God matters
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Nope. Matter isn't matter. It's an illusion caused by a vibrating string of an energy field. The whole universe is a projection - a hologram, perhaps - of whatever reality is related to vibrating energy strings. So God doesn't matter. (Whoops - ISN'T matter.)
(Sorry, couldn't resist tossing that stink-bomb.)
(Sorry, couldn't resist tossing that stink-bomb.)
The premise of your question is circular.
Can a thing be its own creator? No.
I don't care if the chicken came before the egg (actuality vs. potentiality argument) or the egg came before the chicken (mutation in development creating a new species aka evolutionary argument)
On a side note, my money is on the rooster instead of the chicken anyway (tongue-in-cheek badge earned)
Can a thing be its own creator? No.
I don't care if the chicken came before the egg (actuality vs. potentiality argument) or the egg came before the chicken (mutation in development creating a new species aka evolutionary argument)
On a side note, my money is on the rooster instead of the chicken anyway (tongue-in-cheek badge earned)
I like the angle, Insane. So God is not a 'thing'? God is 'nothing'? 'No-thing?' I suppose it depends on what you mean by a 'thing' and if God was in fact created. My understanding is the argument is that God was always there. So perhaps matter has always been there too, so it was never created. It just existed. Always.
Part of our continued difficulty (and I am explicitly including myself in the mix) is that we don't understand the nature of matter at its lowest levels. We don't understand space-time. Therefore, the word "always" (as in "has always been there") is a time reference used without proper foundation. If space-time is not always valid, then what can we hope to define regarding "before the Big Bang" or other questions like that?
One current cosmological theory relates to the idea of multiple parallel universes separated by some type of energy membrane to keep them from colliding or intermixing. If this "multi-verse" is real, then the "brane" ("membrane") theory might have some relevance here. If so, time COULD be a property in the multi-verse and there would be a time when our current universe did not exist. One theory says that the Big Bang was actually triggered by a collision between two "branes" (rather than a quantum fluctuation) and that therefore, one could assign a DEFINITE time of universe generation - the time of that collision. If so, God CANNOT be eternal in this universe because this universe is not eternal.
One current cosmological theory relates to the idea of multiple parallel universes separated by some type of energy membrane to keep them from colliding or intermixing. If this "multi-verse" is real, then the "brane" ("membrane") theory might have some relevance here. If so, time COULD be a property in the multi-verse and there would be a time when our current universe did not exist. One theory says that the Big Bang was actually triggered by a collision between two "branes" (rather than a quantum fluctuation) and that therefore, one could assign a DEFINITE time of universe generation - the time of that collision. If so, God CANNOT be eternal in this universe because this universe is not eternal.
My position on God is documented elsewhere in this forum. But the video makes it clear that we have some snarls to untangle, and the true nature of time is one of them. The question - whether time is fundamental to the universe or a matter of how we perceive whatever is really happening - is at the heart of the discussion.
I think it is clear that at death, time stops for us. We can no longer perceive it. (Or anything else.) But that is true for all observations we make. I.e. after death, no more observations of any kind. At least to some degree, that is consistent with us residing in an entropy-positive universe. When we die, our organized thoughts become disorganized, dissipated, and lost.
I think it is clear that at death, time stops for us. We can no longer perceive it. (Or anything else.) But that is true for all observations we make. I.e. after death, no more observations of any kind. At least to some degree, that is consistent with us residing in an entropy-positive universe. When we die, our organized thoughts become disorganized, dissipated, and lost.
Jon,
Even nothing is something. It has a name and a shared belief in its existence. What we perceive as "nothing" is more likely equated to a "stage". I wanted to find better words but I don't know that they exist.
As for your argument about God being nothing or no-thing, you are applying limits that exist in what we perceive in our reality to a being, for lack of a better word, that exists beyond such things. Basically you're framing your argument into a context you can understand even though it does not apply to the true nature of what you compare in your argument.
Watch this
We figured out how to prove the third dimension by making observations of two dimensional objects. Take any piece of paper and observe its shadow as you turn it, you will have your evidence that it is three dimensional from the way the shadow changes. If you want proof of what is beyond the third dimension, you will have to figure out how to see it's shadow. Otherwise, you'll have to live on faith on this matter like you do the rest of your life.
You have faith in the restaurant worker to properly prepare your food, faith in your fellow drivers to maintain control of their vehicle, faith in your police and fire services that they will come to your rescue when needed. Just as you have faith in the existence of God, either to the positive or the negative as the case may be.
Until science can prove rather than simply theorize, there is no more standing for the position of atheists than for believers. Even the Big Bang and Expansion theories fail to address the origination of our existence; they merely pick up shortly after to explain part of the "how" by making deductions from the evidence we are able to collect and understand. Believers like myself choose to recognize aspects of our life as indicative of God by analyzing a confluence of events that is at best improbable on their own. Atheists choose to refute this as evidence but have as yet to define or accept any evidence that would satisfy their argument. The basis of proof for each side is likely to never agree so these arguments serve no point in my mind other than poke back and forth with each other intellectually.
None of this argument is intended to support religion or the practice of worship and who has or fails to have the "proper" method.
Even nothing is something. It has a name and a shared belief in its existence. What we perceive as "nothing" is more likely equated to a "stage". I wanted to find better words but I don't know that they exist.
As for your argument about God being nothing or no-thing, you are applying limits that exist in what we perceive in our reality to a being, for lack of a better word, that exists beyond such things. Basically you're framing your argument into a context you can understand even though it does not apply to the true nature of what you compare in your argument.
Watch this
We figured out how to prove the third dimension by making observations of two dimensional objects. Take any piece of paper and observe its shadow as you turn it, you will have your evidence that it is three dimensional from the way the shadow changes. If you want proof of what is beyond the third dimension, you will have to figure out how to see it's shadow. Otherwise, you'll have to live on faith on this matter like you do the rest of your life.
You have faith in the restaurant worker to properly prepare your food, faith in your fellow drivers to maintain control of their vehicle, faith in your police and fire services that they will come to your rescue when needed. Just as you have faith in the existence of God, either to the positive or the negative as the case may be.
Until science can prove rather than simply theorize, there is no more standing for the position of atheists than for believers. Even the Big Bang and Expansion theories fail to address the origination of our existence; they merely pick up shortly after to explain part of the "how" by making deductions from the evidence we are able to collect and understand. Believers like myself choose to recognize aspects of our life as indicative of God by analyzing a confluence of events that is at best improbable on their own. Atheists choose to refute this as evidence but have as yet to define or accept any evidence that would satisfy their argument. The basis of proof for each side is likely to never agree so these arguments serve no point in my mind other than poke back and forth with each other intellectually.
None of this argument is intended to support religion or the practice of worship and who has or fails to have the "proper" method.
AI, of course I agree that your belief stems from what you can - and cannot - accept. Just as my own beliefs and non-beliefs are similarly derived. However, I feel obligated to point out that your position on improbable events is technically characterized as "belief from incredulity." You should realize that atheists add one more layer to that by finding it incredibly improbable that such a being as God exists. A being who (for lack of a better pronoun) can organize matter and energy into the cohesive-yet-chaotic "thing" called a universe. As improbable as the universe is, it is even more improbable that some entity exists with power enough to build it. And Occam's Razor says that we should not multiply improbabilities and expect them to result in truth.