. The rest of your post is merely restating your hostility and ignorance of science; how'd the experiment I suggested work out?
Why shouldn't I use a scientific theory to support an "unscientific" argument? Don't tell me - that would be unscientific. As long as my argument is logical, there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe that's a religious position for you - "Thou shalt not use scientific theories to support unscientific arguments - says the science god." 😉
I think the hostility is clearly yours. Take a deep breath. Now repeat after me:
I will not worship science.
I will not worship science.
There now... 🙂 Don't you feel better?
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiYou're irrational; you worship something and therefore are projecting your irrational beliefs onto others. I don't "worship" anything (besides Selma Hayek), but I do see that the scientific method is a far more reasonable way to acquire reliable knowledge than taking as undisputably true a book written by people who were primitive, semisavages culturally and technologically behind most other civilizations that existed at the same time.
I don't have any problems with science. Science is wonderful. I don't know why you see me as being hostile too it. I use the fruits of science on a daily basis.
Why shouldn't I use a scientific theory to support an "unscientific ...[text shortened]... not worship science.
There now... 🙂 Don't you feel better?
The scientific method relies on postulations that can be matched against actual evidence to determine if the postulations are the best explanation for the observed evidence. To argue that something exists out of "space-time" is to make it unmeasurable and unobservable and therefore beyond the realm of science. If you want to assert that such a thing exists, fine; but you will find no support for such an assertion in the TOR or any other scientific theory. Therefore, you are being disingenous or ignorant to try to cite the TOR as "proof" of something it by definition excludes.
I'd feel better if you religious people would simply admit that there is no scientific basis for your belief in a God, but that you believe it anyway. That's fine with me, but your absurd distortion of actual science in order to "prove" the unprovable is ridiculous.