Recently, I've seen many threads about religion, it's shenanigans, and almighty question of the existence of god. I figure before we discuss other issues concerning morality, religion, and the fate of eternity, we all might need to decide whether the existence of a god or gods is even remotely imaginable. So, for you religious fanatics out there it's time to put your scriptures on the shleves and put on your philosophical thinking caps. Bias Alert: I'm Christian and believe in God. Remeber that when approaching this subject, always be aware of other's agendas. Proof of any absolute truth is impossible. There are absolutes, but absolute truth is not provable, for the absolute proof of truth means the undeniablity of a god. That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence to support the existence, it just isn't provable. Here's a simple illustration to help convey this meaning. Can you prove without doubt that you are a citizen of your nationality? Moving on, if your stuck at that feel free to pm me. I'd like to keep this discussion on track. Non-Scriptural Arguments Cosmological Argument This is an application of the first law of thermodynamics: Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary means. The italisized portion to the "wild card" some physicists use to rationalize the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened as a result of non-matter coming together and wallah a miracle of improbablity resulted. What is non-matter exactly? Dark matter, no longer cold of course. Anyways dark matter is unenergized and therefore without structure which is what makes matter, matter. Basically the sub-structure of matter without stucture came together to make a giant exsplosion. I find it difficult to grasp that matter is subject to that law but not the particles that make up matter. Teleogical Argument Simply put: useful order suggests intelligence behind design. Illustration: You can shake a box for 1,000 yrs and with the faintest remote possiblity produce a watch. But will the watch tell time? Technically, yes it will display different hues of color. Basically if you shook that box for 1,000 yrs you wouldn't know what it was that came out, especially what those funny changing colors were on the see through thingy. Now you make gutteral sounds at this amazing discovery for which you don't know what it is or its intended purpose other than the fact it is shiny and amuses you. A watchmaker produces a watch. It is defined and known as a watch because there is useful purpose for it. The watch can be applied to your wrists and displays geometric patterns known as numbers because numbers have been defined and are known as such. The screen of the watch reads 3:00 PM and signals your brain that it is tea time and you would like Mr. Fletcher to join you in some afternoon festivites. You call and ask, "Hello Mr. Fletcher, would you like to join me at my flat for some tea?" Mr. Fletcher responds with a "Yes," and promptly comes over for polite conversation. Anthropological Argument Let this mull over in your head a bit. It does make a lot of sense if you pull it apart and think about it, especially conscience. A random force couldn't produce a soul. How would this blind force inbue a morale compass, reasoning and abstract thought, decision making not based on instinct, etc. Moral Argument Only humans are capable of conscience, so how did that develop? Humans are the only altruistic creatures on earth. Ontological Argument Really think these over. Once you do here's an illustration of how humans couldn't have come up with a god they couldn't understand. Throughout pagan culture the idea of god is always polytheistic. This is because gods are in likeness to humans and animals. Also gods are incapable of being universal. There is a god of war, of crops, of fertility. Which makes sense since these gods are easily understandable. But a god that has universal domain over everything? Second, eternity. Can you even begin to comprehend it? Imagine living for 1, 000 yrs, 5,000, 100,000. That may be a littler easier to understand. I have a beginning and now I just live forever, but what about the past? Can you imagine a being that has always existed before there was space to exist in. Man could not have imagined an eternal being in a non-eternal world.
I'm Jewish, but we have similar belief values it seems, at least from this. Will edit in later if I have time, but mainly this for took out your sig.
Irony? Your sig is still in lol. Anyways, when I really begin to think about this sort of thing, the uncertainties that exist just boggles my mind. I do believe in God to some extent; I believe in the big bang but I believe something must've put the original matter there. It sort of scares me at the thought of a perfect divine being thats been here forever.
I'm not asking you to believe in God, just that there is not a blind force behing it all. This information is simply to disprove the movement of naturalsim where it is all left up to nature without the involvement of any eternal being whatever that may be. I believe in a specific viewpopint, but these arguments aren't here to tell you how or what to believe in, but to show you the inerrancy of a particular worldview. These arguments aren't here to tell you how to respond to a god whether personal or not to you. This is just an open door to some deeper thinking. Edit: It doesn't scare me as much as realize how my finite brain can't comprehend it. It just hurts to ponder it.
The first law states the change in interal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. No where does it state that matter can not be created or destroyed. That is a downright lie. Even if it did, it would be revised as we intake newer information. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 This is not a difficult concept. Watches don't reproduce, if they did, however, this video explains how. Simply put, morality is not objective. It is subjective, i.e. war and murder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW96qmtDmUM Eh?...So what you're saying is that the human mind, desperate for purpose, could not derive a magical deity with human emotions and feeling - like the Judeo-Christian god? The self-proclaimed jealous god as indicated by the bible. Weak, I've seen far better works of art and immagination in xbox live gamer tags. --- What's my take?... You can ask me the finer points in this thread, it's hard to think of everything on the fly. Just ask and I'll answer -- A tangent I went on. Spoiler Ask yourself what is conciousness? Your brain, right? The memory stored in your brain. No, those aren't your thoughts and emotions and conciousness. Those are the chemical and electrical charges in your head that are shaped by the way your brain is constructed that creates your feelings and conciousness. However, that's what creates you, not what is you. You are your thoughts and emotions. You are what you are percieving right now, not the thing that produces what you are percieving. So you are an illusion, you don't exist in objective reality. You are exactly what you are percieving in this instant. Which changes constantly. That person before is gone forever - dead. Imagine someone on their death bed, when they stop functioning what they are percieving ceases to be - thats not any different than from now to now. Because what you were percieving 1 second ago has now changed - forever. So, at the start of this paragraph you were person #1, now you're somewhere in the hundreds. You died one hundred times before reaching this point. Now thats the truth, but does it really matter? If you start thinking about it you may become a nihilist and the value of the illusion you are percieving will diminish. Do yourself a favour and understand this, but don't start thinking in the ways of it. Alternatively, every cell in your body at some point dies within a seven year period - constantly being replaced. So, biologically the baby boy born ** years ago is now dead. Imagine a car, overtime if you replacd every single part would it still be the same car? If you did it gradually you would say yes, if you did it all at once it would appear to be a brand new car. However, either way will produce a new car, regardless of perception. You may be thinking, what does this have to do with anything? What I'm getting at is simple, we are constantly dying, there is no reason to think that when we die in someone else's subjective reality that anything will happen to us in objective reality. No heaven, no hell. Sorry for spelling and gramatical errors I'm on a crappy laptop and I'm not too concerned about it at the moment. I love you rusty, but I hate your arguements - they suck...exponentially.
But basically it says that energy and matter can neither be created not destroyed. As found here: 1st Law of Thermodynamics, First Law of Thermodynamics (If you look into what they are saying), 6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But from now on I will refer to it as the law of conservation of mass and energy to save time and confusion. I love your blanket statement at the end, it would be revised as we intake newer information. Sounds like someone is searching for hope in a flawed ideal. Of course they don't. This is not about evolution. This is about the possible existence of a god, not God. So, you support the idea that there is a god, whether personal or impersonal. We have two different views of morality here. Again I ask how can morality exist without a ruler to measure up too? Without a ruler morality is non-exixtent because if it is relative to each individual then everyone is moral. But x cannot equal non-x so morality left up to the individual cannont equal another person's sense of morality. Which leads me back to the original question, without a god, any god, whatever god to instill that sense of morality how do we have it today? We can explore possible scenarios later, at this point we are tyring to disprove the existence of a god, any god, whatever god, which isn't going so well. I really don't want to delve this fast into the attributes of God. You are diving into another argument at breakneck speed. So I'll try and limit my response to the beginning stages of this discussion. Okay, humans are finite beings incapable of perfection. How can humans 'create' a god who is perfect and infinite without having the capability to understand what infinity is or what absolute perfection is. Humans are humans and can only somewhat understand who God is by applying human characteristics to Him to somewhat understand His nature. Human characteristics are imperfect and therefore are inapplicable to God, but they are necesary for understanding Him. Also, where does the sense for purpose come from? For sake of time I have chosen not to respond to your spoiler, not because I don't want to, I do. Ah Nitrous I love you too, but your opinions suck exponentially, lol.
You do realize that those are in closed or isolated systems. It is also an approximate law held only in classical physics since the advent of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Flawed ideal? Did you just call science a flawed ideal? The audacity of such claims severely cripple your validity. If I believe in any god it would be the universe herself. Though it would be stretch to call my sweet lady that. Can't we just measure up to others or ourselves? Could group mentality come into play in this debate? You don't want to screw up lest you be out of the group and die. Those with the strongest group mentality stay in the group and are selected for. Giving rise to racism...but thats another story in and of itself. Isn't perfection subjective? If you want a perfect god you can't share it with others. They will have a different perspective and thus he can't please everyone. I.e. god can't be pro-choice and pro-life. Though if he were real, he would be pro-choice. My best guess would be our brains, though I'll have to look into what psychological condition causes us to believe in purpose. At this point though, it would be best to understand that there is no objective purpose, only subjective. Just pm me about my tangent. If you can show me the flaw in my thinking then I will happily change my opinion on the subject. Don't think to highly of your arguement rusty.