| 21 Mar 2008 09:49 pm |
Guardian of MvC Rep: 85  Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 44,452 OFFLINE | NEREVAR117 wrote:
So it’s either God popped into existence and created everything. Or everything popped into existence on it’s own.
Seems to me, if you agree with one theory but not the other because one idea seems silly, you’re only making a fool of yourself.
I think both sides are silly and sound horribly inaccurate.
 | | | | 21 Mar 2008 09:59 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25 Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | Cid wrote:
NEREVAR117 wrote:
So it’s either God popped into existence and created everything. Or everything popped into existence on it’s own.
Seems to me, if you agree with one theory but not the other because one idea seems silly, you’re only making a fool of yourself.
I think both sides are silly and sound horribly inaccurate.
Just because something sounds stupid doesn’t mean it is stupid because anything can sound stupid if you say it in a stupid way. God didn’t just “pop out of nowhere”, people need to stop using that expression.
 Last edited 21 Mar 2008 10:00 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:18 pm |
Guardian of MvC Rep: 85Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 44,452 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
NEREVAR117 wrote:
So it’s either God popped into existence and created everything. Or everything popped into existence on it’s own.
Seems to me, if you agree with one theory but not the other because one idea seems silly, you’re only making a fool of yourself.
I think both sides are silly and sound horribly inaccurate.
Just because something sounds stupid doesn’t mean it is stupid because anything can sound stupid if you say it in a stupid way. God didn’t just “pop out of nowhere”, people need to stop using that expression.
According to the bible, God has no beginning.
Revelations 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
People can’t understand something that always existed.
*shrugs*
But I don’t really believe in God nor do I believe in the Big Bang Theory. I think I’ll devise my own theory on how the universe came to a band.---
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 10:19 pm by Cid | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:22 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | What about a time loop? The universe begins, then it goes on until it ends, then it reverses until it reaches the beginning and starts again, on and on in an eternal cycle.
Not that I have any evidence to support this, I’m just throwing it out there as an alternative possibility. ---
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 10:25 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:26 pm |
Guardian of MvC Rep: 85Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 44,452 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
| | | 21 Mar 2008 10:30 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it. It isn’t ricocheted instantly back to the beginning because it rewinds, then reaches the beginning and stops to play forward, then stops, and does the whole thing again. Therefore meaning it has no beginning or end and thus no cause, otherwise it wouldn’t exist at it’s “present”.
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 10:35 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:34 pm |
Guardian of MvC Rep: 85Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 44,452 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it.
Which is where the problem lies. The term “eternal” doesn’t exist in science. Nothing last forever. Stars die, galaxies wither away, planets are destroyed. Nothing lasts forever.
Which is why those who hold science in such high regard often have difficulty believing in a God.
But, I could probably come up with a theory if I was given a few days. It’ll probably involve the center of the universe being a uber-massive black hole who’s massive gravitational forces condensed natural gasses into solids which eventually became planets and the like.
| | | 21 Mar 2008 10:36 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it.
Which is where the problem lies. The term “eternal” doesn’t exist in science. Nothing last forever. Stars die, galaxies wither away, planets are destroyed. Nothing lasts forever.
Which is why those who hold science in such high regard often have difficulty believing in a God.
But, I could probably come up with a theory if I was given a few days. It’ll probably involve the center of the universe being a uber-massive black hole who’s massive gravitational forces condensed natural gasses into solids which eventually became planets and the like.
Well if eternal doesn’t exist in science, then out present science is a bit fucked up. Science also says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, merely change form. Therefor it must have always existed and will always exist in the future, merely changing form inbetween.
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 10:40 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:41 pm |
Guardian of MvC Rep: 85Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 44,452 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it.
Which is where the problem lies. The term “eternal” doesn’t exist in science. Nothing last forever. Stars die, galaxies wither away, planets are destroyed. Nothing lasts forever.
Which is why those who hold science in such high regard often have difficulty believing in a God.
But, I could probably come up with a theory if I was given a few days. It’ll probably involve the center of the universe being a uber-massive black hole who’s massive gravitational forces condensed natural gasses into solids which eventually became planets and the like.
Well if eternal doesn’t exist in science, then out present science is a bit fucked up. Science also says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, merely change form. Therefor it must have always existed and will always exist in the future, merely changing form inbetween.
lmao. I forgot about that.
I wonder what would happen if some Christian scientist proposed the idea of God being a form of energy.
| | | 21 Mar 2008 10:54 pm |
Banned Rep: 51 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
God never popped into existance. He was always there.
So basically, your telling me he is eternal, right? Eternal describes infinite but in terms of time. If god is infinite (eternal), then shouldn’t an infinite amount of time have passed in order to get to the point where we are?
Eternal is unchanging. He would not have had to face an infinite amount of time before now to have always existed because there would have been no time and because it didn’t affect him anyway.
The only reason he would appear to have “changed” when he made his creation would be because time would seem to be passing for his creations when for an Eternal every point in time would to go on simeltaneously forever, from the unexistant beginning to the unexistant end.
This didn’t happen out of nowhere, if something is Eternal, it does not need a cause. A cause implies beginning, an Eternal has no beginning and thus needs no cause to have always existed, unlike finite things, which is what many of you are comparing him with.
Now for this thing to exist, it would have to exist beyond the properties of our universe. And those properties are pretty much space, time, matter and energy.
If something was beyond time that would make it Eternal.
If something was beyond space that would make it Omnipresent.
If something was beyond matter and energy that would make it Immaterial.
And what’s more this “thing” must have created the universe.
Sounds like a God to me.
Eternal means without beginning or end. It doesn’t mean “without changing”. Everything around us is finite, including the universe. The only thing that we know for sure is eternal is in mathematics which isn’t even physical. As far as we know something physical being eternal doesn’t exist and never has, and most likely never will.
Now, something existing beyond space, time, matter and energy would not be able to exist in our universe because our universe requires space, time, matter and energy in order for information to exist. Anything with those properties that is outside of our universe has no concern to us because we will never understand it. This is why I ask people who say “god is outside our universe” or “god is not bound by the laws of physics” how they know for sure what god even is because if god is outside of our universe then every single law, and every reason that someone may have to believe in god is totally irrelevant when taken into consideration outside of our universe.
And to comment on your last part...
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | | | 21 Mar 2008 10:56 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? The universe begins, then it goes on until it ends, then it reverses until it reaches the beginning and starts again, on and on in an eternal cycle.
Not that I have any evidence to support this, I’m just throwing it out there as an alternative possibility.
That theory has been done already.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | | | 21 Mar 2008 11:00 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it.
Which is where the problem lies. The term “eternal” doesn’t exist in science. Nothing last forever. Stars die, galaxies wither away, planets are destroyed. Nothing lasts forever.
Which is why those who hold science in such high regard often have difficulty believing in a God.
But, I could probably come up with a theory if I was given a few days. It’ll probably involve the center of the universe being a uber-massive black hole who’s massive gravitational forces condensed natural gasses into solids which eventually became planets and the like.
Well if eternal doesn’t exist in science, then out present science is a bit fucked up. Science also says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, merely change form. Therefor it must have always existed and will always exist in the future, merely changing form inbetween.
Well you have to understand that not everything in science is universal. Some fields of science can’t be applied to the other. For example, what you just described is the first law of thermodynamics. It is part of chemistry, not cosmology.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement”Last edited 21 Mar 2008 11:01 pm by ramunematt | | | 21 Mar 2008 11:05 pm |
-:Angel of Independence:- Rep: 49 Joined: 08 Sep 2007 Posts: 9,873 OFFLINE | dark matter/energy = god
???? ---
  | | | 21 Mar 2008 11:36 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? The universe begins, then it goes on until it ends, then it reverses until it reaches the beginning and starts again, on and on in an eternal cycle.
Not that I have any evidence to support this, I’m just throwing it out there as an alternative possibility.
That theory has been done already.
So... that means what exactly? I wasn’t expecting it to be a mindblowing new hypothesis or something never thought of, even though I formulated my proposition myself.
| | | 21 Mar 2008 11:37 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Cid wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
What about a time loop? Like, the universe ends, then it reverses, then beings again in a cycle over and over forever with no beginning or end? I always thought that was plausible.
Eh, that would be similar to that theory that has the universe imploding on itself.
A huge explosion starts, the universe expands, once it hits a critical expansion point, the explosion is ricocheted back. It hits the universal center and begins anew.
You still can’t explain the trigger that began the explosion.
Well it’s eternal, so the laws of causation aren’t the same as they are for finite things. It would be it’s own trigger that once set off and unalterable predetermined cycle of no beginning or end, therefore you couldn’t have something that “started” it.
Which is where the problem lies. The term “eternal” doesn’t exist in science. Nothing last forever. Stars die, galaxies wither away, planets are destroyed. Nothing lasts forever.
Which is why those who hold science in such high regard often have difficulty believing in a God.
But, I could probably come up with a theory if I was given a few days. It’ll probably involve the center of the universe being a uber-massive black hole who’s massive gravitational forces condensed natural gasses into solids which eventually became planets and the like.
Well if eternal doesn’t exist in science, then out present science is a bit fucked up. Science also says no matter or energy can be created or destroyed, merely change form. Therefor it must have always existed and will always exist in the future, merely changing form inbetween.
Well you have to understand that not everything in science is universal. Some fields of science can’t be applied to the other. For example, what you just described is the first law of thermodynamics. It is part of chemistry, not cosmology.
Never said it was part of cosmology, just said it was part of science. Even so, things being entierly created from nothing or destroyed into non-existance just doesn’t happen.
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 11:52 pm by Sean of the Living | | | 21 Mar 2008 11:44 pm |
is causing chaos. Rep: 30 Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 8,152 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Totalitus wrote:
God never popped into existance. He was always there.
So basically, your telling me he is eternal, right? Eternal describes infinite but in terms of time. If god is infinite (eternal), then shouldn’t an infinite amount of time have passed in order to get to the point where we are?
Nope. God existed before time.
He is, He always has been, and He always will be. Last edited 21 Mar 2008 11:45 pm by Totalitus | | | 21 Mar 2008 11:49 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,022 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
And to comment on your last part...
Who said God automatically had to be some sort of super belevolent being in the first place? I didn’t say he had to, and it wouldn’t be impossible for him to be bad, or neutral. Perhaps he operates on different modes of logic entirely? We may assume that the logic we use, and that we program into our computers, are universal. But is this really the case?
The point is, critisisms of a hypothetical, infinitley complex being won’t get you anywhere. How could you POSSIBLY expect to understand the reasons for it’s morals, motives or intentions? Would it even work on morals, motives and intentions, or perhaps something else so complicated that you can’t comprehend it? Honestly, all these observations of the morality of God (assuming his existance) are ridiculous. It’s like an insect understanding the ways of and insect researcher, which is thousands of times more intelligent, has emotions beyond it’s capacity to understand and thinks in a different way entierly with concepts that would make no sense to a lesser being. In other words, your observations and attempts to understand something potentially trillions of times more advanced than you are pathetic and hold no water.
Last edited 21 Mar 2008 11:53 pm by Sean of the Living | | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply |
|
»
Religion
» Discuss
