Religious/Philosophic Discussion

[10_penn]

God willed the earth into creation, without God there is no life. dispite all the theories we create, as smart as we think we are, we cannot put a ball of elements together, hook up a pair of electodes and make the smallest of living creatures. The fact that life exists is proof of God's existence.

 

Let's just pretend that sometime in the future science might just figure out the secret for starting life from simple proteins and amino acids. Would you still stand behind your statement? Just because we don't have the understanding for that part of science yet doesn't mean that it is not possible.

 

Think of the ancient civilizations that had gods for the movements of the sun, moon, and planets around the earth. They also had gods of the sky, the waters, etc... The defenders of these gods and cultures at the time probably would defend them as defiantly as many religious people do today. "The fact that the sun and moon are even there at all is proof of our gods' existence." But what happened after all these phenomenon were explained by science?

 

We look back at these cultures and gods and think of them as rediculous... "How could they possibly believe that??" But what happens if, (and this is only if...) in a thousand years, when science might be able to explain the origin of life from proteins and amino acids, and can go faster than the speed of light, and possibly travel back in time (a feat that was recently deemed impossible)... what will your argument be then?

[ImUrOBGYN]

Anyone catch the premiere episode of Curiousity last night with Stephen Hawking?

 

Seems he came out with what he believes is proof that God cannot exist.

 

Oh, and before I dive back out of this thread, Ogre, you need to read up on your 'sciences' a bit more. I think we're a bit more advanced than you realize.

[CRed05]

Anyone catch the premiere episode of Curiousity last night with Stephen Hawking?

 

Seems he came out with what he believes is proof that God cannot exist

 

Yes, and already on facebook I saw someone call his attempt to prove there isn't a god "pathetic and sad".

 

:lolguy:

[Guest Hal]

Yes, and already on facebook I saw someone call his attempt to prove there isn't a god "pathetic and sad".

 

:lolguy:

 

There are tons of people that think they can prove/disprove the existence of God. So far, we cannot do either.

[10_penn]

Hawkings assertion was that since time did not have a definition before the big bang, then god could not have done anything as there would have been no time for him to do so.

 

This would simply be argued by religious fanatics as saying that "God exists outside of time."

[Guest Hal]

Hawkings assertion was that since time did not have a definition before the big bang, then god could not have done anything as there would have been no time for him to do so.

 

This would simply be argued by religious fanatics as saying that "God exists outside of time."

 

Any particular reason someone has to be a "religious fanatic" to use that argument? There's zero reason to put someone down because of their beliefs.

 

I'm sure the Atheist fanatics will just point to the Bible to suggest that God's actions would have been measured within time. Unfortunately for them, their fanatical beliefs will have led them to ignore the suggestion that a deity is not held to the same standards as man.

 

See how ridiculous it is to apply labels to someone based solely on the defense of their belief? That has absolutely nothing to do with fanaticism, unless of course you don't actually know what that word means.

[CRed05]

There are tons of people that think they can prove/disprove the existence of God. So far, we cannot do either.

 

Right, but calling Steven Hawking pathetic and sad...that's what I laugh at.

 

This would simply be argued by religious fanatics as saying that "God exists outside of time."

 

Yup.

[Guest Hal]

Right, but calling Steven Hawking pathetic and sad...that's what I laugh at.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

Calling him pathetic and sad is frankly retarded. Inferring all religious people are fanatics is frankly retarded.

[AWW$HEEET]

Calling him pathetic and sad is frankly retarded. Inferring all religious people fanatics is frankly retarded.

 

LOL

[10_penn]

Any particular reason someone has to be a "religious fanatic" to use that argument? There's zero reason to put someone down because of their beliefs.

 

I'm sure the Atheist fanatics will just point to the Bible to suggest that God's actions would have been measured within time. Unfortunately for them, their fanatical beliefs will have led them to ignore the suggestion that a deity is not held to the same standards as man.

 

See how ridiculous it is to apply labels to someone based solely on the defense of their belief? That has absolutely nothing to do with fanaticism, unless of course you don't actually know what that word means.

 

Calling him pathetic and sad is frankly retarded. Inferring all religious people are fanatics is frankly retarded.

 

I absolutely agree, there's zero reason for me to put someone down because of their beliefs. For that I am wrong.

 

All I was trying to say is that if a religious person were to be approached with this argument, they would simply say that God exists outside of time, as a way of explaining it away because it is too hard of a subject to explain any other way.

 

In the Genesis creation story, it is specifically referenced in days, and God doing one thing and then another. A sequence of events, no matter how much time passes between events, and no matter how you look at it, is a way to mark time.

 

The reason that people quote "God exists outside of time" was because it was popularized by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. There is no scriptural references to back this up.

[Guest Hal]

I absolutely agree, there's zero reason for me to put someone down because of their beliefs. For that I am wrong.

 

All I was trying to say is that if a religious person were to be approached with this argument, they would simply say that God exists outside of time, as a way of explaining it away because it is too hard of a subject to explain any other way.

 

In the Genesis creation story, it is specifically referenced in days, and God doing one thing and then another. A sequence of events, no matter how much time passes between events, and no matter how you look at it, is a way to mark time.

 

The reason that people quote "God exists outside of time" was because it was popularized by Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. There is no scriptural references to back this up.

 

The references to time are also by man's standards and from my interpretation they are not talking about the creation of the universe. Why do I think that? They didn't know anything that we know now about the universe, they couldn't even comprehend what else was out there.

 

You should also realize that significant portions of the Bible are understood to be stories by man. Do fanatical Christians believe that, no. They are in another category and would likely claim that Hawking was simply wrong without reason.

 

As for God's existence within or outside of time, the popular belief is that God does exist within linear time. As we discussed earlier, the concept of a being existing outside of spacetime is too complicated for a lot of people to grasp, let alone have a real discussion about.

[10_penn]

The references to time are also by man's standards and from my interpretation they are not talking about the creation of the universe. Why do I think that? They didn't know anything that we know now about the universe, they couldn't even comprehend what else was out there.

 

You should also realize that significant portions of the Bible are understood to be stories by man. Do fanatical Christians believe that, no. They are in another category and would likely claim that Hawking was simply wrong without reason.

 

How else do you define time? Whether you're a god or not, our definition of time is still the same - a sequence of events. Plus, God's existence and bringing forth the creation usually means the start of the universe itself. It's only if you believe that happened six thousand years ago or 13.7 billion years ago.

 

As for God's existence within or outside of time, the popular belief is that God does exist within linear time. As we discussed earlier, the concept of a being existing outside of spacetime is too complicated for a lot of people to grasp, let alone have a real discussion about.

 

This "popular belief" all depends on who you talk to. The majority of Christians that I work with and have dealings with would say that he exists outside linear time. But again, this is not something that could ever be proven.

[Guest Hal]

How else do you define time? Whether you're a god or not, our definition of time is still the same - a sequence of events. Plus, God's existence and bringing forth the creation usually means the start of the universe itself. It's only if you believe that happened six thousand years ago or 13.7 billion years ago.

 

This "popular belief" all depends on who you talk to. The majority of Christians that I work with and have dealings with would say that he exists outside linear time. But again, this is not something that could ever be proven.

 

We perceive time as a sequence of events. There is no law in physics that says that must be true. What if all time exists at once, just not here?

 

There actually is a difference between those beliefs. The argument that "Genesis says..." doesn't really work when you look at the historical and scientific significance of it. Could God not have said all those things after the Big Bang? What if God is ~13.7 billion years old? Could Hawking's theory be wrong? We can't test what there was or wasn't before the Big Bang.

 

I've actually never met a Christian who believes that God exists outside of time.

[10_penn]

We perceive time as a sequence of events. There is no law in physics that says that must be true. What if all time exists at once, just not here?

 

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? Not trying to fight here, but I'd like to know where you're going with this. We have specific definitions of time that do not involve movements of the Earth and moon (years, months, weeks, days, hours, seconds...), they are defined by the speed of light and how long it takes to traverse the defined "Planck's length" which is equivalent to 10^-20 the diameter of a proton. This is that law in physics that you said was not there.

 

As I know it is probably beyond the realm of our understanding, how would you propose that all time exist at once?

 

There actually is a difference between those beliefs. The argument that "Genesis says..." doesn't really work when you look at the historical and scientific significance of it. Could God not have said all those things after the Big Bang? What if God is ~13.7 billion years old? Could Hawking's theory be wrong? We can't test what there was or wasn't before the Big Bang.

 

Could God not have said what? That he created the earth, life and stars etc.. in 6 days? Why would he lie about the creation and say it was made in such a short time, when there is such a vast amount of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

 

Of course Hawking could be wrong, then again we could all be wrong by denouncing the ancient Greek gods. How do we know that all of them didn't exist and that we should all be worshiping Zeus? Hawkings is very clear in his statements, that HE believes in this or that, his own personal beliefs don't allow for an afterlife or a creator. His theory is just that, HIS theory.

 

But personal theory is very different than scientific theory.

 

I've actually never met a Christian who believes that God exists outside of time.

 

No offense, but you haven't met many Christians then. This is one of their #1 arguments. It all started back in ~400 A.D. with St Augustine, and is one of the core points of debate in any argument that involves God and time. I can't tell you how many Christian people, religious conversations that I've had that involve this topic specifically.

[Guest Hal]

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? Not trying to fight here, but I'd like to know where you're going with this. We have specific definitions of time that do not involve movements of the Earth and moon (years, months, weeks, days, hours, seconds...), they are defined by the speed of light and how long it takes to traverse the defined "Planck's length" which is equivalent to 10^-20 the diameter of a proton. This is that law in physics that you said was not there.

 

As I know it is probably beyond the realm of our understanding, how would you propose that all time exist at once?

 

 

 

Could God not have said what? That he created the earth, life and stars etc.. in 6 days? Why would he lie about the creation and say it was made in such a short time, when there is such a vast amount of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

 

Of course Hawking could be wrong, then again we could all be wrong by denouncing the ancient Greek gods. How do we know that all of them didn't exist and that we should all be worshiping Zeus? Hawkings is very clear in his statements, that HE believes in this or that, his own personal beliefs don't allow for an afterlife or a creator. His theory is just that, HIS theory.

 

But personal theory is very different than scientific theory.

 

 

 

No offense, but you haven't met many Christians then. This is one of their #1 arguments. It all started back in ~400 A.D. with St Augustine, and is one of the core points of debate in any argument that involves God and time. I can't tell you how many Christian people, religious conversations that I've had that involve this topic specifically.

 

There's a theory of time that says all time exists at once, all that is and was exists simultaneously. The theory says that we are simply bound to a linear perception of time as we interact with each event. It's a spinoff of the theory of relativity. The laws of physics do not suggest that this is untrue.

 

Could God not have talked about creation in terms that men could understand? I'm not suggesting he lied, I'm suggesting this is closer to the parent child analogy. Could God not have spoken in terms that his children would understand while at the same time saying what He did?

 

My comment about Hawking's theory is to address the point that people will make about his theory basically being the truth. I'm not trying to say Christianity is the answer.

 

I come from a very religious family and attended a big church around here, no one suggested that God exists outside the bounds of time. I don't mean that He could not travel through time, only that He exists in linear time.

[Trouble Maker]

Yes, and already on facebook I saw someone call his attempt to prove there isn't a god "pathetic and sad".

 

:lolguy:

 

This person who posted this is likely about 1/3 as smart as him.

 

I need to see if I can find this online somewhere.

[10_penn]

There's a theory of time that says all time exists at once, all that is and was exists simultaneously. The theory says that we are simply bound to a linear perception of time as we interact with each event. It's a spinoff of the theory of relativity. The laws of physics do not suggest that this is untrue.

 

I do remember reading an article on this a while ago. It certainly makes one think...

 

Could God not have talked about creation in terms that men could understand? I'm not suggesting he lied, I'm suggesting this is closer to the parent child analogy. Could God not have spoken in terms that his children would understand while at the same time saying what He did?

 

While it is of course plausible that God could have simplified terms for man's understanding, it is far more likely that man wrote the same because it was man's understanding.

 

My comment about Hawking's theory is to address the point that people will make about his theory basically being the truth. I'm not trying to say Christianity is the answer.

 

I come from a very religious family and attended a big church around here, no one suggested that God exists outside the bounds of time. I don't mean that He could not travel through time, only that He exists in linear time.

 

If someone (atheist or not) just blurts out Hawking's statements as truth without being cognizant of Hawking's personal views that have been intertwined (as on the "Curiosity" program), then that someone should be given as much credit and respect as a religious fanatic whose views are arrogant, without basis, and cannot be changed. (I used fanatic correctly this time.)

 

I can't tell you how many times I have heard the "outside of time" view. But I understand that's not everyone's view. So it's probably best that we drop it.

[Guest Hal]

While it is of course plausible that God could have simplified terms for man's understanding, it is far more likely that man wrote the same because it was man's understanding.

 

In my own opinion, it's more likely that man wrote that because it's how he understood the world. That's why every ancient culture had their own versions of the creation story. Now, this doesn't suggest that God does not exist. There are significant portions of the Bible which are understood to be the word of God. Most theologians will freely admit that much of the Bible is written by man, it's the fanatics who claim the entire thing (from creation, to Jonas, to revelation) is the word of God. They're idiots.

[10_penn]

I'm in complete agreement with your post.