Philosophy

[dwwojcik]

Why is it okay for god(s) to have spontaneously started existing, but not the universe?

God didn't spontaneously come into existence. God always existed. It's just something you have to accept. (If you are interested in religion, obviously.)

[Kocken926]

God didn't spontaneously come into existence. God always existed. It's just something you have to accept. (If you are interested in religion, obviously.)

Following that logic, why couldn't it be that the universe just always existed for no damn reason? It makes just as much sense, if not more.

[Torezu]

That's not really what I meant. The official position of the Catholic Church is that Evolution, the Big Bang, etc. are true and the way things work, but here's the catch: God invented them.

Then the official position of the Catholic Church seems to run counter to their own historical record. See below.

The book of Genesis was written the way it was quite simply because at that time we hadn't invented evolution or done much science at all and so was written in a way it could be understood.

I'm willing to accept that much of the first few chapters of Genesis were written descriptively, just as much/most of Revelation was, because the person to whom the information was given for the writing didn't exactly understand all that he was seeing. It's hard not to read it literally, or at least in terms of time periods (given the evening/morning descriptive words) from my own perspective, but I'm not an authority on the translation.

If you want to study the origin of life on the earth, you must assume either some form of creation or some form of evolution, since the available evidence could be made to fit either and neither is disprovable. From that framework you can explain how things developed from the beginning (whenever that was) until now. To date (and in much of recent scientific research), evolution has been assumed more than creation (Intelligent Design, whatever you want to call it), so more of the evidence has been pressed through that mold.

The biggest problem I have with creationists is that they don't acknowledge that god(s) would have to be created from something. Why is it okay for god(s) to have spontaneously started existing, but not the universe?

You're thinking too small. I don't pretend to know how the dimensions above our 3 (or 4) work, but time is a creation just as much as space, and didn't exist "before" it was created. "The Dawn of Time" or "The Beginning of Time" are somewhat paradoxical phrases, but they apply here. Time and space are inseparable at the most basic level.

Following that logic, why couldn't it be that the universe just always existed for no damn reason? It makes just as much sense, if not more.

The universe (multi-verse, whatever) is a physical place. We have evidence of its origin by watching its expansion, though there is debate as to its age and life span.

[dwwojcik]

Then the official position of the Catholic Church seems to run counter to their own historical record. See below.

I'm willing to accept that much of the first few chapters of Genesis were written descriptively, just as much/most of Revelation was, because the person to whom the information was given for the writing didn't exactly understand all that he was seeing. It's hard not to read it literally, or at least in terms of time periods (given the evening/morning descriptive words) from my own perspective, but I'm not an authority on the translation.

I'm no expert, and I misspoke above. When I said Genesis I should have said the Creation Story.

[Kocken926]

I know our 4 dimensions are inseparable, but I don't see how that gives god a pass on the whole "had to be created from something/by someone" thing, even if a divine entity could reside in a universe different from our own.

[dwwojcik]

I know our 4 dimensions are inseparable, but I don't see how that gives god a pass on the whole "had to be created from something/by someone" thing, even if a divine entity could reside in a universe different from our own.

The idea is that God is primarily outside of existence.

[Kocken926]

The idea is that God is primarily outside of existence.

So? If he exists he must have begun existing. If he mustn't have begun existing in order to exist, common logic falls apart, and we might as well settle for "anything can happen however whenever", which will render the discussion useless.

Side note: Why do I have parts that serve no function but would serve a function if I were a primate?

[dwwojcik]

So? If he exists he must have begun existing.

Not necessarily. Like I said, God is outside of existence. He created it, he isn't part of it. We can only know for sure if we can observe it, and we can only observe what exists.

Side note: Why do I have parts that serve no function but would serve a function if I were a primate?

Because Humans evolved from primates, and while the traits were no longer necessary, they did not inhibit survival so were not weeded out.

[Kocken926]

Because Humans evolved from primates, and while the traits were no longer necessary, they did not inhibit survival so were not weeded out.

Whoops, forgot to add "if evolution hasn't happened" to my note. I meant it as a simple proof of evolution.

Not necessarily. Like I said, God is outside of existence. He created it, he isn't part of it. We can only know for sure if we can observe it, and we can only observe what exists.

We can't observe the creation of the universe, either. I just pointed out that even if god(s) are outside of existence, they too would have to been created. If they wouldn't have had to been, nothing would necessarily have had to in order to exist. My point is, god serves no function in explaining the creation of the universe, it just adds another step to the process.

[Torezu]

Whoops, forgot to add "if evolution hasn't happened" to my note. I meant it as a simple proof of evolution.

I'm curious as to what parts those are. Recent medical advances have supplied the uses for things that were thought to have no use - the appendix, for example, has been theorized to have a use as a small storage point for "good" gut bacteria in the event of some kind of intestinal disease emptying those out of the intestines. Also, based on the world changes that Christians say took place during The Fall, some things may not serve the same purpose they were created for.

I just pointed out that even if god(s) are outside of existence, they too would have to been created.

I don't think our minds can really grasp the magnitude of universe to refute or affirm your statement. But why does a Creator necessarily have to be the creation of something greater? The universe (let alone complex life) as we see it exhibits an order and consistency that's difficult to explain without adding intelligence to the mix. It's on the same line as, but at a much higher level than, postulating that the Infinite Monkey Theorem holds true. The probability of non-life developing into life is literally so low that it would never happen before the proton decay of the universe completed.

[Kocken926]

I don't think our minds can really grasp the magnitude of universe to refute or affirm your statement. But why does a Creator necessarily have to be the creation of something greater? The universe (let alone complex life) as we see it exhibits an order and consistency that's difficult to explain without adding intelligence to the mix.

So, are we talking the christians' god now or just any old omnipotent sentient exodimensional entity? Either way, I'm getting into this weird argument-loop again, but how would the creator exist if it didn't begin to exist? Why would the universe be less likely to simply "start existing" than a god?

It's on the same line as, but at a much higher level than, postulating that the Infinite Monkey Theorem holds true. The probability of non-life developing into life is literally so low that it would never happen before the proton decay of the universe completed.

Proton decay? Are you talking about the big rip? That cannot be proved without further studies of dark matter and dark energy. Also, infinitely many dimensions/ the big crush scenario -> infinite time -> pretty much everything is bound to happen at some point. Non-life turning into life ∈ Everything

[Lethosos]

I'm curious as to what parts those are.

The tailbone, and my particular favorite hobgoblin, the little toe as it's not needed for balance purposes.

[miniboxer]

Wow! Religious debates without pointless bickering! Let me insert my two cents!

I don't think our minds can really grasp the magnitude of universe to refute or affirm your statement. But why does a Creator necessarily have to be the creation of something greater? The universe (let alone complex life) as we see it exhibits an order and consistency that's difficult to explain without adding intelligence to the mix. It's on the same line as, but at a much higher level than, postulating that the Infinite Monkey Theorem holds true. The probability of non-life developing into life is literally so low that it would never happen before the proton decay of the universe completed.

It's a matter of what you believe.

The basis of everything requires belief in something so absurdly difficult to prove that it is essentially impossible to be prove.

You can never prove there is a god, at least as long as one doesn't present itself.

You can never prove the full theory of evolution, you weren't there.

You can never prove we goddamn exist.

This is why religious debates are pointless. Everything requires faith. Even things that are considered science.

[Torezu]

And...miniboxer kills the thread. :golgo:

[dwwojcik]

Or maybe we could talk about philisophical stuff instead of religion?

[TheBytemaster]

Or maybe we could talk about philisophical stuff instead of religion?

That's probably for the best. So here's basically what I was talking about earlier.

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2007/01/22/immortality-consciousness-interruption-problem/

Read and discuss.

[Kocken926]

And...miniboxer kills the thread.

This wasn't meant to be a particularly religious thread from the start, it was to be about general philosophy.

You can never prove we goddamn exist.

I can prove to myself that my mind exists. That's about as far as what I can "really" prove, which means the only proven facts that exist are my own thoughts. And I don't think god exists.

I win.

[dwwojcik]

I can prove to myself that my mind exists. That's about as far as what I can "really" prove, which means the only proven facts that exist are my own thoughts. And I don't think god exists.

I win.

No, the only proven facts that exist are my thoughts. I think God exists.

Ha.

That's probably for the best. So here's basically what I was talking about earlier.

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2007/01/22/immortality-consciousness-interruption-problem/

Read and discuss.

:O