The big bang theory is bs!

[john]

Damn.

Soooo close.

[john]

Moshydog - are you polytheist or monotheist?  Can you explain why?

[xphobe]

The mind is an intricate thing, but like an M4, it can be very effective if used well, but very dangerous if used untended. It's always nice to share in someone else's excitement.

Here is Mutha, using her mind (and my M4) effectively.  She can be very dangerous if left untended

Sorry, just free-associating here. Carry on...

[TiffaAce]

Think about it, how can something be created out of nothing? It can't. There has to be some form of life or matter for something to be made. For me, God making the universe is easier to believe and think about rather than everything to be created one day just at random. It's mainly most of the scientists and athiests who believe this. God made science and he can just as well take it away too. I know there are going to be non-believers and others who are going to try to take pieces of what I just typed and turn it into something that makes me sound foolish. So please dont do that because it will make you look foolish as well.

Let me start in saying.
If you really read up on the big bang theory you will find that there was something. It was a ultimately dense and scolding hot point that tore open due to the sudden reaction. This reaction left debris resulting in masses of the cosmos through greater relativity and the quantum works. Also, this didn't just happen in one "day" because time is relative to mass and location.
Now, all we "know" is theory even this, even your god.
Think logically.
You believe in god why? Because your taught to? Because the idea of something "not as meaningful" is scary? Because you have faith and feel it in your heart?
Humans thrive on the thought of "MORE"; There has to be more, I am meant for more, I want more, I need more, I have more meaning than the dirt around me. We all want that comfort we are for something. Honestly, think about it. You are just one out of billions of people alive, many more dead, and lots more to come. We are lifeforms that want meaning. So we will fool ourselves for the most part into thinking more of ourselves. Humans believe ridiculous things to believe they "know" why we are here, what we are here for, and who created us. More flow on emotion than logic to fill this craving. Logic is just too blunt for these people. If you really sit down and think you will realize how easy it is to get people to believe in  a  ridiculous deity. Also, you remember the childhood game telephone right? Pass a story down the line and it ends up distorted at the end.. So how do you know what you hear and read is really the right story? After hundreds of years of being told it would have to be completely backwards and upside down.
So Lil angel, Your belief is full of more bullshit than the big bang theory.

[Moshydog]

Moshydog - are you polytheist or monotheist?  Can you explain why?

In regards to my intellectual pursuits, I would say that I would be a deist. There seems to be some 'mind' behind the universe, even if it is just in regards to the creation of the physical laws and I guess the non-physical foundations on which the universe is based. I guess in simple terms, the 'reason' behind the big bang, and the flow of civilisation, humanity and intelligence as a pre-existing archetype would be the foundation of my deist belief. I could gain nothing more from searching for 'god' in this regard. I cannot say that the universe is without order, a random event in the infinity of time and space, let alone with regards to life (mine in particular).

However, in regard to my personal experiences I have to say I'm a follower of Jesus, and thereby a monotheist. I have seen far too many things that are 'too freaky' to be confined to a simple natural explanation, and have received a gift of enlightenment from what I identify as this 'mind behind the universe', or what I call God. The struggle comes in reconciling both views of God from both an impersonal and personal nature. And, from here, I must admit that it makes more sense to understand God from the perspective that he has given to me, rather than the perspective that my mind has developed independently. Who is God? He is who he says he is. Nothing more can I gain on this.

[velkyn]

However, in regard to my personal experiences I have to say I'm a follower of Jesus, and thereby a monotheist. I have seen far too many things that are 'too freaky' to be confined to a simple natural explanation, and have received a gift of enlightenment from what I identify as this 'mind behind the universe', or what I call God. The struggle comes in reconciling both views of God from both an impersonal and personal nature. And, from here, I must admit that it makes more sense to understand God from the perspective that he has given to me, rather than the perspective that my mind has developed independently. Who is God? He is who he says he is. Nothing more can I gain on this.

so it seems that your argument is the same as any theist.  I am special to God and he picked me out to receive this "gift of enlightenment", which not so strangely, is agreement that what I believe is right. 

[john]

Okay, so, monotheist.

The problem with that is that you hold two incompatible aspects of divinity (the numbering is from the previous example)-

1. - That which gives us maps.
3. - That which inspires us to make maps.

Each of these purposes directly contravenes the other.  If you are monotheistic, then how can you hold two incompatible aspects of God?  Is God schizophrenic?

[Moshydog]

Okay, so, monotheist.

The problem with that is that you hold two incompatible aspects of divinity (the numbering is from the previous example)-

1. - That which gives us maps.
3. - That which inspires us to make maps.

Each of these purposes directly contravenes the other.  If you are monotheistic, then how can you hold two incompatible aspects of God?  Is God schizophrenic?

Well, exactly what are you refering to in real terms when you say:

1. - That which gives us maps.
3. - That which inspires us to make maps.

My interpretation is in regarding sense of the universe. Because God exists, there is meaning and purpose for the universe, and also, inspires us to search for meaning and desire a purpose.

I think it makes sense that if God exists we don't find him, so much as he finds us...

[john]

OK.

You work in an office.  Bob from accounting stops by to ask you how to do TPS reports.  Bob has heard that you are the expert on TPS reports.  You can:

A: Encourage him to do his own, by providing whatever help, training, or whatever else he might need.

B: Offer to do the report for him.

If you do A and B, what will Bob do the next time he needs a TPS report?

[Moshydog]

OK.

You work in an office.  Bob from accounting stops by to ask you how to do TPS reports.  Bob has heard that you are the expert on TPS reports.  You can:

A: Encourage him to do his own, by providing whatever help, training, or whatever else he might need.

B: Offer to do the report for him.

If you do A and B, what will Bob do the next time he needs a TPS report?

Exactly what does this have to do with a theistic worldview, or the Big Bang?

I'll answer anyway, a combination would have the best effect. Pure A may eventually bring Bob up to speed to complete TPS reports to a higher standard (in the mean time producing sub standard reports), while pure B would mean that the report would be the best possible, but Bob would be unutilised and wouldn't learn. The optimum solution would be for Bob to try to do his own 1st copy, then edited by myself for where Bob can improve so as to bring the gap between Bob and myself down to a minimum. So a combination.

[john]

The point of this is to demonstrate that a divine purpose in revealing an intelligent creation is directly opposed to a divine purpose of encouragement to understand it.  A God attempting both at the same time would be catastrophically inconsistent with itself and would fail to provide to us the significance we need.

You chose A.  Follow up editing counts as "whatever help, training, or whatever else he might need."

Now, we can either fence over whether you knew you were equivocating when you claimed that your response was "a combination", or we can move on to the much more useful question of why you equivocated.

The reason you equivocated is because I put you in a situation where you demonstrated better judgment about human nature than God.  Whatever you think God is, you personally possess better powers of judgment than he does.  You had to lie to protect God's identity as Creator and Perfect Judge.  Your only other choice was to give up your belief in that identity.

God's existence does not fit within the identity you impose upon him.  Which is more important to you?

[Moshydog]

The point of this is to demonstrate that a divine purpose in revealing an intelligent creation is directly opposed to a divine purpose of encouragement to understand it.  A God attempting both at the same time would be catastrophically inconsistent with itself and would fail to provide to us the significance we need.

How so?

I guess, if I understand you correctly, my answer as a combination is wrong. However, I would argue that a combination is actually required for the current situation we all live in (a good yet bad world - I'll assume that you are able to see that there are elements of both things that are good and bad in this world).


A. Man alone controls his destiny, God just arranged for the 'training', the curious and intelligent nature of humans.
B. God made and controls absolutely everything. (He even does our TPS reporting, and fills out our tax returns for us!)

A. means that we do our own thing regardless of what God may say about it, but the process is entirely doomed to fail because no proper training can come about for the creation, except from the creator.
B. means that the world would be perfect, and everything is done according to the absolute perfect standard he uses. However, this means that our input into anything is removed (Bob doesn't get a say in on the TPS).

A means that we are entirely on our own, B means we have no free will. A means we are doomed to destroy ourselves, and God is a tyrant sitting idly by. B means we attain perfection only because we have nothing to do with it, we are robots under the tyrant God.

A combination of A and B will mean that A. perfection can be attained, while B. we can be a part of it.

In the original question, training Bob would be in the middle, while telling Bob to get lost and do his own work would be the other side. So
A. Tell Bob to $%&@ off and stop being lazy.
B. Offer to help Bob and give him training to do better.
C. Do Bob's work.

[ungod]

Think about it, how can something be created out of nothing? It can't. There has to be some form of life or matter for something to be made. For me, God making the universe is easier to believe and think about rather than everything to be created one day just at random. It's mainly most of the scientists and athiests who believe this. God made science and he can just as well take it away too. I know there are going to be non-believers and others who are going to try to take pieces of what I just typed and turn it into something that makes me sound foolish. So please dont do that because it will make you look foolish as well.

And God created the universe EX NIHILO - "from nothing"! ROTFLMAO!
 

[Ray AP19]

This thread reminds me of an argument I had with my (older) cousin about a week ago. I told him God doesn't exist, and he called me stupid for it, with his only reasoning being "Who created everything?!"

I tried to explain abiogenesis to him, but it was seriously hopeless. I seriously feel like complete crap, not only because a stupid person called ME stupid, but because I'm RELATED to him.

[kin hell]

G'day Ray

One of my longtime (3 decades) surf crew best mates is a creationist, I told him (when he, just a few years ago, first revealed his beliefs to me), that for the first time in my life I would have to acknowledge that one of my friends was an unthinking moron.

We got past it.

Ray I should also point out for your benefit, that you have posted in a thread that has been dead since the invention of platform shoes (OK maybe that is a slight exaggeration) but this site has the policy of non-ressurection of dead threads. The process being if you feel the topic worthy of further exploration, but the thread is well past last used by date, then start a new thread, otherwise just lets leaping dog slide...

and welcome to the site mate

[Ray AP19]

The thread was on the first page and was posted in yesterday. Could easily throw someone off.

[kin hell]

The thread was on the first page and was posted in yesterday. Could easily throw someone off.

too true Ray   I didn't even notice that ungod was the actual thread necromancer

[Godexists]

And God created the universe EX NIHILO - "from nothing"! ROTFLMAO!
 

that makes absolutely sense

God = the power
created = action
in the beginning = time
the heavens = space
and the earth = matter

in the first versicle of Genesis, the author described everything that exists, and could be described. That is something, that was discovered in the 19th century by a scientific philosopher named Herbert Spencer.

on the contrary, to assert, that absolutely nothing is the cause of everything, that is indeed laughable....., since absolutely nothing has no properties and no potential, it is the absence of any thing.... 

[Azdgari]

From what material did God create the universe, then?

Was there something he used?  Or did he use nothing?

And if it was something, then what created that something?

[Godexists]

From what material did God create the universe, then?

He created it out of nothing physical. This correlates to modern science, which states that matter, energy, and time began to exist and where created at the Big Bang, from literally nothing physical.

And if it was something, then what created that something?

that something exists forever, without beginning , and without a end. And it must be so. Since if that something were created, then what would it be, that created that something, and so on.....

[Azdgari]

He created it out of nothing physical. This correlates to modern science, which states that matter, energy, and time began to exist and where created at the Big Bang, from literally nothing physical.

"Nothing" is certainly nothing physical.  But you've dodged my question.  I asked what it is, not what it isn't.  What non-physical medium did God use in his efforts to create the universe?  And where did he get it?

that something exists forever, without beginning , and without a end. And it must be so. Since if that something were created, then what would it be, that created that something, and so on.....

So everything needs to be created, except for the things which you've decided don't need to be created.  Convenient.

[Godexists]

"Nothing" is certainly nothing physical.  But you've dodged my question.  I asked what it is, not what it isn't.  What non-physical medium did God use in his efforts to create the universe?  And where did he get it?

he did use his word. Or , call it information 

So everything needs to be created, except for the things which you've decided don't need to be created.  Convenient.

It has nothing to do with convenience, but with reason. Any better alternative on hand ?

[Noman Peopled]

It has nothing to do with convenience, but with reason. Any better alternative on hand ?

God didn't need to be created.
The universe needed to be created.
God is eternal.
The universe is not eternal.

This is reasonable how?
As for alternatives, how about a hearty "I don't know exactly how the universe came to be?" Even modern physics doesn't claim to fully understand the process - so what's reasonable about believing what people who thought bats were birds wrote?

[plethora]

he did use his word. Or , call it information 

... and how did he convert 'information' into spacetime, matter and energy?

[Azdgari]

he did use his word. Or , call it information 

Information that came from...?

It has nothing to do with convenience, but with reason. Any better alternative on hand ?

See NP's post.

[Godexists]

This is reasonable how?

i explained why i think its reasonable. If you think its not, you might present a better alternative ?

As for alternatives, how about a hearty "I don't know exactly how the universe came to be?" Even modern physics doesn't claim to fully understand the process - so what's reasonable about believing what people who thought bats were birds wrote?

That does not seem a honest answer to me. Based on what we do know, we can make a picture about the issues, confidently.

You have 3 alternatives on hand:

A eternal being, without beginning, without end, made all creation
Everything that exists were created out of absolutely nothing
The universe exists without beginning, eternally.

The second and third option runs in serious problems to be held as possible alternative.

[Azdgari]

The first option has all the problems of the third option, plus some extras.

[Godexists]

The first option has all the problems of the third option, plus some extras.

why ?

[Azdgari]

Because whatever logical problems there are with an eternal universe also apply to an eternal being.

It has extra problems in that we're left with having to explain how the eternal being functions.