God Always Existed/Universe Always Existed

[Nick Soapdish]

Your analogy is outside of the OP Andy.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is "OP"?

The point is that we found Zulpias so therefore we know they exist and understand it`s properties.

But that is the point... there is something "real" which science can never find: how Zulpias taste.

If we were external to this Universe but able to observe it and make any physical measurements we wanted, we would never know what the sensation of eating a Zulpia is like. All we could do is make measurements of the physical Universe but not really see below the surface.

However, as creatures in this Universe, we have an advantage in that we exist below the surface and therefore have a window into what is there. Unfortunately, we are also limited to only observing the surface (the physical world) beyond our own being.

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

I think you missed my point. I was not speaking directly about God, but rather countering the notion that empirical science can describe anything that is real.

However, to tie it altogther, if you were able to peal away the entire "surface" of the Universe, you just might find God beneath it.

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.

How about by eating a Zulpia? The scientists weren't quite able to capture that knowledge in a science textbook.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

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

This reminds me of some of the philosophical questions the Matrix brought up with regards to what is real. If we can taste the steak that we are eating in the Matrix, is the steak real?

Although, your question is sort of the inverse of that one.

Anyways, if something is a hallucination and/or delusion, then certainly science ought to be able to discover that fact and unravel every sensation that is part of the illusion, correct? So we should still be able to comprehend the sensation that is part of the illusion based on tools of mathematics, right?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Anyways, if something is a hallucination and/or delusion, then certainly science ought to be able to discover that fact and unravel every sensation that is part of the illusion, correct? So we should still be able to comprehend the sensation that is part of the illusion based on tools of mathematics, right?

To an extent, yes, and with that regard neuroscience has made incredible strides in recent decades. Conversely, if the internal "reality" corresponds to something real outside of the mind, those who make the claim should be able to provide external evidence for the phenomenon. And yet, the evidence for gremlins and unicorns and gods remains severely lacking...

 

[Nick Soapdish]

To an extent, yes, and with that regard neuroscience has made incredible strides in recent decades.

Do you really believe that neuroscience or anthing else that is reducible to mathematics has the potential to teach us what something tastes like?

Conversely, if the internal "reality" corresponds to something real outside of the mind, those who make the claim should be able to provide external evidence for the phenomenon. And yet, the evidence for gremlins and unicorns and gods remains severely lacking...

Except I do not claim physical evidence is required for something to be real. If someone does make that claim, then their worldview ought to be consistent with that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you really believe that neuroscience or anthing else that is reducible to mathematics has the potential to teach us what something tastes like?

No, but I do believe that neuroscience "or anything else that is reducible to mathematics" has the potential to teach us that the experience of taste corresponds to a reality outside our minds (and how accurate that correspondance is). I am not so confident in other 'experiences', however.

Except I do not claim physical evidence is required for something to be real.

Nor do I, though I do think physical evidence should be required for belief. There are, after all, an infinite number of things besides god that could be real but have no physical evidence to back them.

 

[linwood]

OP means "Original Post"

But that is the point... there is something "real" which science can never find: how Zulpias taste.

Ahh but science can categorise "taste" and "texture".
I`m a master chef Andy, I do it all the time.
Just because some may not agree with the exact final subjective categorization doesn`t mean it can`t be useful.

I understand what your saying though, there are things that cannot be justifiably explained but they can be explained.
The orgasm comes to mind.


If we were external to this Universe but able to observe it and make any physical measurements we wanted, we would never know what the sensation of eating a Zulpia is like. All we could do is make measurements of the physical Universe but not really see below the surface.

I don`t think there is anything below the surface.

Unfortunately, we are also limited to only observing the surface (the physical world) beyond our own being.

I would argue that we can`t see anything other than the physical world because there is nothing other than the physical world.
Until I find some evindence otherwise I have no choice in this belief.

How about by eating a Zulpia? The scientists weren't quite able to capture that knowledge in a science textbook.

Perhaps not but each individual who saw it and tasted it indeed knows what it is on a personal level if in no other way.
thats all thats necessary

 

[Mister Emu]

It was my understanding that accepted science believes the universe to have a beginning, is this incorrect?

 

[scitsofreaky]

That is no longer correct. Accepted science, ie quantum physics, is apparently discovering that the unvierse had no begining, per se. The universe as we know it did, but the energy that created our universe has no begining.

 

[roli]

That is no longer correct. Accepted science, ie quantum physics, is apparently discovering that the unvierse had no begining, per se. The universe as we know it did, but the energy that created our universe has no begining.

How is that we and or science deduce the existence of the universal expanse based on new findings, equations,technology, etc.etc and come up with an absolute statement such as ,we are discovering the galaxies and universe is this or that.
With our limited yet continual increase of knowledge we seem to constantly rewrite over our last findings and so on ,and so on, what is the point !!
To take man's findings as literal as we do is a useless excertion of energy,if you want to talk energ
We will never know all the answers to this life, yet it seems to be so compelling when we reach a new finding we must publish it ,expound on it ,disect it, imagine it, debate it,question it all the while the findings we just established have been rewritten.
We will never fully grasp this life and it's universe in this life,even if we had 200 yrs per life.
I don't want to appear as a pessimist but the weightier matters of life seem to be set to the roadside, as we pursue knowledge,wisdom, studying all the things in our universe and their workings all the while neglecting our creator and the pursuit thereof.
Romans 1:25 we worship and serve the creature rather then the creator....

 

[Master Vigil]

The thing is roli, that evertime it is rewritten. It further finds that no creator exists. Why should we expand useless excertion on a creator that doesn't exist, and not use our energy wisely in science and medicine?

 

[roli]

The thing is roli, that evertime it is rewritten. It further finds that no creator exists. Why should we expand useless excertion on a creator that doesn't exist, and not use our energy wisely in science and medicine?

This obviously is an assumption on your part, who is that makes such a conclusion like this.
How did you personally determine that the continual rewritting of our findings from our own inability to comprehend, understand and explain the make up of the universe gives any evidence that a creator does not exist.On the contrary.
Because we can't find all the answers it should cause us to consider greater intelligence.
But why do we stand so strong to avoid believing that the possibility of a creator could exist.
Could it be a threat exists among us, that if we admit in a creator we must therefore submit to it's standards and requirements, so in a form of rebellion to the very notion of a creators existence we deny and refute a creator, kind of helps to justify our behavioral lifestyles ,doing what we want, when we want,how we want.
How convient that moral relativism comes to mind
You would tend to think that the greater the mysteries of the universe and all it contains the greater the source behind that which actually governs and regulates it.
Why is science so widely mentioned and used interchangably when ever the subjects of creation, God's existence, etc are mentioned and become a means to an end of what this life is really about and how it came about.
Such examples I have heard, are,we have science that can explain our existence ,or science is our higher pursuit, science is our evidence that we evolved and even proves their is no creator

Science means knowledge, to know, pursuit of knowledge,it does not give us grounds to pursue science as one would a religion because it is an ongoing,progressive,reception and culmination of thoughts, ideas,experiments, systematical means in which to deduce particular facts and conclude ,but there are some things like our origin,existence and destiny that science will never conclude.

 

[linwood]

Because we can't find all the answers it should cause us to consider greater intelligence.

It`s interesting that you point out assumption in one statement then go on to make an even greater more illogical assumption in yoiur next statement.

But why do we stand so strong to avoid believing that the possibility of a creator could exist.

Who are you refering to when you say "we"?

Could it be a threat exists among us, that if we admit in a creator we must therefore submit to it's standards and requirements, so in a form of rebellion to the very notion of a creators existence we deny and refute a creator, kind of helps to justify our behavioral lifestyles ,doing what we want, when we want,how we want.
How convient that moral relativism comes to mind

You misunderstand what moral relativism or subjective morality is.
It is anything but convenient, in fact it is far more personally inconvenient than objective morality and far more difficult to maintain due to it`s very nature.
Subjective morality is necessary to breed tolerance.
Objective morality is scary as hell.

You would tend to think that the greater the mysteries of the universe and all it contains the greater the source behind that which actually governs and regulates it.
Why is science so widely mentioned and used interchangably when ever the subjects of creation, God's existence, etc are mentioned and become a means to an end of what this life is really about and how it came about.

Because science gives answers, God gives nothing.

Such examples I have heard, are,we have science that can explain our existence ,or science is our higher pursuit, science is our evidence that we evolved and even proves their is no creator

I don`t know who you`ve been talking to but niether science nor anyone who understands science would ever make any claim whatsoever about God or the supernatural.
Science doesn`t deal with it.

Science means knowledge, to know, pursuit of knowledge,it does not give us grounds to pursue science as one would a religion because it is an ongoing,progressive,reception and culmination of thoughts, ideas,experiments, systematical means in which to deduce particular facts and conclude ,but there are some things like our origin,existence and destiny that science will never conclude.

No science will never be able to conclude some of these things but it can give us an idea of the possibilities.
Thats more than God does.

However I too have seen science persued as religion and you are right, it`s not appealing.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That is no longer correct. Accepted science, ie quantum physics, is apparently discovering that the unvierse had no begining, per se. The universe as we know it did, but the energy that created our universe has no begining.

Just out of curiousity, do you have a link for this assertion?

 

[roli]

[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.

God says, Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please Him for those who come to Him must believe he is God and he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. and Matt : Unless we have the faith as a child we will in no way enter heaven.
It is quite ironic how many demand proof of God's existence before they will believe He is who He says He is,when the very essence of our existence and what we operate in and thru on a daily basis is the very thing God requires us to operate in before He comes to us and reveals Himself. That word my friend is faith.
That is why it is not a mathmatical equation to find God.
Faith like a child,that may be a slap in the face to the intellect of reason.
He wants to reveal himself to those who are looking and seeking for Him thru faith only
That very essence of our existence is solely based primarily on FAITH,or belief,trust reliance,dependence,submission,all of these are synonomos with the word FAITH, but secondarily must be accompanied by works ,an action, effort, excertion.
We can not give our time to our boss unless we have faith he will pay us and inturn we can not give the banks our money unless we have faith in the system.
Who, before they jump in the car, tests the brakes and and all mechanical systems before driving away.
How many times do you examine a chair beofre you sit in it.
or an airplane ,you have no alternative but to have faith in the plane ,crew members,mechanics etc.etc.
Next time you drink your water ,how do prove it is not contaminated.
I know what you may be thinking, it's different with God,

In a restaurant do you actually go in the back to test for bacteria and food poisioning in the food,or the chef,all the utensils.
That is how we are designed, to have faith and trust in people which inturn give us things we need daily to live and remain functional
We have no choice but to excercise faith in everything we do,day in and day out,anyone who argues against that is in their own arena,and rightly so.
It is totally ironic that God would use the very thing we operate in daily to reveal Himself
Yet we want proof for God but not for the surgeon who is about to cut out your heart and replace another persons in you.We can only have faith that he is going to DO IT right , but no promises,we all know that,NO GAURANTEE'S
.
We just have to look at the simplest atom ,molecule to the largest living creature and study the habitual life cycles of every living organism,from life to death ,not to mention the universal cycles of the laws,the seasons and weather.
So we all enjoy proof ,but we become sort of hypocritical when we say show us this and that and I will believe ,yet we live by faith 99% of the time proven to ourselves and others to be in total contradiction with what it is we demand,proof.
We truly are creatures of habit still,pushing the envelope of reason and logic evading the elementary principals in which we live and move and have our being.
God truly does sustainus in an enviroment that is so uncertain ,yet we claim we have the contolr our fate and destiny,I think not,someone else is at the helm.

Yet God also says that just from what is created men will be without excuse on judgement day.

 

[linwood]

That very essence of our existence is solely based primarily on FAITH,or belief,trust reliance,dependence,submission,all of these are synonomos with the word FAITH, but secondarily must be accompanied by works ,an action, effort, excertion.

There is more than one kind of "faith".
I`ll show you there are at least two that I know of.
There is "blind faith" and therre is "rational Faith".
Here`s the difference.

We can not give our time to our boss unless we have faith he will pay us and inturn we can not give the banks our money unless we have faith in the system.

I`ve never had a boss fail to pay me nor have I ever had a bank steal my money.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.

Who, before they jump in the car, tests the brakes and and all mechanical systems before driving away.

I`ve been in and driven many many automobiles.
I have been in a few wrecks but the ratio of safe transit to wrecked auto is acceptable to me.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.

How many times do you examine a chair beofre you sit in it.
or an airplane ,you have no alternative but to have faith in the plane ,crew members,mechanics etc.etc.

But it`s not "blind faith"
Millions of people survive plane rides and chairs on a daily basis.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.

Next time you drink your water ,how do prove it is not contaminated.
I know what you may be thinking, it's different with God,

I`ve never been harmed by any water I drank.
Besides it is a necessary risk anyway, one cannot survive without water.
Not drinking water out of fear is definately going to cause harm, the odds that drinking water is safe are good.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.

In a restaurant do you actually go in the back to test for bacteria and food poisioning in the food,or the chef,all the utensils.

Millions upon millions eat out daily.
The odds of food borne illness during a meal against enjoyable dining experience aren`t worth the worry.
I`ve eaten in thousands of restaurants without ill effect.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.


That is how we are designed, to have faith and trust in people which inturn give us things we need daily to live and remain functional

No..it`s not.
I`m not capable of "Blind Faith"
I can`t do it, I see no benefit to it.

Yet we want proof for God but not for the surgeon who is about to cut out your heart and replace another persons in you.We can only have faith that he is going to DO IT right , but no promises,we all know that,NO GAURANTEE'S

The surgeon has a history of success if he is cutting me.
I don`t have a clue about Gods history and the history attributed to him doesn`t engender trust.
This is rational faith because it is based upon prior supportive evidence.

When you understand why you reject Unicorns you`ll understand why I reject your god.
Have faith in the unicorns Roli..just believe in them.
Don`t question the horned ones, just devote your life to the worship of these magnificent powerful creatures and you`ll be rewarded with all your heart has ever desired.
Allow them to tell you how to live your life and tell you what is right for you.

Just have faith.

.

 

[linwood]

Just out of curiousity, do you have a link for this assertion?

This is not a new assertion Andy.
I`ve linked to articles many times in the Big Bang thread.

It`s just an assertion that has been rejected by mainstream Physics theorists for decades.

They`re starting to change their minds because the evidence doesn`t support their theories.

http://haltonarp.com/

Edit:

Found the article directly...pdf link.
http://haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/is_physics_changing.pdf

 

[michel]

Just out of curiousity, do you have a link for this assertion?

This is not a new assertion Andy.
I`ve linked to articles many times in the Big Bang thread.

It`s just an assertion that has been rejected by mainstream Physics theorists for decades.

They`re starting to change their minds because the evidence doesn`t support their theories.

http://haltonarp.com/

Edit:

Found the article directly...pdf link.
http://haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/is_physics_changing.pdf

Linwood,

PART QUOTE=Linwood : "They`re starting to change their minds because the evidence doesn`t support their theories."

Do you really believe that that is the reason scientists 'change their minds' - or don;'t you think that science, which is forever evolving, needs to adapt when it sees a contradition ? -ie are you giving a reasoned motive for the change, or is it fueled by your personal thoughts ?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Just out of curiousity, do you have a link for this assertion?

This is not a new assertion Andy.
I`ve linked to articles many times in the Big Bang thread.

It`s just an assertion that has been rejected by mainstream Physics theorists for decades.

They`re starting to change their minds because the evidence doesn`t support their theories.

http://haltonarp.com/

Edit:

Found the article directly...pdf link.
http://haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/is_physics_changing.pdf

It doesn't look like this article relates to his claim. Quantum isn't even mentioned in the article.

I was just curious about where it came from. New theories about cosmology come and go with the wind. The truth is "accepted science" really doesn't know what came before the Big Bang, if anything.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Science changes as new evidence is gathered.

 

[linwood]

I was just curious about where it came from. New theories about cosmology come and go with the wind. The truth is "accepted science" really doesn't know what came before the Big Bang, if anything.

The real truth is that "accepted science" has no clue whether there ever was a "Big Bang"

")