Do you believe in a god that is

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-06-2007
muhmuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

The matter in the universe existed when the big bang occurred as a singularity.

yes but neither the universe nor space not time existed "before" the big bang

Quote:

It was a rapid expansion not a creation of the universe and anyone who has taken a first year astronomy class would know that.

1) its not astronomy but astrophysics
2) yes it was since the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist

Quote:

And furthermore the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

the first law of thermodynmaics is a property of the univiserse which did not exist before the big bang and therefore is not applicable to a (non scientific (science is empirical and thus can only be applied to things happening within the universe)) debate about what triggered the big bang
07-07-2007
SmashysmashY

I see that you put the word “before” in quotes because you realize at least partly that it does not make sense to refer to something occurring before the big bang since as you said that is when space time started to exist, yet you proceed to talk about event occurring before the big bang as if you are ignoring your own statements.

The word “before” refers to a point in time. If you say “A happened before B” then you mean that “an event A occurred at a time T in time and event B occurred at a point in time prior to T.” To ask what happened before the big bang is asking for a point in time while conceptualizing a state where time does not exist. It's a meaningless question.

The word “always” means "at all times" or "for all the time that existed". You say that “the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist.” So according to your own definition the universe has always existed. You just refuted your own argument.

But the matter that was created at the big bang was created because the energy-mass relation was reversed. So an amount of energy E was converted into particles whose mass equaled E/c^2. In order for that to happen the energy had to exist. So it is not a creation ex nihilo.

Furthermore will you please explain to me how you think a god can create something while operating outside of time or before time? To create something would require at least two points in time, a point before it is created and a point when it is created. But you are saying that there was no time. Without time god wouldn’t have time to create anything.
07-07-2007
muhmuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

I see that you put the word “before” in quotes because you realize at least partly that it does not make sense to refer to something occurring before the big bang since as you said that is when space time started to exist, yet you proceed to talk about event occurring before the big bang as if you are ignoring your own statements.

The word “before” refers to a point in time. If you say “A happened before B” then you mean that “an event A occurred at a time T in time and event B occurred at a point in time prior to T.” To ask what happened before the big bang is asking for a point in time while conceptualizing a state where time does not exist. It's a meaningless question.

stop trying to twist what i said you know perfectly well that words fail to properly explain the concept properly

Quote:

The word “always” means "at all times" or "for all the time that existed". You say that “the big bang is the moment when space time started to exist.” So according to your own definition the universe has always existed. You just refuted your own argument.

you also know perfectly well that the way you said it always was used in the sense of eternal and not as since time existed

Quote:

But the matter that was created at the big bang was created because the energy-mass relation was reversed. So an amount of energy E was converted into particles whose mass equaled E/c^2. In order for that to happen the energy had to exist. So it is not a creation ex nihilo.

so... where did the energy come from then? exactly out of nowhere it simply decided to start to exists
for all we know god is as good an explanation for that as coincidence is

Quote:

Furthermore will you please explain to me how you think a god can create something while operating outside of time or before time? To create something would require at least two points in time, a point before it is created and a point when it is created. But you are saying that there was no time. Without time god wouldn’t have time to create anything.

why would a being existing outside the realm of the physics applying to our universe be bound by the same constraints we are for the simple reason that we live in that particular universe?
07-07-2007
SmashysmashY

I’m sorry. I’m not trying to twist your words around. That wouldn’t convince you. It wouldn’t satisfy me and it would just make everybody think I was being a jerk. And I’m not. Obviously we are using some terms differently. As far as I know nobody knows what happened before 10^-44 seconds after the big bang occurred. I never said it was a coincidence, but why don’t you tell me why you think god is a valid explanation and I’ll tell you why I think it is not a valid explanation.
07-07-2007
trish

In mathematics one learns to distinguish open interval from closed intervals. An open interval is a connected subset of the real line which doesn’t contain its boundary points (for example {x: 0 < x}). A closed interval is a connected subset which does contain its boundary points. Regardless of your choice of coordinate patches, the history of the universe spans an open interval of time. (This is because all the current purely relativistic descriptions of the cosmic expansion have an unavoidable singularity). The proper interpretation of this is there is NO first moment and consequently NO creation. The matter/energy that is here now was always here. It didn’t have to come from anywhere else since there is no anywhere else or anywhen else. Nothing had to decide to start to exist since starting is a temporal notion. It was always here. There is no moment when the singularity happened. There is no moment when the expansion was initiated. The universe (according to the models allowed by general relativity) was always expanding.

This is really a very old take on the origin of the universe because it’s mathematically equivalent to saying that one can choose a system of spacetime coordinates in which the universe is infinitely old. The temporal coordinate of one such system is know to cosmologists as York time. In essence the York time of an event is proportional to the log of the time given to the event by a fundamental observer. By this definition the York time of a very early event is going to be negative and have a very large magnitude. As one examines events further and further back in history approaching the singularity, the York time of those events goes to negative infinity. In York time, the universe is infinitely old and there was no beginning, no first moment, no opportunity for a creation event.

So where is a god supposed to stand when it creates such a universe?
It is possible to imagine and model larger universes, such as the multiverse of Linde or Vilenkin which is continually budding bubbles universes similar to but distinct from our own. But the origins of these models are also absent, in the sense that they have no first moments. In these multiverses you may have gods creating the bubble universes (though they would be repugnant extras to Occam’s razor) but there could be no god that creates the multiverse. Personally I would take the razor to the whole multiverse idea which makes little in the way of testable predictions.
07-07-2007
ezed

I think we have to go back to the premise that we really don't know shit. Maybe the big bang, isn't so big. Maybe the universe is a subset. There maybe millions of universes which we are not privey to. Because we are limited to our own. It's all our little mind can fathom.

The scenarios are endless, unless we consider ourselves more superior than what we are. And doing that makes us feel comfortable.

Fuck, you can carry this out forever. But our feeble minds won't let us....or will it?

This thread is like a mind expanding drug. And that is a good thing!

Thank you SmashysmashY.

Are you really from Earth as your location states?
07-07-2007
insert_namehere

Ezed got on the right track with "we don't know shit". While it's an interesting set of hypotheses, theories, presumptions and assumptions that have been laid out in various directions in this thread - each and every one has a fatal core of "belief" attached to it.

In essence, there's a premise the reader HAS to accept prior to reading the rest of the argument.

Back to the original post: "Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?"

Right there, you've set up a limited definition of what a supreme entity might or might not be. As such, to continue the argument, I'd have to accept that that is the only definition for what "God" (for lack of a better term) may or may not be.

Math, physics, natural sciences, etc. are easy to grasp in that they have tangible and definable rules, outcomes, etc. (long pause) At least - within existence as human beings have experienced it. The problem here is that we occupy a miniscule part of the universe, or time/space, whatever you want to call it. Human beings have a marvelous gift for observation and then using observation, constructing abstract thought from that. It's the wellspring of most creative and intellectual disciplines, as well as quite a few philosophical and theological ones. It all hovers around at least ONE act of faith - The principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence. That could be true and it could NOT be true - accepting it is a matter of faith and belief.

You know... sort of like the same thing people that believe there is a some sort of Supreme Entity out there that holds it all together in some manner or other.

We all wind up going with our gut at the end of the day. We all buy into some premise that we build a belief system around. As much as one person would like to say that their "body of evidence to support what they believe" is greater than another's, it doesn't matter how high the stack of research may be - you still have an unprovable at the core.

Me - I prefer to think I wake up in a harmonious universe that may have some glitches but still hums along quite nicely, thanks in part to something beyond my ability to grasp.

Could be true or it could be bullshit, but it makes ME feel better about things.

Until we know otherwise, that's the final measure we got - how each of us feels about it.
07-07-2007
SmashysmashY

Quote:

Originally Posted by insert_namehere

Back to the original post: "Do you believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, and created everything?"

Right there, you've set up a limited definition of what a supreme entity might or might not be. As such, to continue the argument, I'd have to accept that that is the only definition for what "God" (for lack of a better term) may or may not be.

That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have.

Quote:

Math, physics, natural sciences, etc. are easy to grasp in that they have tangible and definable rules, outcomes, etc. (long pause) At least - within existence as human beings have experienced it. The problem here is that we occupy a miniscule part of the universe, or time/space, whatever you want to call it. Human beings have a marvelous gift for observation and then using observation, constructing abstract thought from that. It's the wellspring of most creative and intellectual disciplines, as well as quite a few philosophical and theological ones. It all hovers around at least ONE act of faith - The principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence. That could be true and it could NOT be true - accepting it is a matter of faith and belief.

You know... sort of like the same thing people that believe there is a some sort of Supreme Entity out there that holds it all together in some manner or other.

Actually it is not the same thing. It is such a different thing that we should probably use a different word. Faith has at lest two distinct meanings. One has a theological sense and the other is more of a colloquial sense. The belief that the “principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence” is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not “faith” in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.

Faith in a religious sense is what you would call a“leap of faith.” It is belief in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is not contingent upon experience, is held regardless of its irrational nature, and seeks little or no justification from reality.

So that comparison is not really a valid one and I would call that equivocation.
07-07-2007
trish

Nicely said, SmashysmashY. I’ve nothing to add to your analysis of the distinction between trust in conclusions drawn from evidence (that is continually being tested and refined) and faith. I also agree with ezed that our minds a feeble in comparison to the project we have set them to, understanding the universe in which we dwell. This goes along with insert_name_here’s comment:

Quote:

Me - I prefer to think I wake up in a harmonious universe that may have some glitches but still hums along quite nicely, thanks in part to something beyond my ability to grasp.

Very few people, atheist, scientist, priest or parson would disagree that there’s something greater than they. To say that there may be some things beyond our ability to grasp in no way implies the existence of any sort of gods. Nor does it prove they don’t exist. The feebleness of our minds is just irrelevant to the question. Nevertheless, I personally do not choose to give up on the project of trying to understand through reason.
07-07-2007
insert_namehere

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

That may be a limited definition of god to you, but suffice it to say that is the definition that most people have.

Most people who? Buddhists have a very different viewpoint - that's approximately 376 million folks right there. Hindus? Add another 900 million, but then you guys already negated the concept of Pararahman by stating that

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

and there is no reason to think that anything can exist outside of time and space.

which, by its basic etymology is something "transcendent of time and space" - but, there you go. Obviously the Western world is the only world that matters.

So, discounting most of Asia and the Indian sub-continent, what we're talking about is a Euro-centric vision of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

Actually it is not the same thing. It is such a different thing that we should probably use a different word. Faith has at lest two distinct meanings. One has a theological sense and the other is more of a colloquial sense. The belief that the "principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence" is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not "faith" in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.

faith (noun) American Heritage Dictionary

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

Gee, lookie there... 3 colloquialisms before one in a "theological sense" even shows up. Funny thing is, the "theological sense" tends to occupy slot 3 or four in any dictionary I look up the word "faith" in. And gee whiz, look at the FIRST definition, that old bugaboo "truth" - and HOKEY SMOKES!! The second definition lists "trust" as a synonym. So, let's toss re-definition aside, shall we? Faith, to most English speaking persons can be equated to trust, at least, according to the folks who publish dictionaries.

Now, let's get back to the issue of experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmashysmashY

The belief that the "principles we observe within our existence are THE principles of ALL existence" is a belief that is contingent upon experience. We hold that belief because we make observations that support it. It is not "faith" in the same sense as religious faith. It would be more accurate to call it trust. We trust what we observe.

Which could be interpreted to mean that if every dog I ever saw in my life was yellow, along with every reference about dogs anyone ever made to me included the statement that "it was a yellow dog" and nowhere EVER in my experience, did I have anything ever occur that would negate my observations of yellow dogs - by that measure, I would know that all dogs are yellow? Or, would it be better to say I believed, I trusted that all dogs were yellow?

I mean, come on, it's been justified by my reality, right?

You'll note, I said MY reality.

As such, I don't find it an equivocation at all, do you?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page