Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Was it? It was caused by an interaction of intelligent beings, are you proposing that humans designed the process of conception? Hopefully not and given this argument is about proving that intelligence cannot occur without God's input, trying to suggest that God created the process of birth makes the argument circular.

Ok, so since you are sticking with this, trace mankind back to its origins. Tell me at what point in this blind, randon, and unguided process does intelligence come in to play?? Remember, you believe intelligence can come from nonintelligence, so if we trace our origins (being intelligent beings), back to our parents, if we were to travel back in time, from parent to parent, until we reach a point where humans did not exist, tell me at what point did intelligence come in to play.

How so? Either non-intelligent organisms are incapable of producing intelligence or not. I advocate that some non-intelligent organisms are capable of producing intelligence, such as the zygote producing an intelligent human.

And I argue that since the zygote doesn't exist indepedently of the intelligent beings that created it, it cant be used as an example of non-intelligence creating intelligence.

Yes and their reproductive system is non-intelligent and their reproductive system produces non-intelligent cells and when those cells come together to form a zygote, that zygote is non intelligent. But that zygote grows into an intelligent being through completely natural processes. Intelligence coming from non-intelligence.

Ok, so as I said, trace everything back to its origins, to where there was no intelligence or zygote, and explain how did intelligence come in to play. But you cant do this, because there is no scientific answer as to how life itself could have arisen from non-living material, let alone intelligence. Third, there are astronomical odds against our universe being life permitting in the first place, and there is also astronomical odds against life coming from nonlife. So you have to deal with improbability + improbability.....which will only give you the sum of more improbability.

Please actually explain why you think that the production of gametes by intelligent beings is relevant to my argument. You have asserted and reasserted it but never actually put a counter argument forward.

Because so far, I havent gotten a good response as to how, in every living and breathing organism, does each species happen to have what is needed in its reproductive system to reproduce with the opposite sex, from the intelligent human to the cockroach. Evolution cannot be used as a response to this, because it will assume what has not yet been proven. I will gladly wait on a response from either you or someone else to explain this incredible thing to me.

What caused time to begin though? Did time spontaneously begin which allowed for movement and action to occur.

In a short answer, yes.

Was God motionless and incapable of thought or action and then suddenly time began and therefore he began doing things? I suppose that makes sense, without time, change doesn't occur so when time begins change occurs.

God was motionless and content...and changeless.

So God did not cause or create time, time began at some point and God, being previously "frozen in time," began thinking and doing when time began.

Gods thoughts existed with his eternal existence. His thoughts never changed. He had an eternal will to do what he did, so his thought process never "began" to do anything.

He would not have even known that he was ever without time because while time is stopped nothing changes, if time stopped right this moment, you would be mid-thought, mid action and no change would occur at all, anywhere. So if time stopped and then started again, it would go unnoticed.

There is no such thing as "stopping in time"....or time to suddenly "stop". Time will go on forever towards an infinite future. Time just simply didnt exist before creation, and has existed and moving forward towards the future ever since.

This is actually really interesting, if time did not exist at all prior to 13.7 billion years ago, when it began what did God think? That would be his first thought lest his existence prior to this had a preformed thought or action? Food for thought.

His will to create the universe was an eternal will. He never "began" to think it. He always knew it. Nothing in his thought process "began". That is why I asked you, if time was infinite, why did it just begin to exist only 13.7 billion years ago? There is no answer for this. But if you are an agent with free will, and you "begin" to do something, the time at which you "began" to do something is a result of your free will. So on my view, I can say "the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago because that is the time that God wanted it to begin." A being with free will can freely choose to do something at any time he/it wants to. But on your view, there is no answer to this.

But what caused time to begin? It couldn't be God because without time, change is impossible. Time's beginning seems to be a conundrum, it could not have been created or caused but it appears to have began at some point.

God caused time. That is the point, THERE WAS NO CHANGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIME. If I have been sitting PERFECTLY still in a chair, for all eternity, this is a timeless state. There were no moments before me sitting, and there were no moments after me sitting. Time does not exist. Once I move my leg in the chair, time begins. That is the first change. I just went from being atemopral, to temporal, and once this occurs, I am stuck in time forever.

Common Cosmology states not that time did not exist but that in the singularity time broke down as did all of the laws of physics. It's not that it was necessarily non-existent but perhaps different, beyond our understanding of time. Basically it reaffirms what I've been saying, within the singularity all known laws of physics and even our concept of space and time, matter and energy all breaks down. Nobody knows anything that occurred or existed prior to the expansion.

That is the thing. We dont necessarily have to rely on cosmology as proving grounds of a finite past. We have enough philosophical arguments against the concept of an eternal past that gives us sufficient reasons for believing that time began. So nothing in this "time" subject hangs on contemporary cosmology. It just so happens that cosmology coroberates other arguments that we already have.

"Have to," is a bit much. "Can" is a bit more accurate.

No.....have to.....what part of "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain" dont you understand??

"sitting there for all eternity", since time didn't exist or at least, not in the capacity we understand it, this statement is meaningless. You may as well ask, "Why did it sit there for a nano-second before expanding?"

That is a legitimate question, why. There had to be a reason that exists beyond the singularity. There is no getting past this.

I do not believe that, I accept that prior to the expansion of the universe from the singularity, time and all of science and universal laws break down.

They break down because scientific reasonsing breaks down.

Note: Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed article.

Your theory about the meaning of the quote is noted and discarded, it is clear from the text that the author believes STEM came into existence within the singularity. As I have shown several times already, without space and matter density is not possible. If the singularity is infinitely dense then it must contain a lot of matter, for matter to exist somewhere, space must exist for without space, "somewhere" does not exist.

I responded to this by saying that all of STEM began to exist at once. This only makes logical sense because you cant have matter without space, or matter without time. Logically impossible.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Ok, so since you are sticking with this, trace mankind back to its origins. Tell me at what point in this blind, randon, and unguided process does intelligence come in to play?? Remember, you believe intelligence can come from nonintelligence, so if we trace our origins (being intelligent beings), back to our parents, if we were to travel back in time, from parent to parent, until we reach a point where humans did not exist, tell me at what point did intelligence come in to play.



And I argue that since the zygote doesn't exist indepedently of the intelligent beings that created it, it cant be used as an example of non-intelligence creating intelligence.



Ok, so as I said, trace everything back to its origins, to where there was no intelligence or zygote, and explain how did intelligence come in to play. But you cant do this, because there is no scientific answer as to how life itself could have arisen from non-living material, let alone intelligence. Third, there are astronomical odds against our universe being life permitting in the first place, and there is also astronomical odds against life coming from nonlife. So you have to deal with improbability + improbability.....which will only give you the sum of more improbability.



Because so far, I havent gotten a good response as to how, in every living and breathing organism, does each species happen to have what is needed in its reproductive system to reproduce with the opposite sex, from the intelligent human to the cockroach. Evolution cannot be used as a response to this, because it will assume what has not yet been proven. I will gladly wait on a response from either you or someone else to explain this incredible thing to me.




In a short answer, yes.



God was motionless and content...and changeless.



Gods thoughts existed with his eternal existence. His thoughts never changed. He had an eternal will to do what he did, so his thought process never "began" to do anything.



There is no such thing as "stopping in time"....or time to suddenly "stop". Time will go on forever towards an infinite future. Time just simply didnt exist before creation, and has existed and moving forward towards the future ever since.



His will to create the universe was an eternal will. He never "began" to think it. He always knew it. Nothing in his thought process "began". That is why I asked you, if time was infinite, why did it just begin to exist only 13.7 billion years ago? There is no answer for this. But if you are an agent with free will, and you "begin" to do something, the time at which you "began" to do something is a result of your free will. So on my view, I can say "the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago because that is the time that God wanted it to begin." A being with free will can freely choose to do something at any time he/it wants to. But on your view, there is no answer to this.



God caused time. That is the point, THERE WAS NO CHANGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIME. If I have been sitting PERFECTLY still in a chair, for all eternity, this is a timeless state. There were no moments before me sitting, and there were no moments after me sitting. Time does not exist. Once I move my leg in the chair, time begins. That is the first change. I just went from being atemopral, to temporal, and once this occurs, I am stuck in time forever.



That is the thing. We dont necessarily have to rely on cosmology as proving grounds of a finite past. We have enough philosophical arguments against the concept of an eternal past that gives us sufficient reasons for believing that time began. So nothing in this "time" subject hangs on contemporary cosmology. It just so happens that cosmology coroberates other arguments that we already have.



No.....have to.....what part of "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain" dont you understand??



That is a legitimate question, why. There had to be a reason that exists beyond the singularity. There is no getting past this.



They break down because scientific reasonsing breaks down.




I responded to this by saying that all of STEM began to exist at once. This only makes logical sense because you cant have matter without space, or matter without time. Logically impossible.

i see you ignored my response.

 

[filthy tugboat]

It is you that have the misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, not me. The concept of order and disorder is exactly the problem that you, as a naturalist have. If the universe began from a singularity point, and expanded, and all STEM derived from it, this whole process was a process of disorder and chaos.

Was it? The expansion is actually pretty orderly.

The point is, it is HIGHLY improbable that a system begins with high entropy and move towards low entropy, but it is HIGHLY probable that a system begins with low entropy, and moves towards high entropy.

It's got nothing to do with probability, it's dependent upon energy input.

How could you get that kind of precision from something that is blind, unguided, and non-intellectual??? It takes faith to even postulate such a thought.

Why? What kind of precision? I don't understand your obsession with "blind, unguided and non-intellectual" processes or why you think such things cannot produce results.

This is a misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is not that improbable things don't happen. The argument is, "SPECIFIED complexity" is highly unlikely if it is derived from a random process. It is highly unlikely that if you were if you put a million small pieces of paper in a huge box with each piece numbered from 1 to a 100,000,000, and you have a million people randomly pick a number out of the box, that each person will pick a number in the consecutive order of 1-100,000,000. Yeah, each number that is pulled has the same probability of being pulled, but it is the specified independent pattern of pulling the numbers in numerical order that adds more to the improbability. So this goes beyond any card game or lottery analogy you can think of.

And this is another fundamental flaw in the argument from design. It assumes that this result is "winning the lottery". It puts a value on this universe that is not justified. How is this universe equivalent to your analogy of the numbers from 1 to 100,000,000 being pulled out consecutively? I think it's because it assumes it's own conclusion, that the universe was designed this way because it is special, more valuable than other universes. If you don't attribute this arbitrary state of "special" to this universe then suddenly the argument from design no longer makes sense.

"This universe must have been designed because it is unlikely to occur without a designer."
"This universe is just as likely to occur as any other possible universe."
"Well yes but the chances of our universe existing is similar to if you put a million small pieces of paper in a huge box with each piece numbered from 1 to a 100,000,000, and you have a million people randomly pick a number out of the box, that each person will pick a number in the consecutive order of 1-100,000,000 is highly unlikely."
"It's just as likely as any other order pulled out."
"Yes but this order is more special than any other order and if any other order was pulled out it would be insignificant but because this order was pulled out it's significant."

What makes it significant or special?

Your analogy actually supports my point, you have decided that the consecutive order of those numbers is valuable and miraculous if it occurred, just as you think that this universe is especially valuable and miraculous. Why? What makes this universe so special that it cannot be anything other than the product of intelligent design?

Not sure where you are going with this. Makes no sense.

I'm saying that the argument of design rests on a subjective notion of "special", if this universe was of the same value and significance of all other possible universes then suddenly your analogy about the numbers no longer means anything, the order pulled out is not significant and the fact remains that if something has to be, no matter what the odds of each individual universe, one of them is going to be.

Huh. Makes no sense.

Of course it does. If you believe that it is impossible for life and intelligence to form and you also believe that God created the universe and all of it's controlling forces then you believe that God is incapable of creating life and intelligence through the natural processes he created. You have to believe that God is incapable of creating life through any other means than direct, magical intervention causing humans to appear out of dust. Why? Why would an omnipotent being be incapable of producing life and intelligence this way?

Ok, so since you are sticking with this, trace mankind back to its origins. Tell me at what point in this blind, randon, and unguided process does intelligence come in to play?? Remember, you believe intelligence can come from nonintelligence, so if we trace our origins (being intelligent beings), back to our parents, if we were to travel back in time, from parent to parent, until we reach a point where humans did not exist, tell me at what point did intelligence come in to play.

You have an unreasonable expectation. No sorry, you don't expect an answer to this so I don't know why you asked such a stupid question.

And I argue that since the zygote doesn't exist indepedently of the intelligent beings that created it, it cant be used as an example of non-intelligence creating intelligence.

Why not? You are just re-asserting the same thing. I have given an accurate example of intelligence forming from a non-intelligent organism and you are refusing to recognize it for what it is.

God was motionless and content...and changeless.

Couldn't really be any other way, without time, God had no option for change or motion.

Gods thoughts existed with his eternal existence. His thoughts never changed. He had an eternal will to do what he did, so his thought process never "began" to do anything.

Well he certainly couldn't be thinking without time.

There is no such thing as "stopping in time"....or time to suddenly "stop". Time will go on forever towards an infinite future. Time just simply didnt exist before creation, and has existed and moving forward towards the future ever since.

It was an example of existing in a timeless state and how even God himself would be unaware if time did not exist or began existing.

God caused time. That is the point, THERE WAS NO CHANGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIME.

How could God cause time? If God was timeless, how could God cause or do anything? You agreed earlier that time spontaneously began which allowed God to begin doing things. Time beginning has to precede any action that could occur. God cannot begin to do something without time existing therefore time had to exist to allow God to do something.

If I have been sitting PERFECTLY still in a chair, for all eternity, this is a timeless state.

How? If this were possible (to sit perfectly still) why is it timeless? Time could exist and you were just sitting still.

There were no moments before me sitting, and there were no moments after me sitting. Time does not exist. Once I move my leg in the chair, time begins. That is the first change. I just went from being atemopral, to temporal, and once this occurs, I am stuck in time forever.

What? This is still ridiculous, how could your movement cause time when you couldn't without time? Time has to begin existing in order for you to move, time's existence must necessarily precede your movement.

That is a legitimate question, why. There had to be a reason that exists beyond the singularity. There is no getting past this.

Indeed and for you, there is no getting past the fact that nobody knows.

They break down because scientific reasonsing breaks down.

The universal laws are not dependent on scientific reasoning. They don't break down because scientific reasoning breaks down, scientific reasoning breaks down because the universal laws break down.

I responded to this by saying that all of STEM began to exist at once. This only makes logical sense because you cant have matter without space, or matter without time. Logically impossible.

Or it has always existed in some form or other.

 

[idea]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

back to the OP anyone? It's a nice Easter thread after all...

I think part of it stems from this:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
~John 15:13

So the atonement makes the highest love a reality.

 

[sojourner]

back to the OP anyone? It's a nice Easter thread after all...

I think part of it stems from this:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
~John 15:13

So the atonement makes the highest love a reality.

Except for God. God demanding a human sacrifice is love ... how, again?
I thought God was supposed to be love...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Was it? The expansion is actually pretty orderly.

Based on what?

It's got nothing to do with probability, it's dependent upon energy input.

It has every thing to do with probability. The numbers are to much for you to deal with so you deny the probability altogether.

Why? What kind of precision? I don't understand your obsession with "blind, unguided and non-intellectual" processes or why you think such things cannot produce results.

I keep stressing these factors (blind, unguided, and non-intellectual) because we have an immune system, digestive system, circulatory sytem, respitory system, and reproductive system, things with a purpose, all from a blind, unguided and non-intellectual process. My point is, with unguideness and non-intellectual-ness....you dont get purpose. With purpose comes intent, and how can you get intent from something that cant think and is unguided and blind? Makes no sense. And no, I dont think that these "things" can warrant these kind of results.

And this is another fundamental flaw in the argument from design. It assumes that this result is "winning the lottery". It puts a value on this universe that is not justified. How is this universe equivalent to your analogy of the numbers from 1 to 100,000,000 being pulled out consecutively? I think it's because it assumes it's own conclusion, that the universe was designed this way because it is special, more valuable than other universes. If you don't attribute this arbitrary state of "special" to this universe then suddenly the argument from design no longer makes sense.

What....no, not at all. First off, the numbers are not a matter of placing value on them. They are what they are. In order for our universe to be life permitting, certain parameters have to be met. Life will not be permitting with just any old universe out there. To the tiniest degree, our universe has so much precision that it is just laughable to think that we are here by some randon shot in the dark that met its target. Second, in the analogy, that was an example of specified complexity.

"This universe must have been designed because it is unlikely to occur without a designer."

"This universe is just as likely to occur as any other possible universe."
"Well yes but the chances of our universe existing is similar to if you put a million small pieces of paper in a huge box with each piece numbered from 1 to a 100,000,000, and you have a million people randomly pick a number out of the box, that each person will pick a number in the consecutive order of 1-100,000,000 is highly unlikely."
"It's just as likely as any other order pulled out."
"Yes but this order is more special than any other order and if any other order was pulled out it would be insignificant but because this order was pulled out it's significant."
What makes it significant or special?

Ok, put it this way. Lets say there are 999,999,999 black balls in a huge box. There is also one white ball in this box, which makes a total of a million balls in the box. A killer has a gun to your head, and he blindfolds you, and tells you to reach your hand in the box and pick a ball. If you pick a black ball, you will be executed, but if you pick the white ball, you will live. Each ball has the SAME PROBABILITY of being picked, but add to the probability the indepedent color pattern of the balls, which is in favor of the black balls. That makes it even more improbable that you will pick the white ball in the pile. Now if the man told you to reach in the pile and pick a black ball, you wouldnt be worried, because the probability of you picking a black ball is in your favor based on the specified complexity, which favors the black balls. This is how the universe works, based on entropy, it is highly improbable that our universe will be life permitting, and the Penrose number shows how improbable it is, compared to our universe being life prohibiting.

Your analogy actually supports my point, you have decided that the consecutive order of those numbers is valuable and miraculous if it occurred, just as you think that this universe is especially valuable and miraculous. Why? What makes this universe so special that it cannot be anything other than the product of intelligent design?

10(10(123). That is what makes it special.

I'm saying that the argument of design rests on a subjective notion of "special", if this universe was of the same value and significance of all other possible universes then suddenly your analogy about the numbers no longer means anything, the order pulled out is not significant and the fact remains that if something has to be, no matter what the odds of each individual universe, one of them is going to be.

Any other universe would have to met these same parameters if it will contain life a life permitting earth. So all you are doing is taking the improbility factor, picking it up, and placing it elsewhere. Same thing, different location.

Of course it does. If you believe that it is impossible for life and intelligence to form and you also believe that God created the universe and all of it's controlling forces then you believe that God is incapable of creating life and intelligence through the natural processes he created. You have to believe that God is incapable of creating life through any other means than direct, magical intervention causing humans to appear out of dust. Why? Why would an omnipotent being be incapable of producing life and intelligence this way?

Wait a minute, who said anything about God being incapable of creating life and intelligence through the natural processes he created?? Who said that?? Thats exactly what he did!!!! If I had magic powers and i loved to paint, i could create a paint shop supernaturally, and use the paint to paint a picture. God created the universe supernaturally, and used nature to create mankind.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have an unreasonable expectation. No sorry, you don't expect an answer to this so I don't know why you asked such a stupid question.

Thats because I took away all of the fluff and feathers, and once you do that, you are left with absurdities, which is why neither you nor science is able to figure out how and why this could have happened naturally. Take away the fluff and feathers and get to the meat and potatos of the matter lol.

Why not? You are just re-asserting the same thing. I have given an accurate example of intelligence forming from a non-intelligent organism and you are refusing to recognize it for what it is.

I dont think it is adequate. If the zygote was out there independently forming intelligent beings, then I will grant your explanation 100%. But since it doesnt, and its origins are based on intelligent beings, I dont see how you can logically use this as an example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence. You completely skipped the part about the intelligent parents that jump started the process in the first place. Maybe the zygote has an "intelligence" gene that evovled as the child grew, I dont know. But no matter what answer is given, if you trace mans origins back to inantimate matter, with no intelligence, how do you get intelligence from that. You cant answer it, no one can.

Couldn't really be any other way, without time, God had no option for change or motion.

As long as God was content in his being, it really doesn't matter.

Well he certainly couldn't be thinking without time.

How come he couldnt?

It was an example of existing in a timeless state and how even God himself would be unaware if time did not exist or began existing.

Unaware of time?

How could God cause time? If God was timeless, how could God cause or do anything? You agreed earlier that time spontaneously began which allowed God to begin doing things. Time beginning has to precede any action that could occur. God cannot begin to do something without time existing therefore time had to exist to allow God to do something.

How? If this were possible (to sit perfectly still) why is it timeless? Time could exist and you were just sitting still.

Why is it timeless? Because, as I said, if there are no moments that lead to me sitting, then there cant be any moments to proceed me sitting. There is no before or after. So there is no time. Nothing "lead to" me sitting. If nothing lead to me sitting, nothing could happen "after" I sat. You see?? Once you take out before and after, time becomes meaningless. It just doesn't exist.

What? This is still ridiculous, how could your movement cause time when you couldn't without time? Time has to begin existing in order for you to move, time's existence must necessarily precede your movement.

LOL, dude, for the fifth time. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state), there is no before or after i began sitting. If you take away these temporal terms, you are left with timelessness. If I begin to move my leg, that is the first change. There were no moments leading up to me moving my leg, but there is moments after. So after I move my leg, time begins.....1,2,3,4,5,6,etc (these are seconds). The #1 represents the first distinguishable point on the time scale. This present moment relative to the expansion of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

Indeed and for you, there is no getting past the fact that nobody knows.

Nobody knows scientifically. Theistics know theologically.

The universal laws are not dependent on scientific reasoning. They don't break down because scientific reasoning breaks down, scientific reasoning breaks down because the universal laws break down.

Ok, fine......that still doesn't change the facts lol

Or it has always existed in some form or other.

This wont work because this will only lead to infinite regress, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. So postulating preexisting matter or universes doesn't help the problem, but only lead to more absurdity.


But I just want to shed some light on this time business, and maybe this will help you out. Because time is a difficult concept to grasp. Here is a analogy that someone gave me to help me get it...

Imagine a man standing above a bottomless hole (of course if it is bottomless, if you fall in it, you will fall forever)....he is standing above a bottomless hole. And around him is an infinite amount of sand. Lets imagine that the man has been shoveling sand in to the hole......for an infinite amount of time.

Now, no matter how long or how fast the man shovels the sand in to the hole, the sand will never reach the top, right?? So, if the sand will never reach the top, the sand will never reach the man, as he is currently shoveling the sand. Do you see what is happening here? If time was infinite, how could it ever reach the present moment if it have to past an infinite amount of past moments to get there. Infinity can never be reached, in fact, no moment could ever be reached. If it is impossible for the sand to get to the bottom of a bottomless hole, that same improbability is to be consider for anything coming "up" the hole? Do you understand? This is how we can be certain that an infinite past is impossible. Time must have had a beginning. This is why pre-big bang models dont work, because they all suggest infinite time. This is why we need a timeless cause for the universe, not a temporal one.

 

[Kathryn]

 

[jamesmorrow]

Thats because I took away all of the fluff and feathers, and once you do that, you are left with absurdities, which is why neither you nor science is able to figure out how and why this could have happened naturally. Take away the fluff and feathers and get to the meat and potatos of the matter lol.



I dont think it is adequate. If the zygote was out there independently forming intelligent beings, then I will grant your explanation 100%. But since it doesnt, and its origins are based on intelligent beings, I dont see how you can logically use this as an example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence. You completely skipped the part about the intelligent parents that jump started the process in the first place. Maybe the zygote has an "intelligence" gene that evovled as the child grew, I dont know. But no matter what answer is given, if you trace mans origins back to inantimate matter, with no intelligence, how do you get intelligence from that. You cant answer it, no one can.



As long as God was content in his being, it really doesn't matter.



How come he couldnt?



Unaware of time?



Why is it timeless? Because, as I said, if there are no moments that lead to me sitting, then there cant be any moments to proceed me sitting. There is no before or after. So there is no time. Nothing "lead to" me sitting. If nothing lead to me sitting, nothing could happen "after" I sat. You see?? Once you take out before and after, time becomes meaningless. It just doesn't exist.



LOL, dude, for the fifth time. If I have been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity (in a timeless state), there is no before or after i began sitting. If you take away these temporal terms, you are left with timelessness. If I begin to move my leg, that is the first change. There were no moments leading up to me moving my leg, but there is moments after. So after I move my leg, time begins.....1,2,3,4,5,6,etc (these are seconds). The #1 represents the first distinguishable point on the time scale. This present moment relative to the expansion of the universe is 13.7 billion years.



Nobody knows scientifically. Theistics know theologically.



Ok, fine......that still doesn't change the facts lol



This wont work because this will only lead to infinite regress, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. So postulating preexisting matter or universes doesn't help the problem, but only lead to more absurdity.


But I just want to shed some light on this time business, and maybe this will help you out. Because time is a difficult concept to grasp. Here is a analogy that someone gave me to help me get it...

Imagine a man standing above a bottomless hole (of course if it is bottomless, if you fall in it, you will fall forever)....he is standing above a bottomless hole. And around him is an infinite amount of sand. Lets imagine that the man has been shoveling sand in to the hole......for an infinite amount of time.

Now, no matter how long or how fast the man shovels the sand in to the hole, the sand will never reach the top, right?? So, if the sand will never reach the top, the sand will never reach the man, as he is currently shoveling the sand. Do you see what is happening here? If time was infinite, how could it ever reach the present moment if it have to past an infinite amount of past moments to get there. Infinity can never be reached, in fact, no moment could ever be reached. If it is impossible for the sand to get to the bottom of a bottomless hole, that same improbability is to be consider for anything coming "up" the hole? Do you understand? This is how we can be certain that an infinite past is impossible. Time must have had a beginning. This is why pre-big bang models dont work, because they all suggest infinite time. This is why we need a timeless cause for the universe, not a temporal one.

coward. you get into a discussion and when **** gets tough you abandon ship... this is the third time now you ignored my response in this thread.

 

[jamesmorrow]

first off, that is not what occams razor means. Occams razor states that we should accept the simpler explanations before we accept the more "difficult" explanations. That is occams razor, so i dont know what you are talking about here.



.

my response

you are violating occams razor by choosing the most difficult/complex supernatural explanation for our natural universe.....since you describe your god to be the most powerful, most complex thing imaginable, every other possible supernatural cause must be simpler/less complex.......by placing your god at the top of the complexity scale, you have also made him the least likely option in accordance with the law of parsimony......do you understand now?

 

[idea]

Except for God. God demanding a human sacrifice is love ... how, again?
I thought God was supposed to be love...

Justice demanded the sacrifice, God is bound to uphold Justice.

Here's a short story from Cleon S. that helped me understand how it works:
“There was a boy fighting in the Union Forces. 19 years old. Went to sleep on guard duty. And the opposition broke through and wiped out a whole flank of the army. Several hundred were killed, including some of the best friends of this young man. But he survived. Court-martialed. Sentenced to die. He expected to die. He thought it was only just that he die. And president Lincoln was ready to sign his death warrant for his execution and a little mother appears on the scene.
She says, “President Lincoln, when this war started, I had a husband and six sons. First I lost my husband, and one by one I lost five of my sons. Now I only have one son left and he’s sentenced to be executed with a firing squad because he went to sleep. He feels awfully badly, he lost some of his best friends and he expects to die. President Lincoln, I’m not asking for the sparing of this boy’s life for his sake, but for his mother’s sake. He’s all I have left. For my sake could you spare him?” President Lincoln said, “For your sake, little mother, I will spare him.” And as far as I know President Lincoln was never criticized for that decision.”


[FONT=&quot]So the point is, the reason the 19yo was pardoned, and why everyone was OK with that, was because the little mother had given a sacrifice. It wasn’t about the 19yo anymore, it was about the little mother – about her husband and sons who had all given their life. If there had been no sacrifice, pardoning the 19 would not have been fair, it would not have been just. It isn’t just that one person’s children should die, while another’s live. God has to uphold justice – He has to maintain law and order. If law/justice is not upheld, the whole thing crumbles and falls into anarchy. God upholds justice, and He sent His Son to uphold mercy. We forgive one another because of Jesus’ sacrifice. Even if they don’t deserve it, to say “I don’t forgive you” is to say “the atonement wasn’t good enough.” Like in the Civil war story - It’s not about the 19yo anymore, it’s about the little mother and her sacrifice – and no one is going to question her sacrifice, or the 19yo’s pardon as being unjust. [/FONT]

 

[sojourner]

Justice demanded the sacrifice,

And how is it that justice overrides both love and God?

God is bound to uphold Justice.

Which ultimately gives us power over God.
Justice is based upon fear: Fear of unfairness, and fear of loss of power.
But the bible tells us that perfect love casts out fear.

 

[idea]

And how is it that justice overrides both love and God?

this is asking the age old question of -

is it:
a) good because G-d said it is good.
or
b) Does G-d do it because it is good.

I'm in the b camp - I think truth stands on it's own, that G-d is bound by laws outside of Himself.

Which ultimately gives us power over God.

no, it gives truth power over God over us, and over everything.

Justice is based upon fear: Fear of unfairness, and fear of loss of power.
But the bible tells us that perfect love casts out fear.

Justice is not based on fear, it is based on what is right, and what is wrong - what brings love/peace/happiness, and what brings hate/war/pain...

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. Alma 42:25

God would cease to be God if He were unjust...

 

[sojourner]

G-d is bound by laws outside of Himself.

There is nothing outside of God.

no, it gives truth power over God over us, and over everything.

How can something that is not God have power over God?

Justice is not based on fear, it is based on what is right, and what is wrong

Of course it's based on fear: Fear that someone might get away with something.
"Right" and "wrong" are relative terms. Are you saying that God is relative?

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. Alma 42:25

Means nothing to me -- is not authoritative.

God would cease to be God if He were unjust

God would cease to be God if God did not love.

 

[idea]

God would cease to be God if God did not love.

Love would cease to exist without justice.... no sacrifice, no trust, no loyalty, no righteousness, no good, no bad - everything would be compound into one, to say we don't need justice, is to say we don't need to define anything as being right/wrong/good/bad/peace/war/dishonesty/honesty/love/hate - without justice it would all be the same...

(Guide to the Scriptures | J Justice.:Entry)
JUSTICE. See also Atone, Atonement; Mercy, Merciful
The unfailing consequence of blessings for righteous thoughts and acts, and punishment for unrepented sin.

Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics


or just shorten it to:
Justice is a concept of moral rightness...





11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 2 Nephi 2:11 - 13

I know you don't see the above as scripture, but if you find 2+2=4 in a book other than the Bible, logic is logic, truth is truth, no matter who wrote it...

 

[sojourner]

Love would cease to exist without justice.... no sacrifice, no trust, no loyalty, no righteousness, no good, no bad - everything would be compound into one, to say we don't need justice, is to say we don't need to define anything as being right/wrong/good/bad/peace/war/dishonesty/honesty/love/hate - without justice it would all be the same...

The reality here is that all is God. Nothing stands outside God. We don't need to define anything other than as part of God. The dualities you mention are all temporal. Love is not. Ultimately, love is relationship, which is eternal, as God is eternal. When perfect love is present, there is no need for justice.

Look at it this way: Everything in the universe is part of God. Therefore, if some "stuff" does not ultimately unify, but remains separate, God is dead, for God is wholeness. Justice identifies some "stuff" as "bad," and differentiates it from all the other "stuff." That "stuff" is relegated to some cosmic trash heap that stands outside of God, somehow. It just doesn't make sense. Love reconciles all the "stuff" to God. Justice keeps it separate.

 

[Thief]

The reality here is that all is God. Nothing stands outside God. We don't need to define anything other than as part of God. The dualities you mention are all temporal. Love is not. Ultimately, love is relationship, which is eternal, as God is eternal. When perfect love is present, there is no need for justice.

Look at it this way: Everything in the universe is part of God. Therefore, if some "stuff" does not ultimately unify, but remains separate, God is dead, for God is wholeness. Justice identifies some "stuff" as "bad," and differentiates it from all the other "stuff." That "stuff" is relegated to some cosmic trash heap that stands outside of God, somehow. It just doesn't make sense. Love reconciles all the "stuff" to God. Justice keeps it separate.

So make up your mind.
There is separation or not.

God is separate of His creation.
It's all good.

The bad comes from 'separate' thinking and motivation.

Will the 'bad' be reconciled?.....yeah....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Love conquers Justice, not the other way around.

Those who stress Justice, want to be able to punish.

Love does not punish, ever.

A God of Love, would release the need for Justice, for his heart would hold no record of wrongs.

If you want it both ways, you're wrong about it.

 

[FearGod]

a nice story about the death of god

Watch
[youtube]sC_lTB8exB8[/youtube]
Did God Die...Funny Ahmed Deedat... - YouTube

 

[sojourner]

So make up your mind.
There is separation or not.

God is separate of His creation.
It's all good.

The bad comes from 'separate' thinking and motivation.

Will the 'bad' be reconciled?.....yeah....

Separation is illusory.
God is not "separate of [God's] creation.