Origion question

[Scott1]

Everything has a purpose, science's purpose is truth... If the purpose of science was not truth, scientists could lie. =P

"Everthing has a purpose.".... wow, how very unscientific of you. .... but yes, I agree.

Science asks you to believe based on scientific evidence (ie things that can be tested) while religion asks you to believe without scientific evidence.

Nope.... at least not for me.... everything I've learned in science has led me to God.... not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[Ryan2065]

"Everthing has a purpose.".... wow, how very unscientific of you.

.... but yes, I agree.

Bah, I'm tired =P Everything human made has a purpose...

Nope.... at least not for me.... everything I've learned in science has led me to God.... not sure what point you are trying to make.

Science teaches to say "i don't know" over "god did it." There is no actual scientific evidence for god... There is evidence for some pretty spectaciluar things, but none for god is what I am trying to get to...

Lets boil it down to this.. Science asks to believe without faith when religion requires faith to believe?

 

[chuck010342]

You are all assuming time is linear.

What created the beginning of a circle? There is no beginning, and there is no end. If time is not linear, the question does not arise.

Your right in saying that I am making that assumption. I could provide some evidence for that view.

who created the begining of a cirlce? well the person drawing the circle.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Then what was god's beginning? And before god, what was there? And what made god? Why did god come about?

This line of questions is based on the idea that it is conceivable for nothing to exist--for there to be an absence of any existance.

God is simply the alternative. He is the infinite being--the opposite of nothingness. He is aware of all possibilities and able to create all things into being.

As NetDoc said, He simply "is".

 

[robtex]

"I can actually disprove God.

God is the one who created all existence, therefore there can exist nothing that he didn't create. He couldn't create himself, so his existence is simply paradoxical."

You would have to show that God creating himself and the universe are mutually exclusive ideas. It is possible that God created everthing in the universe and self created himself.

There is no evidence that a higher power created the universe or that one exists and because of that it is pretty much impossble to disprove something that is unevidencable. However, the probablity of such a being existing, being omnipresent and having a personal relationship with mankind yet being unevidencable is unlikely.

God explained his presence pretty nicely:
"I am".
Hard to argue with logic like that.

Two things about that post.

"I am" is not a statement of logic. It is an incomplete phrase with no meaning whatsoever.

Second, God, if he exists is horrible at explaining his presence hence the thousands of world religons including hundreds of interpretations of the faith of Christianty.

 

[Popeyesays]

"I can actually disprove God.

God is the one who created all existence, therefore there can exist nothing that he didn't create. He couldn't create himself, so his existence is simply paradoxical."

You would have to show that God creating himself and the universe are mutually exclusive ideas. It is possible that God created everthing in the universe and self created himself.

There is no evidence that a higher power created the universe or that one exists and because of that it is pretty much impossble to disprove something that is unevidencable. However, the probablity of such a being existing, being omnipresent and having a personal relationship with mankind yet being unevidencable is unlikely.

There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence He does not exist.
As to your syllogism: Why should God be PART of Creation.

If Creation is an effect, God is the cause. And logically, a cause is not part of an effect.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Nick Soapdish]

However, the probablity of such a being existing, being omnipresent and having a personal relationship with mankind yet being unevidencable is unlikely.

It makes sense to me... :bounce

"I am" is not a statement of logic. It is an incomplete phrase with no meaning whatsoever.

Really?? At the most basic level, the statement "I am" can be interpreted "I exist". Is the statement "the Empire State Building exists" not logical?

I believe the deeper interpretation is meant to be that God is the root of all existance.

Second, God, if he exists is horrible at explaining his presence hence the thousands of world religons including hundreds of interpretations of the faith of Christianty.

Unless there is a reason that it is possible for us to doubt His existance.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The Universe has always existed. It needs no creation or beginning. Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

How did we reach the current point in time if there is an infinite amount of time before us?

If you are suggesting that time is infinite (never began, will never end), you will need to explain it to me. Infinite quantities are not logical. Space and time are measurable, therefore it does not make sense to me to posit them as "infinite". How can two objects be an infinite distance apart, or how can an event happen an infinite amount of time prior to another event?

Infinity is not a number, but rather a concept or abstraction. An infinite thing is something that is beyond measurement or quantification. Clearly, space and time are measurable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Matrix

But if it started thier, who created the Architect?

There was no time before the Big Bang, it simply didn't exist, as there was nothing before the Expansion phase out of the singularity at the beginning, Time and space are one and same, as the universe expands, so does time flow with the expansion. outwards.

My question is, how could a gigantic rock create itself, then explode, if there was nothing to create it?

 

[JerryL]

Really?? At the most basic level, the statement "I am" can be interpreted "I exist". Is the statement "the Empire State Building exists" not logical?

In point of fact: no, that statement is not logical.

It is a simple claim of fact... whether true or false, it's not a statement of logic.

How did we reach the current point in time if there is an infinite amount of time before us?

How did you take "always existed" and conclude "infinate time"?

If you are suggesting that time is infinite (never began, will never end), you will need to explain it to me. Infinite quantities are not logical. Space and time are measurable, therefore it does not make sense to me to posit them as "infinite". How can two objects be an infinite distance apart, or how can an event happen an infinite amount of time prior to another event?

"begin and end" in relation to time as not logical, as it would infer a time before time, and a time at which time started... both of which are oxymoronic.

More likely, time is boundless.

Infinity is not a number, but rather a concept or abstraction. An infinite thing is something that is beyond measurement or quantification. Clearly, space and time are measurable.

Not measurable perhaps, but it logical neccessity based on assumptions of how many things exist. What's the boundry of imaginary time? What is the inertial mass of something moving at the speed of light? etc.

 

[JerryL]

My question is, how could a gigantic rock create itself, then explode, if there was nothing to create it?

Why do you assume things cannot create themselves?

 

[blueman]

God created all that exists in our world. I think somebody created God, though.

No one created God. God is a timeless, infinite being, the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end). If you follow your logic, then there is a being out there greater than God.

 

[Meesheltx]

Okay, people. Lets use these awesome human brains of ours to come up with some ideas...nobody knows for sure how existence began...existance of God or the universe; neither one! So I want to hear some new ideas. We are humans! the masters or creativity and logic! Think outside the box, guys...I want to hear some good stuff


On another note...just a question for thought. Is it possible that God was created at the first existence of life? Maybe God thrives off of life and did not exist at all until there was some form of life already. hmm...maybe that should be a new thread...

 

[Meesheltx]

Is it even possible that there ever was complete nothingness? Possible that there was once a time where there wasn't? There was no matter, no spiritual force, no...anything? or has there always been something? Even if it was just a "force" that, like a flower leaning towards the sunlight, grew and strived to lean towards matter, etc?

 

[JerryL]

Is it even possible that there ever was complete nothingness?

It's possible as far as I know.

Possible that there was once a time where there wasn't?

No. Time is something. You cannot, therefore, have a time when there was nothing because there was time.

There was no matter, no spiritual force, no...anything?

I'm not aware that there is spiritual force now.

or has there always been something? Even if it was just a "force" that, like a flower leaning towards the sunlight, grew and strived to lean towards matter, etc?

Also possible.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

How did you take "always existed" and conclude "infinate time"?

What are the alternate interpretations?

"begin and end" in relation to time as not logical, as it would infer a time before time, and a time at which time started... both of which are oxymoronic.

Why is that? I would agree with you if someone had said "before time", but that is very different from saying the "beginning of time". It simply means there are no instances of matter or energy that existed in a point of time before that time--there is no such thing as "time before" then.

More likely, time is boundless.

Time is boundless, or our conceptual abstraction of it is boundless? Just because our numbers in mathematics are not bounded does not mean limits do not exist in the real world (e.g. planck distances, quantum energy levels, the speed of light). In fact, it appears all real-world measureable quantities have limits.

Also, how is your statement different from saying time is infinite? If there is a point in time at which no matter or energy existed before that time, does it make sense to say time existed before then? Can time be decoupled from matter and energy? Remember relativity shows us time is not absolute, but rather relative to a frame of reference. How can there be a frame of reference without matter and energy, and therefore momentum (which is the basis for the frame of reference).

 

[JerryL]

What are the alternate interpretations?

Any unbound time... possibly even bounded time, as long as you take all of it.

Why is that? I would agree with you if someone had said "before time", but that is very different from saying the "beginning of time". It simply means there are no instances of matter or energy that existed in a point of time before that time--there is no such thing as "time before" then.

Since "that time" is "the beginning of time", didn't you just say "before time"?

Time is boundless, or our conceptual abstraction of it is boundless? Just because our numbers in mathematics are not bounded does not mean limits do not exist in the real world (e.g. planck distances, quantum energy levels, the speed of light). In fact, it appears all real-world measureable quantities have limits.

As may time... that doesn't make it bounded.

Also, how is your statement different from saying time is infinite?

Because something boundless can be finite. For example: The surface of the Earth is boundless.

If there is a point in time at which no matter or energy existed before that time, does it make sense to say time existed before then? Can time be decoupled from matter and energy? Remember relativity shows us time is not absolute, but rather relative to a frame of reference. How can there be a frame of reference without matter and energy, and therefore momentum (which is the basis for the frame of reference).

In that hypothetical: Sure. I have no reason to believe that timespace is dependant on matter-energy existing.

If you want to know the problem with "before time", look north of the north pole.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Since "that time" is "the beginning of time", didn't you just say "before time"?

Umm.. no. "Since that time" is the time that has passed between the beginning of time and now.

As may time... that doesn't make it bounded.

Because something boundless can be finite. For example: The surface of the Earth is boundless.

I am having trouble understanding the significance of your distinctions. Is there a philosophical significance, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

If you want to know the problem with "before time", look north of the north pole.

That's a good analogy. So in this view of time, does time have a beginning, or are you inferring Hawking's hypothetical of the big bang that does not have a single point of origin (but rather extends out with a semi-spherical geometry)?

 

[gtrsgrls]

Yes, because there is actually scientific evidence for the big bang theory, yet no scientific evidence for the "god did it" theory. =) And to say something came from nothing in the big bang theory just shows your ignorance... Search the forums for a better explanation of the big bang theory... I wrote a two page description of it somewhere... Not sure where though =)

There isn't one bit of hard evidence that proves the big bang theory.Actually I'm taking a geology class and my teacher(someone who believes the big bang theory)says that there are only two and possibly three peices of evidence that make scientists believe the big bang occured.That isn't enough information for me.And even those two or three peices of evidence don't actually prove it happened,scienitsts didn't know where that evidence came from so they said,"hey,I know.A long time ago a huge explosion happened and that's why this background radiation is here.I'm not really sure what made the explosion happen,we don't even know where the material came from that caused the explosion,but that has got to be the answer!!"

 

[Scuba Pete]

There isn't one bit of hard evidence that proves the big bang theory.

Well, it's in the Bible!

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. NIV

You don't think God was quiet about this, do you?