God Always Existed/Universe Always Existed

[Mathematician]

Hi, I haven't posted here in quite sometime. Hope you can bare with me.

I have a question. This goes out to anyone who has a religious affilation. I'm going to make an assumption for a minute and say that you claim God(Allah/Jehova/Etc) has always existed. Whenever I question people like that as to how "God could always exist" I'm given a "because".

Yet you can easily replace GOD with the universe(s), could you not? Our primitive minds might not be able to comprehend there being no beginning, but it's possible [it's actually what I beleive] that the universe has always existed. That it's just one big cycle and we're just caught in the bigger picture.

After all if you beleive in infinite space, then you can beleive in infinite time.

So my question is how can you throw down my beleifs? I beleive the universe has always existed and that it will always exist.

[Incase of a rebutal] I don't beleive in a God because it seems too primitive of an answer, and there is enough evidence to prove me otherwise. However most opposing claims I hear have little backing. I'm the sort of person who enjoys proof. It's just who I am [you can even go as far as claiming that's how "God" made me, although I don't beleive so].


Hope to get some replies. Thanks.

 

[Scott1]

Hi, I haven't posted here in quite sometime. Hope you can bare with me.

Good to have you back posting!

So my question is how can you throw down my beleifs? I beleive the universe has always existed and that it will always exist.

I don't "throw down" your beliefs and I pray that it brings you peace and love in your life.

Keep on loving life,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Gene.

I guess I'm up for a challenge. May I begin by asking you a question? Do you believe in evolution? That's a pretty broad topic, I realize, but I am primarily interested in knowing if you believe that life started out as a single-celled organism and gradually evolved with human life being the highest form of life on earth today? We as humans are pretty far removed from single-celled organisms, don't you think. If you believe this is the case, please explain how you believe it to be possible. When I've read your reply, I'll add my thoughts.

Kathryn

 

[Mathematician]

We as humans are pretty far removed from single-celled organisms, don't you think. If you believe this is the case, please explain how you believe it to be possible. When I've read your reply, I'll add my thoughts.

First off thanks for taking the time to reply to my thread.


I guess I can answer simply. Yes, I beleive in both [macro/micro]evolution. I feel that our brains are very powerful organs and have the ability to "tell" our body that we are in need of change... just like how they tell the body to "raise the fever" if we get a bug... but evolution is a much slower process. It involves thousands of years.

Yes, it is hard to think of a single cell turning into.. well.. ourselves.. but you've got to think about how much time we're talking here. Millions[possibly a billion] years.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Hi GeneCosta,

Glad to have you posting again. I am willing to give you some ideas that may challenge your current thoughts, but I do not intend to "throw down" your beliefs. It is generally not possible to disprove ideas that have to do with metaphysics.

The distinction I would make between God and the Universe is that God is unstructured, whereas the Universe is structured. I will try to explain.

When you look at a rock on the ground, it may appear to be unstructured, but if you look closer, it is composed of molecules that exist in very specific formations, and these molecules are actually moving and interacting according to very specific rules (i.e. the laws of physics). It is natural for us to ask where did this structure come from, and what caused it? For example, why are there only 3 dimensions of space and not 5? Why does e=mc2? When something has structure it is definately one way, and not another. Something must have made it that way.

The belief in God as a creator has a philosophical grounding in these questions. It seems there must be a reason why our laws of physics exist the way we do, but science cannot tell us this. Science answers the "what" or "how", but not the "why". That is what religion brings to the table.

Many objections to this (and one that you finely pointed out), is that if the Universe must have a creator, then why wouldn't God have a creator too. And the answer to this is that God is not a structured entity. You cannot decompose God into formulas and equations, and he cannot be printed out on to schematic drawings. He is infinite in the sense that he cannot be measured or quantified. We can say a rock weighs 45 pounds, but we cannot say God is some amount of anything. God is not structured, and therefore, does not need a designer.. he simply Is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, it is hard to think of a single cell turning into.. well.. ourselves..

What's so hard to believe about it? Every one of us started out as a single-cell inside our mother's wombs.

 

[Mathematician]

The belief in God as a creator has a philosophical grounding in these questions. It seems there must be a reason why our laws of physics exist the way we do, but science cannot tell us this. Science answers the "what" or "how", but not the "why". That is what religion brings to the table.

Hmm, I don't know how to make this sound intelligent.. but I'll attempt:
Why must there be a why?

Isn't it possible for things to just be "set in stone"? Why do we have to take a complex world and slap something so.. simple [although not simple] on it.

After all you can't just wrap everything up by saying "because of God", because then you could keep asking more questions. Why does God exist? Why does He have supreme controll? Why is he the final equation? Why isn't there someone who is his superior? Why did He make 1 + 1 = 2?

What's so hard to believe about it? Every one of us started out as a single-cell inside our mother's wombs.

Heh, that is true.. I've been lucky enough to witness the birth of my brother and sister. Life is really magnificent.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hmm, I don't know how to make this sound intelligent.. but I'll attempt:
Why must there be a why?

EXACTLY!! :woohoo: :jam: It sounds very intelligent, I assure you GeneCosta.

 

[linwood]

I don`t know who you are GeneCosta but I like you already.

Great thoughts!

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

Could there be somewhere in the always existing universe so remote that we could not communicae with THAT part of the eternity? Would that part be assured to contain Life. Just because you love Life is an inadequate explanation. I understood in Hegel's philosophy of Nature that Life is the generalization for self-fulfilled Subjectivity. Hmmm... in your view could life connect from oneself to all these possibilities for what occured through the Time passage?

Lastly, is the entropy or chaos increasing in the remote areas more than in our area? So time may be going downhill over-all or up-hill. But the paradoxical thing is "is my subjectivity moving forward in time as the rest is moving backward?" See where I'm going. Loving life (I guess, according to Kant), could be some kind of ignorance with respect to the fact in case of one's own aging.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nice thoughts.

Of course, from the Christian POV:

1) God being Divine is the Creator, and everything else is Creation: the cosmos, the universe, nature
2) Physical laws apply only to nature, and they are observable
3) Physical laws do not apply to the Divine, because the Divine exists independently of Nature

Conclusions:
Because of the second law of thermodynamics (this is a favorite example of mine because the law is so simple), everything in nature must have an end. Logically, everything in nature must have a beginning as well. However, these two basic concepts do not apply to a Creator, assuming that there is one. That is why we cannot replace "God" with "the universe." Physical laws apply to the pysical, not the metaphysical, and if the Creator God exists, then He exists metaphysically (eg, beyond physics). Because God exists metaphysically, we cannot see Him, and we cannot use scientific tests or philosophical models to define Him and determine for ourselves how we are going to relate to Him. Because God exists as Creator, and by His divine power he gave shape to the universe, God is the only person powerful enough to have no beginning and no end.

 

[linwood]

You are misusing the second law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law merely states that entropy will reach equilibrium within a closed system.

It presupposes nothing about the state of the universe.

 

[Mathematician]

angellous_evangellous

Of course, from the Christian POV:

1) God being Divine is the Creator, and everything else is Creation: the cosmos, the universe, nature
2) Physical laws apply only to nature, and they are observable
3) Physical laws do not apply to the Divine, because the Divine exists independently of Nature

Hi. Yes, I know this. I was born a Christian and for the first 14 [1 +/-] years of my life I considered myself a follower of Christ. I, being a lover of science, used it to start questioning the faith I was told "was right". And it kept on coming back to that same statement. "God is not part of this world. He does not follow our laws".


But I ask; where does anything reveal this "seperation"? Are there any scientific theories over a seperation of "nature" and the "Divine"? I'm not talking about universes, but instead some"where" that no science can be applied. Last I checked there are none, and until "God" feeds me this missing information I will have a hard time beleiving in Him[Her/It], because "God" should know that's who I AM. I need that sort of stuff. I can't use faith. I have a hard time trusting my friends.. let a lone ancient tales.

 

[Christopher Krajewski]

But the inspiring thing about life (mostly as a result of the obsessed prude Kant) is two-fold that the subjectivity is quite aesthetically a means for availability to judgment of major living autonomy, and is per opinion making a "feeling". On the other hand there exists the Objective question that all modality is in Time; this means that the real, the possible, and the necessary are out there at once that IT is understood here. I'd like to bother a lot about how some God makes the decision of determining necessity going towards order for Me, or towards chaos.

Hmmm... the state of the universe is definitely to be revealed. However, the closed system idea is so plugged with antinimous dialectic that we cannot but study scientifically uncertain of His existence. So to me the very life of me makes the judgment in a leap of Faith to God's existence; I couldn't be as prudent as Kant (I-here, thing-in-Object-there).

 

[Mathematician]

Hmmm... the state of the universe is definitely to be revealed. However, the closed system idea is so plugged with antinimous dialectic that we cannot but study scientifically uncertain of His existence. So to me the very life of me makes the judgment in a leap of Faith to God's existence; I couldn't be as prudent as Kant (I-here, thing-in-Object-there).

I'll go where science takes me. I'll die an atheist if science doesn't give me enough evidence to beleive. I've heard all of the miracle stories and I've listened to the reasons as to why I should have a religious affilation. It seems the only thing that can feed my fire is science.

For you see while there might be the possibility of an "open.. 'world'" I'm currenlty not inclined to it.

If science proves to start favoring a "God" figure, I'm up to change.. After years of challenging myself, of course.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are misusing the second law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law merely states that entropy will reach equilibrium within a closed system.

It presupposes nothing about the state of the universe.

Yes, I have some presuppositions about the universe that would make it true, and I am aware that there are some aspects of astrophysics that could provide exceptions to my application here. It is not without exception - if the universe is explaning and has limits, then the big bang could happen indefinately. There are too many theories about laws that affect the universe that I do not want to weigh to come to another conclusion. As far as I have read about what we know about the universe, I would say that the second law does apply, and I have confirmed it with some engineer friends of mine.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, it is hard to think of a single cell turning into.. well.. ourselves.. but you've got to think about how much time we're talking here. Millions[possibly a billion] years.

Okay, well here's just some food for thought: You talked about how many millions (possibly a billion) years all of this took. Picture one of your descendents a billion years into the future. He has advanced to the same degree as that single-celled organism advanced to get to where you are today. This descendent is immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful, can manipulate energy by his will, etc. etc. What would you call such a being? God maybe?

Now just so that everybody else doesn't jump all over me and say that God didn't evolve into what He is -- I'm not saying He did, and I don't believe He did. All I'm suggesting by this analogy is that atheism that believes in the concept of evolution, when followed to its logical conclusion ends up with the existence of "God." Therefore, I see atheism as being self-defeating.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth. :jiggy:

Kathryn

 

[linwood]

I'm suggesting by this analogy is that atheism that believes in the concept of evolution, when followed to its logical conclusion ends up with the existence of "God."

It`s not the logical conclusion at all.
Life doesn`t evolve for the sake of evolving.
It evolves in order to adapt to changes in it`s environment.
If there are no changes or slowly building hazards then there will be no more evolution.

I would say that the second law does apply, and I have confirmed it with some engineer friends of mine.

Have fun with that.

 

[Mathematician]

This descendent is immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful, can manipulate energy by his will, etc. etc. What would you call such a being? God maybe?

Now just so that everybody else doesn't jump all over me and say that God didn't evolve into what He is -- I'm not saying He did, and I don't believe He did. All I'm suggesting by this analogy is that atheism that believes in the concept of evolution, when followed to its logical conclusion ends up with the existence of "God." Therefore, I see atheism as being self-defeating.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth. :jiggy:

Kathryn

Heh. I've heard this one before aswell.

This is based off several assumptions:

1.) That Earth will still be around for millions of more years. I'm not really one for screaming "The world is doomed!", but I don't think our planet has that big of a life line left over. There must be atleast a million ways we could perish in *snaps fingers* just like that.
2.) That we still are in NEED of evolution. Again, evolution only serves the organism. If we don't direly(Sp?) need to change then evolution won't kick in. Your body won't require change.
3.) That evolution can bring forth such unrealistic changes. Remember that evolution doesn't make everything 100% better. It provides us with what we need.

Among other things.

EXTRA: Mind you I don't think we all originated from ONE CELL. There could have been millions[billions/trillions] of "organisms" that inhabited the Earth.

 

[Katzpur]

Gene,

Well, I wasn't exactly expecting to convince you of anything. But just a couple of quick comments before I move on to other topics:

This is based off several assumptions:

1.) That Earth will still be around for millions of more years. I'm not really one for screaming "The world is doomed!", but I don't think our planet has that big of a life line left over. There must be atleast a million ways we could perish in *snaps fingers* just like that.

I wasn't assuming anything actually. Of course the earth would have to be around for millions of more years in order for man to evolve to the state I suggested. The only point I was making was that if evolution were to continue as it has for the last few million years, just think of where man might be.

2.) That we still are in NEED of evolution. Again, evolution only serves the organism. If we don't direly(Sp?) need to change then evolution won't kick in. Your body won't require change.

Again, I wasn't talking about NEED. But even if I had been, would you say man has evolved as far as would be useful for him? I don't think so!

3.) That evolution can bring forth such unrealistic changes. Remember that evolution doesn't make everything 100% better. It provides us with what we need.

Over a few million years, who's to say what's unrealistic and what's not?

At any rate, I really don't care if you don't want to believe in God. It doesn't make you any less of a person in my opinion. As a matter of fact, I've participated in a number of religion forums such as this one and have generally found the atheists to be a pretty decent bunch. We just disagree on this one topic, that's all.

Peace,
Kathryn