Origin of the Universe

[ThePhilosopher]

you are giving me definitions and observations from the perspective of a human bound to the limitations of time and space.

observe.
there could be an endless trail of finite matter, because if there wasn't, that would be a limitation on god for not have an omnipotent imagination capable of creating an infinite amount of matter. tehologians agree that god cannot create another infinite, but they debate on whether god can create an infinite amount of finite matter. i think it would be contradictory of his omnipotency if he could not, so i am going to stick with the assumption that there is in fact an infinite amount of matter. keep in mind here that god exists OUTSIDE of time. so no matter how infinite or endless matter may seem, it still exists within time, according to god's mind. god would still have to have caused this endless matter as matter as a whole still cannot generate itself to existence.
the faults of human language play tricks on human imagination. there is no proper way in language to describe how god can work outside of time, as all of our forms of speech deal with strict time-based tenses that cannot apply to god.

ThePhilosopher,

If that is the case, if human imagination and/or language are so limited, why are you even bothering to attempt to formulate an argument using it?

Thirteen

because i am a human, and i am, just like anyone here, confined to my limited human grasp and understanding.
i was simply demonstrating god as best as my human capabilities allow me to.

[Henkybaby]

Nobody knows what the origin of the universe is and if there is an origin. There are a lot of theories, none of which have enough proof to be generally accepted. All we can hope for is that science will one day find out what really happened or accidentally discovers god. I would not hold my breath though.

Now (again) the inability of science to proof the way the universe began (or didn't) is not (no matter how much you do your best) proof of the existence of a higher being.

Neither is the fact that you (or I for that matter) can get your head around concepts like that there may have been no time before the universe as we know came into being. Or that we all live on a brane in a 11 dimensional universe.

For once and for all: the fact that some things cannot yet be proven does not mean that you need a God. Most likely we will figure it out in time, like with the shape of the earth, evolution, medicine, etc.

One thing we will never understand though: women.

[Vynn]

No worries, No animosity, you obviously are set with who you are and thats awesome!

And you obviously have no qualms with making declarative statements with no reasoning behind them. Does this sort of nonsense reply mean that you're going to ignore the questions i asked you? Have you just labeled me in your mind as a way to dismiss what i have said?

[Vynn]

All of the mechanisms of the universe could not just have happened,

Who says that these "mechanisms" "just happened", and how do you know for sure that they couldn't have "just happened"?

That most people do not want to be held accountable to a higher being.

How do you know this? From where does your data come?

Those of us that have Faith in Him do so because he has touched our lives and made himself manifest in the things we perceive because we sought the truth.(if your looking for nothing, nothing will be found)

Indeed, that's the same arguments my muslim friends use.

If you continue your whole life without ever seeking God then he will never become known to you. However, if you seek him and you do wish to get to know God he will not shun you just because all of your life you have disregarded and shunned him. He has allowed you to make your petitions known to him, and in the end you will know that  he in fact has and does exist.

I don't buy it. Some people have searched for god their entire lives and come away from that search with nothing more than what they started.

Unfortunately until the end, some will never know.

Why is this "unfortunate"?

[Dragnet]

you still fail to understand this.
you are like a blind man claiming to properly imagine the color red, if he has never seen it. you have NEVER had contact with eternity nor infinity; therefore, you CANNOT adequately imagine/grasp them. it would go against your humanity.

How do you know this?


You seem fail to understand that each human experience is unique and when making comments about what others are capable of, makes you an arrogant ass.

You can't make statements about the nature of any given deity and then follow up with "YOU can't understand it".

Your statements seem to be saying that YOU understand things that the rest of us can't.
Is that what you mean? If so, I want to know how you can know this.
If this is not what you mean then please explain your self better.

If you are saying that your god is beyond human understanding, then you need to explain how you know that.

This is not confusion on my part it is your inability to communicate, much like your god it seems.

[Omega]

you are like a blind man claiming to properly imagine the color red, if he has never seen it. you have NEVER had contact with eternity nor infinity; therefore, you CANNOT adequately imagine/grasp them. it would go against your humanity.

that is old philosophical crap, today we don't need that at all and thst is invalid today.
it is quite obvious that everybody is blind to X-ray spectrum, however that does not prevent us to imagine that properly and use in radiography. we can also feed that invisible spectrum into computr and it will give you nice 3d image.

there is no such things that we cant understand, there are only thing that we don't know.

[Ambassador Pony]

Are you Marilyn? If not, you have stolen someone else's words and passed them off as if they were your own. That is called plagiarism and it is wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/04/framing_science_round_ii.php


 

It appears as if Marilyn may be a Jehovas Witness too and got that information from the same source that I did. It comes from the 2008 Watchtower Library on CD. Its great for finding information about God and the Bible. If you would like one visit http://watchtower.org there you can obtain a copy for yourself at no charge.

Plagiarism reported

Try to keep your lying to a minimum here, please.

Friend, there were no false claims of authorship. I was simply posting pertinent information to the topic of discussion.

Plagiarism is lying.

Your excuse is ignorance. I understand, but that doesn't change what you did. You now know that that is dishonest behaviour.  

Do I really have to explain this more for you? Honestly, teaching morality to theists is a full time job.

How much does everyone else have to suffer because you insist on remaining ignorant? Maybe selfish is on the menu as well.

[Operator_013]

I think the point has been made, but just in case it hasn't, here it is one more time.

workingtowardfaith, the point Pony is attempting to make is that if you post material from an external source - be it the Web or elsewhere - you are expected to provide a citation, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Forum Rules. (You'll find the link to the Rules on the top left of this page.) If it's from the Web, a hyperlink to the source will do; if it's from elsewhere, please provide as full a citation as possible e.g. Author, Title, page numbers and publication if applicable. That way, others who read the material in question can see the context of the quote, and it's also easier to find reviews and commentaries on it. Quoting an external source verbatim without citation is counted as "plagiarism", that is, passing off another's work as one's own, and forum members and staff take a dim view of it, even if it is inadvertent.

I'll trust that in future you'll take more care in citing your sources.

Thirteen

[rickymooston]

I think the point has been made, but just in case it hasn't, here it is one more time.

workingtowardfaith, the point Pony is attempting to make is that if you post material from an external source - be it the Web or elsewhere - you are expected to provide a citation, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Forum Rules. (You'll find the link to the Rules on the top left of this page.) If it's from the Web, a hyperlink to the source will do; if it's from elsewhere, please provide as full a citation as possible e.g. Author, Title, page numbers and publication if applicable. That way, others who read the material in question can see the context of the quote, and it's also easier to find reviews and commentaries on it. Quoting an external source verbatim without citation is counted as "plagiarism", that is, passing off another's work as one's own, and forum members and staff take a dim view of it, even if it is inadvertent.

I'll trust that in future you'll take more care in citing your sources.

Thirteen

Why did Pony call him a liar when he pointed out his real source was the watch tower. He provided a link, ..., after the fact.      ;-)

Is it wrong from him to be asked to edit his post so he attributes his post to the correct source (the watch tower)  and to apologize for the breech of forum rules.

workingtowardfaith, I hope you know how to do this properly now?   There are many ways. I provide an example of how you COULD have done this in bold.

The following elegant passage is from the watchtower, CD. I highly recommend it. Full of great wisdom. It comes from the 2008 Watchtower Library on CD. Its great for finding information about God and the Bible. If you would like one visit http://watchtower.org there you can obtain a copy for yourself at no charge.

  There are persons today who deny the existence of God. Some say, “God is dead.” But is their theory right? Speaking of such persons, Paul states in one of his letters:
“[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:20)
The vast universe and all the marvels that it contains are truly an expression of God’s “eternal power.”
  Even famous scientists have at times acknowledged their own smallness in comparison with the stupendous power and wisdom apparent in creation. For example, Albert Einstein once testified:
“It is enough for me to . . . reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature.”
  The discoverer of the “law of gravity,” Sir Isaac Newton, was another who was deeply impressed by the evidence of God’s invisible qualities that are to be seen in His creation. The following account relates how Newton testified to his belief in Almighty God:
Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton. On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, “Who made it?” Newton answered, “Nobody!” The atheist replied, “You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius.” Newton then said to his friend, “This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!”
Newton’s friend came to acknowledge that the great Designer and Maker of all things is God. Surely we, too, as we look on the marvels of creation about us, in the heavens and on earth, must acknowledge that an all-wise Creator made it all! How thankful we should be that this mighty Creator lovingly placed man here on this earth and that he is deeply interested in us!

  <--- From Watchtower 2008 CD.

Note: Long quotes generally annoy people. ;-)

[rickymooston]

Formatting mostly.

What I find disturbing is they track this stupid post down and decide it is awesome and steal it.

Immoral and uneducated, if guilty.

Cool!!!

I think the immorality assumes that the  intent is to attribute the work to one's self.  Some people just don't know convention.

I can tell a funny story.

In my physics class. The prof allowed us to have anything we want on a one page cheat sheet.

This foreign student managed to copy down miniturized versions of the answers to questions from previous exams.

One of the old questions came out on the open book exam. He copied the teacher's solution, word for word

Needless to say, he got zero and that had he paraphrased the solution, showing he understood it, he'd have had a zero.

[Ambassador Pony]

Ignorance is no excuse. Sure we'd correct him if he was a child, with little consequence. Many here, like you, are happy to do so for a grown man.

By now you'll have noticed that the outrage of others at his behaviour is no barometer of morality for him. He'll continue to do as he pleases and call that moral.

Edit: spelign

[Operator_013]

Is it wrong from him to be asked to edit his post so he attributes his post to the correct source (the watch tower)  and to apologize for the breech of forum rules.

Not wrong per se, but I wonder whether it's perhaps better to report the post and leave it at that, as long digressions on what is or is not plagiarism can disrupt an otherwise worthwhile thread.

(Says the moderator who is continuing to disrupt this thread with his responses.)

Thirteen

[GamerGirl]

Stop it just stop! Stop picking on a person's beliefs.  Obviously "ThePhilosopher" questioned my belief that universe started somewhere.  Just as an atheist would question my theism. 

It's not nice, but it's freedom of speech so nuts to me!