God Always Existed/Universe Always Existed

[Nick Soapdish]

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.

It seems you have a notion that you are trading science for religion, as if they are incompatible. I am curious why you would believe they are incompatible. I certainly have a great passion for science.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Why must there be a why?

Obviously there does not need to be a "why". It seems strange to impose limits on what truths you allow yourself to find by suggesting that certain questions should not be asked.

Isn't it possible for things to just be "set in stone"?

Is it possible? I suppose. However, I find it irrational that something with structure just popped into existence for no reason at all. When something has structure it is definitely one way and not another. To believe there is no reason for this is uninspiring to me.

In addition, it seems to me that whatever is fundamental in our existence must be creative in essence, and not an unthinking machine (as our physical Universe appears to be).

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?

If God is eternal and infinite, how could He have a creator or a superior?

In any case, I agree with you that believing in God does not "wrap everything up". I believe that theology can only give us a glimpse of God and that we are simply unable to fully comprehend Him. It is a lifelong journey of learning and gaining understanding.

 

[Mathematician]

It seems you have a notion that you are trading science for religion, as if they are incompatible. I am curious why you would believe they are incompatible. I certainly have a great passion for science.

Because a "God" would be capable of breaking the laws of science, and I don't see how that is possible. A law [unless with a variable of some sort] is never suppose to be broken. That's what makes it a scientific law.

Of course this could lead to God > Physics/Science/Our Universe, but there's no evidence to support that. Only the Bible/Quran[Koran]/Etc. point to such an idea, and neither of those have any scientific backing.

Is it possible? I suppose. However, I find it irrational that something with structure just popped into existence for no reason at all. When something has structure it is definitely one way and not another. To believe there is no reason for this is uninspiring to me.

In addition, it seems to me that whatever is fundamental in our existence must be creative in essence, and not an unthinking machine (as our physical Universe appears to be).

I don't beleive it just "popped" up. I just beleive that everything has already been here [of course not in its current form, but you know what I mean]. If time is infinite and if the universe has always existed than there is no "beginning". Going back to the original arguement/debate.. it's just like how people claim "God" has always existed. The concepts are relatively similar.

But nice points. :-]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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


Have fun with that.

If I am misusing my understanding of the second law, I would like to be corrected.

My presuppositions are:
1) No permanent vaccums exist in the natural world.
2) Equalibrium will never occur in the natural world - the closed system will always be interrputed by entropy of the "closed system"
3) The universe exists naturally

Conclusions
Entrophy will continue from organization to chaos until there are no connected parts, and the disconnected parts will eventually dissolve into nothingness. With respect to humanity, this will take a freaking long time and can be termed "infinate" but will eventually come to and end.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous_evangellous

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.

The seperation is a theological or philosophical one, which is why I said that I am speaking from a Christian POV. From the Christian POV, God is the metaphysical Creator.

We understand God as metaphysical for the following reasons:
1) We confess that God is Spirit, the self-existing Creator (God is not wood - no idols because God is not a natural image)
2) Spirit is not physical
3) Science only tests the physical (I will include in the term "physical" everything that exists naturally or in its means comes from natural things like X-Rays in space, light, and other types of waves)

Conclusions:
God cannot be found in science, because science tests nature. Since we cannot reach God like we can reach anything else in nature, God has to tell us Who he is and how we are to relate to Him. For everything else, humanity can discover things in nature and determine for ourselves how it is best for us to relate to it. However, since we did not and can not discover God, God must reveal Himself.

Whether or not you want to put your trust in the Christian God is another matter entirely. It is a question that warrants our attention.

If not, let's just drink beer and play video games.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Obviously there does not need to be a "why". It seems strange to impose limits on what truths you allow yourself to find by suggesting that certain questions should not be asked.

I don't think GeneCosta means to suggest that the question not be asked, atofel. I think he's saying that the question assumes something that might not be true: namely, teleology. If things just 'are' and there is no purpose inherent in them, the question 'why' is meaningless, just as the question "what kind of ice cream are you eating?" is meaningless if a person is not eating ice cream.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Because a "God" would be capable of breaking the laws of science, and I don't see how that is possible. A law [unless with a variable of some sort] is never suppose to be broken. That's what makes it a scientific law.

Of course this could lead to God > Physics/Science/Our Universe, but there's no evidence to support that. Only the Bible/Quran[Koran]/Etc. point to such an idea, and neither of those have any scientific backing.

How can science show that science is not the absolute authority? Are we to discover laws of nature that exceed the laws of nature? Afterall, if we have verifiable evidence that one of our laws does not work under a given circumstance, we assume that our scientific model must be altered so that it is sufficient to include the new observations.

It is not possible to use natural methods (science and verification) to discover the supernatural. Using the scientific method to test for God will never render any decisive result.

This does not imply that the supernatural does not exist; it only implies that the scientific method is only sufficient for understanding nature.

I don't beleive it just "popped" up. I just beleive that everything has already been here [of course not in its current form, but you know what I mean]. If time is infinite and if the universe has always existed than there is no "beginning". Going back to the original arguement/debate.. it's just like how people claim "God" has always existed. The concepts are relatively similar.

The problem of infinite time is that it introduces a bit of a paradox. If there are an infinite number of points of time before this point in time, how did we ever reach this point in time? We know that time passes at a finite rate, so no matter how much time passed, we would never get to where we are now.

Also, the infinite time idea may address the need for a "first cause", however, it does not address why the laws of physics operate the way that they do.

We live in a giant machine with mind boggling vastness and beauty. It is a playground of discovery as we are capable of comprehending the machinery of gravity and electrodynamics and the splendid array of activities that arise out of these mechanisms. The suggestion that this machine has been around forever and that it has no origin or reason for being seems to be a deficient explanation. It is simply incomplete.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't think GeneCosta means to suggest that the question not be asked, atofel. I think he's saying that the question assumes something that might not be true: namely, teleology. If things just 'are' and there is no purpose inherent in them, the question 'why' is meaningless, just as the question "what kind of ice cream are you eating?" is meaningless if a person is not eating ice cream.

I agree. It seems that the crux of our conversation is whether or not asking the question "why" is a rational one to ask.

 

[linwood]

Atofel said..
It is not possible to use natural methods (science and verification) to discover the supernatural. Using the scientific method to test for God will never render any decisive result.

This does not imply that the supernatural does not exist; it only implies that the scientific method is only sufficient for understanding nature.

It implies non-existence of the supernatural very heavily.
There is no constant standard by which to measure the supernatural if the supernatural even exists.
Just as the is no constant standard to measure the attitude of any particular Leprechaun if Leprechauns even exist.

Accepting non-existence of the supernatural is as simple as accepting the non-existence of leprechauns

The problem of infinite time is that it introduces a bit of a paradox. If there are an infinite number of points of time before this point in time, how did we ever reach this point in time? We know that time passes at a finite rate, so no matter how much time passed, we would never get to where we are now.

This is only a problem if you think of time as an actual "thing" instead of the "concept" that it is.

Also, the infinite time idea may address the need for a "first cause", however, it does not address why the laws of physics operate the way that they do.

I don`t believe the concept of finite time or space addresses it any better

We live in a giant machine with mind boggling vastness and beauty. It is a playground of discovery as we are capable of comprehending the machinery of gravity and electrodynamics and the splendid array of activities that arise out of these mechanisms. The suggestion that this machine has been around forever and that it has no origin or reason for being seems to be a deficient explanation. It is simply incomplete.

It is every bit as "complete" as the concept of a first cause.
It in fact makes more sense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It implies non-existence of the supernatural very heavily.
There is no constant standard by which to measure the supernatural if the supernatural even exists.

Just because there is not a standard means of measurement for the supernatural does not mean the supernatural can't possibly exist. It means that if it does exist, then we are lacking in ability to measure it and quantify it.

Just as the is no constant standard to measure the attitude of any particular Leprechaun if Leprechauns even exist.

Accepting non-existence of the supernatural is as simple as accepting the non-existence of leprechauns

Except I would presume that leprechauns have physical bodies that can be measured and verified.

The point is that science is restricted to the natural arena because it only measures natural phenomenon. By definition, the supernatural does not apply, and if it did, we would have to qualify it as natural instead of supernatural. You are not comparing oranges to oranges.

This is only a problem if you think of time as an actual "thing" instead of the "concept" that it is.

Please explain what you mean here. I recognize our models and perceptions of time are not the same thing as time itself, however, we ought to believe that time as an ontological basis and that the tensed flow of time has some ontological basis as well.

 

[linwood]

Just because there is not a standard means of measurement for the supernatural does not mean the supernatural can't possibly exist. It means that if it does exist, then we are lacking in ability to measure it and quantify it.

Agreed, but if something cannot be measured or quantified or at the very least observed it has no meaning in a rational sense.

Except I would presume that leprechauns have physical bodies that can be measured and verified.

What would lead you to presume such a thing?


The point is that science is restricted to the natural arena because it only measures natural phenomenon. By definition, the supernatural does not apply, and if it did, we would have to qualify it as natural instead of supernatural. You are not comparing oranges to oranges.

You`re right I`m not, I`m comparing apples to spilnaiks.
Do you know what a spilnaiks is?
Niether do I, no ones ever seen one because it doesn`t exist in nature.
My point is that if it is not natural it is not...at all.
If something brand new and perplexing comes along we will study it until we categorize it and quantify it and we will realise it is and always has been "natural".
Supernatural is really a nonsense word that has no meaning in anything other than myth and fairy tales.
If it exists it is natural to some extent.

Please explain what you mean here. I recognize our models and perceptions of time are not the same thing as time itself, however, we ought to believe that time as an ontological basis and that the tensed flow of time has some ontological basis as well.

I mean time is a concept, nothing more.
If the universe has always existed then time itself has always existed.
I don`t know why anyone would argue it from an ontological perspective as if it was physical. in some form.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You`re right I`m not, I`m comparing apples to spilnaiks.
Do you know what a spilnaiks is?
Niether do I, no ones ever seen one because it doesn`t exist in nature.

I know who spinkles is, but I don't know a spilnaiks ...

My point is that if it is not natural it is not...at all.
If something brand new and perplexing comes along we will study it until we categorize it and quantify it and we will realise it is and always has been "natural".

What if it is not verifiable and you have no way of reproducing it?

If it exists it is natural to some extent.

Is this just your opinion, or do you have a reason why I should believe this too?

I mean time is a concept, nothing more.
If the universe has always existed then time itself has always existed.
I don`t know why anyone would argue it from an ontological perspective as if it was physical. in some form.

You are confusing me. In one sentence you say time is a concept and nothing more, and then you refer to "time itself" as if it has an ontological being outside of our concept of it.

This question might help me understand what you are saying. My great, great grandparents lived before me and my great, great grand children (God willing) will live after me. Why is it that I cannot have a relationship with them as I can my parents and my children?

Also ontology does not imply physicality.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Supernatural is really a nonsense word that has no meaning in anything other than myth and fairy tales.
If it exists it is natural to some extent.

Is this just your opinion, or do you have a reason why I should believe this too?

By definition, if it exists in nature, ie happened in nature, it is natural.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

By definition, if it exists in nature, ie happened in nature, it is natural.

I do not think that is what he is saying. He is saying that only natural things exist (things which are dictated by natural laws).

Btw Linwood, how do you reconcile this with your notion of freewill? Are all aspects of your will dictated by external factors (i.e. the laws of physics)?

 

[scitsofreaky]

He is saying that only natural things exist

Which is just rewording what I said. Here's another way: everything that exists is natural.

 

[TheHeretic]

There are those of us that believe if something is not tangible, we should not be inclined to believe in its existance.

Blind Faith is a personal choice. Not all of us are capable of it.

 

[linwood]

What if it is not verifiable and you have no way of reproducing it?

I`ve never encountered such a thing.
I suppose if I did then the "thing" could only have meaning to me considering I couldn`t show it or its effects to others

Is this just your opinion, or do you have a reason why I should believe this too?

I believe it`s fairly empirical.
If "it" exists" it is derived from nature.

You are confusing me. In one sentence you say time is a concept and nothing more, and then you refer to "time itself" as if it has an ontological being outside of our concept of it.

My apologies, I mean time is a concept.
It has no physical properties.

Also ontology does not imply physicality.

I know, I thought you were using it as a philosophical argument for physicality.

Btw Linwood, how do you reconcile this with your notion of freewill?

Are all aspects of your will dictated by external factors (i.e. the laws of physics)?

I believe all aspects of my "free will" are influenced by external forces.
My confusion with the concept of free will that Spinks raised is exactly how those forces are utilized in my mind and through what process.
Spinks made a very good argument as did you in opposition to him.
Therefore my failure at this time to completely reconcile my "free will" is your fault Andy.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Linwood, scitsofreaky, TheHeretic, GeneCosta...

Suppose we discover a new kind of fruit called Zulpia on a virgin tropical island somewhere. Everyone who has ever tasted Zulpia says it is absolutely delicious, and distinctly different from any food they have ever had before.

A group of scientist would like to distribute to the world knowledge that would allow everyone to know what Zulpia tastes like. They have very advanced technology that allows them to make just about any measurement they would want. They set up a group of people as subjects and have them each eat a Zulpia. They measure every aspect of the experience including the motion of the jaw muscles, the fluid dynamics of the juices in the mouth, the stimulation of each taste bud, the excitation of each neuron in the nervous system and brain and any hormonal and chemical synthesized and/or consumed in the body.

The scientists are disappointed that once they organize and collaborate all of this data, it is not useful to anyone for knowing what a Zulpia tastes like.

The problem is our "natural laws" are limited to quantitative relationships (formulas, equations, etc). This is useful to us because it allows us to comprehend these aspects of nature. The language of mathematics is understandable to us. However, it is quite clear that there exists a reality within us, inside our minds, that cannot be observed or measured from the outside. Hence we have something we know is real, that is not tangible, and does not seem to be described by our natural laws, yet it exists.

What we can measure and observe in the Universe around us only provides us a limit perspective of reality and is certainly not the path to any sort of complete knowledge.

 

[linwood]

Your analogy is outside of the OP Andy.
This new exotic fruit "Zulpia" whether it can be quantified and categorized in the same little peg hole or not doesn`t matter.
The point is that we found Zulpias so therefore we know they exist and understand it`s properties.

We haven`t found God nor have we found the origins of the universe.
I doubt we ever will.
Apples and Oranges.

What we can measure and observe in the Universe around us only provides us a limit perspective of reality and is certainly not the path to any sort of complete knowledge.

I disagree.

First I don`t believe any human or any life whatsoever will ever appraoch anything even close to "complete" knowledge of our universe.
Secondly the only way to attempt to broaden what knowledge we do have is by measuring and observing the universe around us.

There is no other way.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

However, it is quite clear that there exists a reality within us, inside our minds, that cannot be observed or measured from the outside.

The question is, which parts of that 'reality inside our minds' correspond to an outside reality, and which are hallucination and/or delusion?