Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Origin of GOD


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#18 bumab

bumab

    Local Brewmaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 05:27 PM

The notion of 4 exists as only an abstraction - in the minds of creatures intelligent enough to recognise it.


So the notion of 4 did not exist until an intellegent being thought of it? No, I'm pretty sure there were 4 things in existance before people. Or 5, or 20 trillion.

You wouldn't say 4 could create a planet like Earth and everything on it, would you?


Of course not. My point was only to say that non-physical things can exist apart from space and time. We usually use the word physical to denote "material," just as you used the word abstraction to apparently mean "non-material."

So now the question is could a non-material thing create space and time? I don't see why not. It obviously would have to have a lot more properties then the number 4- intentionality properties, power properties, etc. But there's no logical reason to discount the possibility. That was my only point here.

I think this pin-points our fundamental disagreement.


Perhaps. Did this post make sense?

#19 skuinders

skuinders

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 05:56 PM

But there's no logical reason to discount the possibility. That was my only point here.

I understand this and agree. But, there is no rational reason to accept it. I could say that the world was created by God 5 minutes ago, and our brains were simply pre-programmed with histories and personalities and understanding of the world as if it had been here for billions of years. Logically, you cannot disprove this possibility, but it would be irrational to believe it. This is my problem with God arguments, they are just excessive. Anyways, I thank you for this excellent discussion. (I'm sure we'll have many more - and I still disagree about 4! :))

#20 Hawkens

Hawkens

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:10 PM

Actually there is a rational reason to accept it.

Just think.....

A Christian who dies and discovers there really is a God. Well they are in if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour for thier sins.

A Christian who dies and discovers there is no God. Oh well right? At least they strived to be a better person in life.

So that is a what? 50/50 chance.

Now lets take an Athiest who dies and finds out there is no God. Oh well....he was right and now there is absolutly nothing. Well let's hope this person didn't turn into Hitler and try to push the Arian Race or put on a Natural Selection t-shirt and take some of his peers with him when he dies.

What about an Athiest who was wrong and there is a God? He spent his life protesting there wasn't one so they won a one way ticket to fire and brimstone. The Bible is clear on this.

How to we count that? You lose eitherway. That's a big 0/0.

So logically...... :)

#21 skuinders

skuinders

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:17 PM

Actually there is a rational reason to accept it.

Just think.....

A Christian who dies and discovers there really is a God. Well they are in if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour for thier sins.

A Christian who dies and discovers there is no God. Oh well right? At least they strived to be a better person in life.

So that is a what? 50/50 chance.

Now lets take an Athiest who dies and finds out there is no God. Oh well....he was right and now there is absolutly nothing. Well let's hope this person didn't turn into Hitler and try to push the Arian Race or put on a Natural Selection t-shirt and take some of his peers with him when he dies.

What about an Athiest who was wrong and there is a God? He spent his life protesting there wasn't one so they won a one way ticket to fire and brimstone. The Bible is clear on this.

How to we count that? You lose eitherway. That's a big 0/0.

So logically...... :)

That is just ridiculous.

#22 Hawkens

Hawkens

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:22 PM

That is just ridiculous.


I gave you a RATIONAL REASON to accept it.

It's your own fault if you dismiss it without considering it rationally.

#23 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:57 PM

Well let's hope this person didn't turn into Hitler and try to push the Arian Race.....

That raises a couple of interesting points. Hitler claimed he was finishing the work Jesus started and being a saved christian is a membership requirement for the Aryan Nations.

What about an Athiest who was wrong and there is a God? He spent his life protesting there wasn't one so they won a one way ticket to fire and brimstone. The Bible is clear on this.

Kind of like a "believe in me or else", huh? Kind of sounds like blackmail. Is that fire and brimstone thing God's way of forgiving people for their beliefs?

#24 insight

insight

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 09:42 PM

A Christian who dies and discovers there really is a God. Well they are in if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour for thier sins.

A Christian who dies and discovers there is no God. Oh well right? At least they strived to be a better person in life.

So that is a what? 50/50 chance.

:


A person who believes in christianity would get a ticket to see God!!!!
Or else go to Hell!!!
That's very funny and baseless. Those who's only unlogical believe it.

#25 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 09:44 PM

the origin of god can be found in the decayed minds of past civilizations.
it's that simple.

#26 Hawkens

Hawkens

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 10:21 PM

That raises a couple of interesting points. Hitler claimed he was finishing the work Jesus started and being a saved christian is a membership requirement for the Aryan Nations.


Hitler was an Evolutionist.

#27 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 11:12 PM

…A Christian who dies and discovers there really is a God … A Christian who dies and discovers there is no God. Oh well right? At least they strived to be a better person in life …Now lets take an Athiest…

That is just ridiculous.

That’s not ridiculous, it’s Pascal’s Wager.

My objection to the Wager is of the kind the wikipedia article terms astatistical argument, as follows:

Assume that a human life is not absurd, that is, that it is possible, in some objective way, to live well, or poorly, and that the degree to which one lives well or poorly depends at least in part on the decisions one makes.

A particular belief in God typically has a pervasive effect on one’s life decisions.

Now, if there is no God, but one’s life decisions are ruled by one’s belief that there is, one may live less well than if one believe that there is no God. For example, one’s belief in God can lead one to shun or even harm to those who’s belief differs from one’s own, while, absent this belief, one might be accepting of these others.

A counter objection to this objection to the Wager is what George Santayana (1863-1952) termed “the good myth”, and Aristotle (384-322 BC) “the great myth”. In short, this objection holds that, even if a belief is factually incorrect, it’s consequences may be beneficial. For example, one’s belief in God can lead one to behave charitably and ethically, while, absent this belief, one might behave selfishly and lawlessly.

I’m unable to accept this argument. To knowingly chose to believe in an objective falsehood strikes me as a kind of insanity.

#28 emessay

emessay

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 11:33 PM

The origin of God must be from our mind (human consciousness) which we routinely attend 'the meeting' with agenda 'How to read Mind of God'. Does He play a dice ? Does He chair 'the meeting' ??

Note : God = not cruel Alien

#29 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 11:41 PM

yes. created to answer all the questions we could not answer at the time. now that we have progressed with sceience, we can answer most of those questions.
what now, eh?
heh, just give up.

#30 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 12:10 AM

Could the Origin of God be explained by God devising some way of bringing himself into existence (assuming what we know and don't know about reality)?

Sounds like one of the many interesting variants of Omega Point Theory.

There are basically 3 physical hypotheses featuring “God goes back in time and creates Him/Her/Itself”:

One asserts that present consensus that the universe will expand forever is, despite a preponderance of supporting observed evidence, incorrect, and that the universe will at some future time collapse into an the extreme physical realm known as “the big crunch”. Further, it asserts that a sufficiently advance intelligent entity(s) would be able to influence the big crunch event so that the following big bang resulted in a universe reflecting the entity’s design goals. Thus, each big bang/crunch cycle ends with a “God” creating a new universe that eventually produces the next “God”.

Another requires no rejection of the eternally expanding universe, but asserts that a sufficiently advanced intelligence is able to effect time travel to an early time in the universe’s history, then to alter conditions in such a way to cause its next future sense to come into being. This is similar, on a grander scale, to the R.A.Heinlein story in which time traveler is his own parent.

A third requires no big crunch nor time travel, but asserts that a sufficiently advanced intelligence is able to create new “pocket universes”, and that our universe is in fact a pocket universe created in this manner. This variant is remarkable in that a single universe may create many new pocket universes.

Each hypothesis has weaknesses: the first, that it is refuted by current observation and the consensus cosmological theory; the second that it requires a kind of time travel for which there is currently no acceptable explanation, with all the epistemological problems such time travel entails; the third that it involves creating pocket universe, a very hypothetical line of Physics speculation. The first two are effectively identical in featuring “God goes back in time and creates (or at least modifies) Him/Her/Itself”. The third works with a succession of Gods creating new universes with new Gods, or may allow a pocket universe’s to create its own parent, giving it the “God goes back in time…” feature.

Another common feature of these Omega Point variant theories is that they strongly hint that “God at the end of time” may be a descendent of an intelligence here and now, possible humanity or including humanity, an idea that is both attractive and heretical.

#31 Hawkens

Hawkens

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 01:07 AM

now that we have progressed with sceience, we can answer most of those questions.

Then answer them.

Where does life come from? How did life begin?

The Bible tells us that God created everything.

Evolution tells us we came from a rock.

Now I enjoy and am fasinated with science but macro evolution IS NOT science. It's a myth. I use to, at one time, claim to be an Athiest but no matter how hard I tried to believe it, I just couldn't grasp some of the riduclous things that you have to accept to believe there is no God. For a good amount of time, I was agnostic. Then I called myself Christian but believed in an old Earth. But the more I tried to prove the Creation Theory was wrong, the more I saw clues that lead me to belive that a young Earth is possible. So without billions and billions of years for life to begin, macro evolution is nothing but science fiction.

Think about how most recordable history can be traced back to about the same period of time.

Take a look at Jewish Year. I believe the year 2005 is 5765 for those who follow the Jewish faith. Why?

The people of Israel (also called the "Jewish People") trace their origin to Abraham, who established the belief that there is only one God, the creator of the universe (see Old Testament). Abraham, his son Yitshak (Isaac), and grandson Jacob (Israel), are referred to as the patriarchs of the Israelites. All three patriarchs lived in the Land of Canaan, that later came to be known as the Land of Israel. They and their wives are buried in the Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs, in Hebron.

The Jewish year pretty much dates the Great Flood.
The year 2005 translates to the Chinese year 4702–4703. That's 1000 years later than the Jewish year. Egypt goes back to around 3000BC I believe.

3100-2950 BC - Late Predynastic Period - Earliest known hieroglyphic writing & Foundation of the Egyptian state.

But if the Earth is 'billions' of years old then 1000 years isn't much of a time variation. So we went from no recorded history to writing books almost instantly by several civilizations and languages all around the same time?

Genesis 10:31-32
31: These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
32: These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.



#32 emessay

emessay

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 01:13 AM

1. Do 'we' know beyond observable universe E - mc2 = 0 , if m = observable mass universe
10exp(+53) kg ?? and next beyond and beyond another universe.....
2. Can we explain scientifically conscious process in our networked 200 billion neurons ?
3. Is human consciousness only 'surviellence windows tool' for universe ?
4. Are 'we' attending 'the meeting' with agenda how to read 'Mind of Alien' ?
5. Why are 'we' here ? and attending[ born and dead] for what ?
6. Who chairs 'the meeting' ?
7. If there was a Big Bang from 'a drop of liquid' to be 10exp(+53) kg observable universe ,
why we have 'a little big bang' from 1 zygote cell to be 30 trillions well organized cells of
human body ??

#33 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 03:15 AM

Wow! You ask a lot of questions with few words! I’m not sure I understand all of them, but I’ll give my best try at answering.

1. Do 'we' know beyond observable universe E - mc2 = 0 , if m = observable mass universe 10exp(+53) kg ?? and next beyond and beyond another universe.....

E (all the bosonic particles) – M (all the baryonic ones) * c^2 definitely is NOT = 0. All Relativity (a classical theory) says is that E + M*c^2 = a constant.

2. Can we explain scientifically conscious process in our networked 200 billion neurons ?

Not in detail. It’s hard to measure working neurons, and they’re very complicated. None of this says that human thought can’t in principle be explained scientifically, just that it will be much harder to explain than the physiology we currently understand.

3. Is human consciousness only 'surviellence windows tool' for universe ?

I’m guessing you mean “is human consciousness the only thing that makes ‘measurments’ that collapse the quantum wave function?” I doubt this is the case. I believe the wave function evolves (no biology intended) roughly the same whether humans observe it or not.

4. Are 'we' attending 'the meeting' with agenda how to read 'Mind of Alien' ?
5. Why are 'we' here ? and attending[ born and dead] for what ?
6. Who chairs 'the meeting' ?

I don’t understand

7. If there was a Big Bang from 'a drop of liquid' to be 10exp(+53) kg observable universe , why we have 'a little big bang' from 1 zygote cell to be 30 trillions well organized cells of
human body ??

Not sure what “drop of liquid” you’re referring to, but the “little bang” or embryonic development is very different from Cosmology’s “big bang”.

Though all of the details are not known, there’s really no intractable mystery about how a single zygote cell becomes the trillions of specialized, organized cells in an adult human (or animal) body. Each cell has almost exactly the same informational “blueprint”, in the form of it’s nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, plus a lot of less well understood extragenomic data in the form of lipid structures around the DNA, cellular RNA, and maybe structures we’ve not yet discovered. At least as far as the DNA goes, every cell in a human body contains all the information needed to grow an adult body.

#34 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 03:29 AM

… The Bible tells us that God created everything.

Evolution tells us we came from a rock. …

I get where you’re coming from – in my personal experience, I’ve seen some fairly complicated things (machines, computer programs, works of fiction) come into being through the efforts of thinking beings (people), while I’ve not seen that sort of creativity from unthinking nature.

However, I’m very certain of the existence of both people and rocks, having perceived both with all of my senses. I’m equally certain I’ve never perceived God in the same direct, convincing way. As a result, I’m far more certain of the existence of people and rocks than I am of the existence of God.