God Always Existed/Universe Always Existed

[Gentoo]

Not me. The Bible teaches against this type of worship.

Well, I guess that it's a good thing that I don't believe that the Bible is 100% correct, now isn't it?

 

[Kungfuzed]

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

This is an old old thread and I haven't even read most of the posts in it. In the meantime I want to both agree with your post but for a different reason than evolution. Evolution is just the beginning. Natual selection makes a species just barely strong enough to survive it's surroundings and multiply. It could never result in a God in my opinion. However, evolution has succeded in bringing about an intelligent species that may have the power to control it's enviornment and it's own progression. We have taken this brain that can make and use tools and maxed it out exponentially. Mankind is developing technology, science, genetics, and medicine and is leaving evolution in the dust. We have the ability to improve ourselves. If we can avoid destruction, the eternal progression of our species could take us where you speak of. There very well might be intelligent life on other worlds who may seem godlike compared to us.

 

[Bishka]

Not me. The Bible teaches against this type of worship.

Not everyone believes in the Bible.

 

[Hacker]

I want to subscribe to this thread so it's easly accessable under my user cp. Is there an easier way to do so? Thanksen:

 

[fantome profane]

Look right above the first post on this page. See where it says "Thread Tools"? Click on that and you will get three options. Click on "Subscribe to this Thread".

 

[Hacker]

Look right above the first post on this page. See where it says "Thread Tools"? Click on that and you will get three options. Click on "Subscribe to this Thread".

Thank you!

 

[cardw]

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.

I don't really care if you have a religious affiliation, but I would like to note a couple things.

Even in a secular context science can't take you everywhere. Unless you believe in an absolutely determined universe there is no science that can address consciousness, prove you love someone, prove you don't love someone, and anything else pretty much associated with feelings. In fact a purely scientific approach to life would negate the idea of free choice as an illusion.

Basically in a world where pure science was the only reality we would assume that all actions are results of causitive chain reactions and that if we could measure everything and knew the laws that governed them we could predict every event that will happen from this moment on given enough computing power.

There are some things you can read that might prove useful. Joseph Campbells work on the power of myth is a good place to start. There are places to have deeper connections that defy scientific explanations. I think the common problem is that if one person has a spiritual experience it often is assumed that every one should have the same experience. From what I have observed this very subjective thing we call spirituality should be seen as more of an art, not a theology, philosophy, or creed.

There are many irrational aspects of life. Love and fear are often irrational and yet they are primary parts of life. We often want one and wish the other would go away. Or they are often mixed together.

Life is deeply complex and I have no expectation to understand it all in this lifetime, but I still enjoy being curious. And I certainly don't want to limit my options, though I have come to realize that some options are less likely than others.

 

[Pah]

....
There are many irrational aspects of life. Love and fear are often irrational and yet they are primary parts of life. We often want one and wish the other would go away. Or they are often mixed together.

I don't know how this fits into thoughts of spirituality but fear is instinctive and love is an evolutionary capability.

 

[Valjean]

The concept of always presupposes the reality of time, as we perceive it.

If we defer to current physics we must accept that time is a subjective phenomenon that has no objective Reality in the sense that we ordinarily perceive it.

If you consider Objective Reality as a cosmic Now, with past, present and future existing simultaneously, the question becomes moot.

 

[Willamena]

The concept of always presupposes the reality of time, as we perceive it.

If we defer to current physics we must accept that time is a subjective phenomenon that has no objective Reality in the sense that we ordinarily perceive it.

If you consider Objective Reality as a cosmic Now, with past, present and future existing simultaneously, the question becomes moot.

I thought time was dependent upon change, not on us. The idea of past, present and future existing simultaneously implies a static universe.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

Of course it does, you have built your premise, bias, and psychological state around it. For me, I understand that "always has existed" in whatever form (theistic or not) is beyond me. If something can always be beyond you then I don't see how you're any different then us irrational theists.

 

[Random]

Why is there something rather than nothing, eh?

 

[Kungfuzed]

Why is there something rather than nothing, eh?

Because if there was nothing then we wouldn't be there to observe it and know about it.