"What it requires of it's God, Doctor..."

[The Badger]

People of religion (such as myself), choose option 3, as, under Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usualy (until you can prove otherwise) the most rational one to have.

Well, Occam's Razor states "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", or alternatively "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

So here we have two possibilities.

1) A universe that has come into existence, or has always existed, through entirely natural principles.

2) A universe that has been created, by an entity for which there is no verifiable evidence of existence, and whose properties run contrary to established scientific principles. The universe so created is currently indistinguishable from one that developed via natural principles.

So in this case, Occam's Razor would seem to support option 1).

 

[xortex]

I tend to think that 'Everything' existed before the big bang and the explosion or implosion killed god.

 

[Chrisisall]

I tend to think that 'Everything' existed before the big bang and the explosion or implosion killed god.

Silly silly British man.

 

[rahullak]

There were exactly 42 things before the Big Bang.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

OK, so far we've got; Christians, Muslims, Buddists,Athiests, and Agnostics, Trek fans all. Did I miss anyone? What about Gnostics? or Jews, etc? And while I'm posting, just out of curiosity, how many of you out there base your understanding of 'God, the Universe, and Everything' on a deep meditational experiance, or a near death experiance, or some other revelation of a traumatic or cathartic experiance? (This goes for the unbelievers and/or nonbelievers as well)

I was a believer before I ever had said experiences. However...I have had visions (NON-drug-induced...I neither take drugs nor drink) on a couple occasions, which were extremely powerful. In one case...I will never know, but there is the possibility that I stopped breathing in my sleep.

I don't think I could say I base my belief on those, though--obviously I cannot convey those experiences to you, and ultimately I have to decide how I interpret them...a framework that has to come FROM my belief rather than the other way around.

 

[Chrisisall]

--obviously I cannot convey those experiences to you

If Spock could convey his trip though V'Ger...

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I didn't mean that bad...I just mean that as an experience that occurred from a perspective wholly internal to me, that no one else could have seen and felt as I did--there's no way a description could have the same import to anyone else that the memory has to me...nor for anyone to predicate their belief on it without themselves having such an experience. That doesn't mean THEY won't someday. But I can't make it happen or transfer my thoughts in any way where they could feel what I felt.

 

[TheGodBen]

That was not my major premise. I said everything that begins to exist has a cause. If God is omnipotent, and if he created space and time (which, it is asserted by us, he is, and did), then it stands to reason that he is not limited by those laws of space and time which he invented.

God, therefore, did not "begin" to exist--and therefore, he did not neccessarily have a cause.

And I state if we accept your idea that the universe had to have a beginning then the creator of the universe also had a beginning. What is certain is that there is no evidence against it, which means that the hypothesis is worth looking into rather than dismissing out of hand.

Wait...how could you derive such an extrapolation without making assumptions that are illogical? After all, In Austrailia, you're upright.

How can you assume that the universe had to have a beginning? Or that the most logical reason for the universe existing is an infinite and omnipotent being that can do anything it wants but he had to sacrifice his son (who was also himself) via crucifixion, and then sent him back two days later, all as a loophole to save the souls of an entire race whose crime was that their great-great-great-great-great-...-great-grandparents once ate an apple because a talking snake told them to?

I'm not trying to insult your faith or anything, I'm just saying that the logical leaps involved in that are no more ridiculous than believing that in Australia things should fall "up"; we're trying to impose localised logic upon a system far greater than our comprehension. The idea that the universe may have always existed may seem weird to some, but that logical leap is no more unbelievable to me than the ones it takes in order to be a Christian. I'm just not willing to commit to anything unless there's verifiable evidence for it, which is why I'll die never knowing the answers to the great questions.

Common sense, in the manner I meant, is simply logic that everyone should know. And nowadays, most of it is based on science.

When you're holding a ball do you think "The mass of the Earth is warping space-time within the vicinity of the planet causing objects to be attracted to it, and at sea level the force being exerted causes objects to accelerate towards it at approximately 9.81m/s/s, and the only reason why this ball is staying in the air is because I am exerting an equal but opposite force upon the ball with my arm, and if I remove contact between my hand and the ball it will accelerate towards the planet, it will hit the ground, lose some energy, bounce back into..." or do you think "If I let go of this ball it will drop"?

That's the difference between common sense and science.

I don't know.

The logical law of cause and effect works in science, too. Movement requires energy. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

And consider a few other laws of science: Matter and energy are interchangeable. The total entropy in the universe can only increase or stay the same--it can never decrease.

I honestly don't know what all that is supposed to mean, I was just saying that I don't have any answers as to why we are here and I'm perfectly content with that. Maybe one day I'll die and go to heaven where it will all be explained to me, but it would have to be something major in order to change who I am in any way.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

This is just begging the question though. There is no reason under that reasoning to go beyond the universe. There is no evidence that the universe came into being so we can just as easily say the universe is the uncaused first cause.

Let me put it this way.

The main line of "evidence" for the Big Bang is...that the universe is expanding--and that the expansion is slowing down. Extrapolation of this model in reverse led to the theory.

The logic Law of Cause and Effect demands that something that does begin, such as a Big Bang, had to have had a cause. Now, whatever combustive proccess started the Bang, if we were to reverse it, should, in theory, decrease in intensity until we reach the stating point, before which, apparently, whatever the "proto-universe" was was simply "there".

But whatever the procces was that started the Bang had to, in turn, be caused by something. If God were to be removed from the picture, the logic of this reasoning would demand that this procces was caused by another, and that by another, and that by another again, on and on, ad infinitum....


Thus, there are three possibilities, all of which are, frankly, logically consistent with the evidence:

1. An infinite universe, which always existed in some form or another.

2. A finite universe, created by a natural intellegent designer, who in turn was created by another natural intellegent designer, etc.

3. A finite universe, created by a supernatural intelligent designer, who is infinite, and outside the bounds of time and space (both of which were created by said designer).

One thing we should get past in this discussion is referring to the Big Bang as an explosion. I know its name and reputation imply that it was, but it is really an expansion of space-time. It is not exploding into space, it is creating space. Since there conceivably is no space or time outside of the universe your lack of cause and effect applying to God can just as easily apply to the universe.

I think in number 3 is where you really have problems. The very word supernatural has little meaning to it. It largely used to be used to explain natural phenomena that people had no explanation for. You are moving from the concept that the universe is contingent to God with a capital G because that's thee idea that pops into someone's head in the Western world when we talk about the creator of the universe. But there is a huge gap between getting to "something created the universe" and your intelligent super being. BTW since intelligence describes a relative ability to solve problems what does it even mean to say God is intelligent?

 

[rahullak]

When you're holding a ball do you think "The mass of the Earth is warping space-time within the vicinity of the planet causing objects to be attracted to it, and at sea level the force being exerted causes objects to accelerate towards it at approximately 9.81m/s/s, and the only reason why this ball is staying in the air is because I am exerting an equal but opposite force upon the ball with my arm, and if I remove contact between my hand and the ball it will accelerate towards the planet, it will hit the ground, lose some energy, bounce back into..." or do you think "If I let go of this ball it will drop"?

That's the difference between common sense and science.

True. Common sense, not too long ago held (and probably still holds for those who don't know better) that time is absolute, that the length of an object is absolute, that mass is absolute. The laws of relativity tell us otherwise. What is 2 seconds for me can be 2 hours for another, or what is 2m for me can be 200m for another, or what is 2kg for me can be 20kg for another. All of this given the right conditions (of relative velocities close to that of light), which we usually don't or can't experience ourselves, but which has been proven by science.

 

[Chrisisall]

[
Thus, there are three possibilities, all of which are, frankly, logically consistent with the evidence:

1. An infinite universe, which always existed in some form or another.

2. A finite universe, created by a natural intellegent designer, who in turn was created by another natural intellegent designer, etc.

3. A finite universe, created by a supernatural intelligent designer, who is infinite, and outside the bounds of time and space (both of which were created by said designer).

#1 seems true.
#2 seems silly.
#3 is

in my humble somewhat Buddhist opinion, of course.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Under Occam's Razor thinking, Jesus was a very cool dude, speaking wisdom that defied time itself.

And he claimed to be the Son of God.

Now, there are three possibilities:

1. His claims were false--and he knew it.

2. His claims were false--and he didn't know it.

3. His claims were true.

If you choose option 1, then he was a lier, a con artist, a hypocrite (because he told his followers to be honest in everything they do), an evildoer (because he told others to trust in him for the sake of their souls), and, ultimately, an idiot (because it was his claims to deity that led to his crucifixion).

But...then how do you explain the "wisdom that defied time itself"? How do you explain the moral code that he established, one that has changed the lives of so many?

Option 2, quite frankly, means that he was mentally unstable--a lunatic. If a man were to honestly believe he was the one and only Son of God--indeed, that he was one with his alleged Father, and if it were not true, than insane would not begin to describe it.

But again...how do you explain the "wisdom that defied time itself"?

Thus, that leaves us with option 3...as the simplest answer.

Sorry, but this is all a false dichotomy. There are far more than those three choices. Jesus could have been a myth; his words could have been redacted over the centuries; he might have felt himself in touch with greater spiritual truths as many religious leaders have; he might have been speaking metaphorically.

 

[Chrisisall]

Sorry, but this is all a false dichotomy. There are far more than those three choices. Jesus could have been a myth; his words could have been redacted over the centuries; he might have felt himself in touch with greater spiritual truths as many religious leaders have; he might have been speaking metaphorically.

Zactly.

 

[rahullak]

Sorry, but this is all a false dichotomy. There are far more than those three choices. Jesus could have been a myth; his words could have been redacted over the centuries; he might have felt himself in touch with greater spiritual truths as many religious leaders have; he might have been speaking metaphorically.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It's not also a stretch to imagine that some ardent follower decided that Jesus was the son of God and proclaimed so. Or that Jesus was saying, "I am the son of God. I am flesh and blood just like you. Therefore you are all also sons and daughters of God, and just as I have brought peace and hope to you all through a positive mental attitude and with proper consideration of others' needs (do unto others...), so also can you bring peace and hope to yourselves and to others", and this was reinterpreted over the centuries by followers and their descendants. Or that Jesus was truly a Q-like superbeing. We simply do not know.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Jesus could have been a myth; his words could have been redacted over the centuries;

Really, we have tons of copies of second-century manuscripts of the New Testament. They hold up almost perfectly.

he might have felt himself in touch with greater spiritual truths as many religious leaders have

Buddah never claimed to be the "only begotten" Son of God--and neither did Mohammed, or Confucius, or any other founder of a major religion.

he might have been speaking metaphorically.

Again, if he didn't mean what he said, he had every opportunity to clarify. But he didn't--even in the face of death.

 

[Chrisisall]

Really, we have tons of copies of second-century manuscripts of the New Testament. They hold up almost perfectly.
Buddah never claimed to be the "only begotten" Son of God--and neither did Mohammed, or Confucius, or any other founder of a major religion.
if he didn't mean what he said, he had every opportunity to clarify. But he didn't--even in the face of death.

Okay, offense time- Rush, you place far too much value on crap recorded by HUMANS who tend to slant or spin things the way they percieve them at the time of writing.
Wanna talk to published peeps who say the Holocaust never happened???

 

[TIN_MAN]

Not to get all preachy, but just for the record, Jesus never claimed to be the "one and only" Son God, others claimed he was "the only begotten of the Father" but this does not mean "ONE AND ONLY" which is a miss-translation.
He did however, say "Ye are gods, all of you Sons of the Most High" Quoting from scripture, as a way of reiterating a truth to the religious leaders of the time that had been as completly ignored in his day as it has in ours.

 

[rahullak]

^@Chrisisall
Not to mention that at the time of the 2nd century, there was almost no real science, and people could believe in just about anything and not question its validity or truth. In this day and age, given all the science that we do know, we still find ways of wanting to believe in the supernatural or even in wanting to be in vast fictional universes (such as Star Trek) because its so wonderful and magical. Imagine what it would be like for the layman of the 2nd century being told of a "son of God" who could turn water to wine or produce a ton of bread from a single loaf or other miracles to help whole communities. Then imagine a prolific writer of that time with a vivid imagination.

 

[JustKate]

Re: "What it requires of its God, Doctor..."

I think all Rush is trying to say is that there are indeed written eye-witness accounts. Of course eye-witness accounts are far from perfect -very far from perfect, actually - their value depends entirely on the veracity of the witness and the accuracy of the transcriber. But there are such things as accurate eye-witness accounts. Surely each of us has accepted some of these at some time or other. It's up to each individual to decide which accounts to accept and which to discard. I don't think you can use logic alone to discard all eye-witness accounts...not even those that are very old.

As for this statement, Chris (may I call you Chris? I find Chrisisall hard to type for some reason!):

I have no problem with that. But it might be easier for me to say that; my belief states that my beliefs might be wrong.

I know for damn sure that some of my beliefs will be wrong, and probably a whole, whole, whole lot of them. Assuming my view of what happens after death has any validity at all, I suspect that will be a pretty common experience. Few if any humans - and I most certainly am not one of the few - have the capacity to have any real understanding of what eternity is like. We'll all find out that we've been wrong a lot. And that's OK. All any of us can do is the best we can.

 

[Chrisisall]

Not to get all preachy, but just for the record, Jesus never claimed to be the "one and only" Son God, others claimed he was "the only begotten of the Father" but this does not mean "ONE AND ONLY" which is a miss-translation.
He did however, say "Ye are gods, all of you Sons of the Most High" Quoting from scripture, as a way of reiterating a truth to the religious leaders of the time that had been as completly ignored in his day as it has in ours.

Thanks Tin Man, for the clarification!

Imagine what it would be like for the layman of the 2nd century being told of a "son of God" who could turn water to wine or produce a ton of bread from a single loaf or other miracles to help whole communities.

It would have been VERY good news indeed. Something to provide hope & solice in the dark times.
Jesus would have been the first "superhero."