Why do you still believe in a god?

[Voyage 34]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic.  

Sure, but I at least admit that I don't understand the universe. I don't run around telling people to believe in whatever and that I know all the answers because some old book says it.

[Adami]

Why do we need an explanation as to the begining of all things?

Don't know why one is necessary.

[j]

Really, the whole notion that "Evil exists, so there is no God" is primitive, foolish and detrimentally emotional.

This.

Well, I frankly disagree. I see the universe itself as a"thing" that points towards a God existing. Existence in itself points towards a creator, transcendent of space and time. The laws of physics, the genesis of life, the morality of human beings, the grandness and order of the universe lead to view God's existence necessary and logical.

How? All of those things have naturalistic explanations.

But also this.

Why do we need an explanation as to the begining of all things?

Don't know why one is necessary.

Why not?  We want to find explanations to everything else, it's only natural for our inquisitive nature to try to answer this ultimate question.  Just look at how hard everyone is trying in this thread.

-J

[Adami]

Why someone would want one is fine, but why need one?


It's like if you don't know then you're wrong.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.

[Adami]

I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.

Well that's just silly.


So if someone shows you a wall and asks what's on the other side, "A purple unicorn" is a better answer than "I don't know"?

[Voyage 34]

I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.

Yeah, thats pretty dumb.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I'm with Adami (which is an odd thing to say in most contexts and leaves me feeling a bit like...something in the universe is off-kilter or something).  I don't follow that logic at all.  I wrong answer may be more intellectually satisfying than no answer, provided you don't know it's wrong.  But I can't conceive of how anyone would think a wrong answer would be better than no answer.

[El Barto]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic. 

We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.

In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.

Nonsense.  We know dick about the universe.  If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now.  Yet we run into the same problem that he did.  His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does.  Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes?  It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections.  Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic. 

We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.

In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.

Nonsense.  We know dick about the universe.  If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now.  Yet we run into the same problem that he did.  His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does.  Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes?  It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections.  Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].

Please...
We know a significant amount of information of the Universe. And also, "Please...", the idea of a multiverse has two distinct, condemning problems: 1) There is no proof for one and absolutely zero reason to believe one exists; and 2) Even if a multiverse exists, it serves nothing to provide an answer to existence's beginnings as then the multiverse would itself require an explanation - a cause - for its existence.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I think a wrong answer is better than no answer.

Well that's just silly.


So if someone shows you a wall and asks what's on the other side, "A purple unicorn" is a better answer than "I don't know"?

I didn't exactly mean it like that.  I mean, whenever humans have solved an important question that life presented, maybe a cure for a disease or something else along those lines, there were inevitably wrong answers thrown at the problem before the right one was reached.  Likewise, there have been a bunch of stupid and immature answers to religious questions, and many would say no answer has been reached.  But we're still farther along because of the wrong answers.  Do you see what I'm saying?

[Adami]

I see what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

You described the scientific approach. Saying "god did it" isn't scientific.

[El Barto]

1.  Absence of proof proves precisely nada.  Hardly a condemnation of a multiverse.  2.  I'm merely pointing out one of numerous ways that our perception of the universe could be completely bogus, and yes, that includes the notion that there had to be a beginning.  There are several possibilities for an infinite universe(s).

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

 There are several possibilities for an infinite universe(s).

Interesting. Such as?

[El Barto]

The big bounce, and of course a multiverse itself, to name two that are currently conceivable. 

[Voyage 34]

One might also consider a person basing their religious beliefs on the perceived nature of a universe we know almost nothing about to be a ludicrous bit of illogic. 

We know enough of the Universe to deem the idea that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused and then somehow created a set universal laws it would itself adhere to is highly illogical.

In the end, an absolute beginning of the Universe is unavoidable.

Nonsense.  We know dick about the universe.  If Ptolemy was an infant, we're barely toddlers now.  Yet we run into the same problem that he did.  His system looked and behaved exactly as it should have given his level of knowledge and ability for scientific measure, but more importantly, looked and behaved exactly the same way our current, working model does.  Put another way, what would it look like to us if we were currently residing in one of many universes?  It'd look exactly the way it does to us now, and we'd be making the same theories and projections.  Now, we certainly need to continue on exploring the only (semi)working theories we have, but to assume that we couldn't have the whole thing completely wrong would just be [insert trendy denigration here].

Please...
We know a significant amount of information of the Universe. And also, "Please...", the idea of a multiverse has two distinct, condemning problems: 1) There is no proof for one and absolutely zero reason to believe one exists; and 2) Even if a multiverse exists, it serves nothing to provide an answer to existence's beginnings as then the multiverse would itself require an explanation - a cause - for its existence.

Yes, there is an infinite regress somewhere, either god or a multiverse or something of that sort. Why is it that infinite regress automatically goes to the god?

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

The big bounce, and of course a multiverse itself, to name two that are currently conceivable. 

Not quite.
Oscillatory models of the universe prove to be far less likely as the "Heat Death" models. It is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state. Even if the far-fetched oscillating universe theory is true, the question remains: what caused space-time and energy to come into existence to be able to observe such a phenomenon as the oscillating universe theory?

The same applies for the Multiverse; sure, it manages to produce a means to how our universe came into existence, but how did the Multiverse come into existence?

As I said, the absolute beginning of the Universe, or existence, is unavoidable.

[Adami]

Don't see why permanence isn't an option.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Yes, there is an infinite regress somewhere, either god or a multiverse or something of that sort. Why is it that infinite regress automatically goes to the god?

No, friend, the infinite regress does NOT go to God. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, therefore, God does not have a cause. The Universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.

An infinite regress of God-creating gods is...ludicrously illogical, just as an infinite regress of Universe-creating Universes is.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Don't see why permanence isn't an option.

How so, husband?

[Adami]

Don't see why permanence isn't an option.

How so, husband?

The universe is permanent. And you're not jimmy, so stop calling me husband.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

Don't see why permanence isn't an option.

How so, husband?

The universe is permanent. And you're not jimmy, so stop calling me husband.

What leads you to believe so?

[Adami]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

[eric42434224]

How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed?  Why personify it?  Just human nature.  It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".

[Adami]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.

Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.

[eric42434224]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.

Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.

So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death?  LOL

Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed?  Why personify it?  Just human nature.  It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".

Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
 If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.

Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.

So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death?  LOL

Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.

I assure you that atoms and matter won't feel pain...

You know when an atheist is losing an argument when they start invoking emotions and referring to God as an "old guy with a white beard in the heavens..."

[eric42434224]

How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed?  Why personify it?  Just human nature.  It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".

Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
 If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?

I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future.  LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time?  Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?

These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.

[eric42434224]

I didn't say I believed so. I said it was a possibility.

Well, you actually said neither.

But permanent how? Knowing that our universe will most likely end in the "Big Freeze" scenario, and that it is impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, how can this lead to an oscillating universe, as you suggest is possible?

Our universe always was and always will be. It won't end, it will just change.

Change it will. It will become a vast expanse of nothingness as all its energy is spent.

So God is just going to let his creation just die a slow painful cold death?  LOL

Funny how some people are so sure an old guy with a white beard and robes has always existed, but the universe cant.

I assure you that atoms and matter won't feel pain...

You know when an atheist is losing an argument when they start invoking emotions and referring to God as an "old guy with a white beard in the heavens..."

LOL.  Im not an atheist.  Im just not so smug as to think I know the true nature of the universe.

EDIT: and of course atoms wont feel pain, but those that "he" created in his image will.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed?  Why personify it?  Just human nature.  It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".

Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
 If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?

I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future.  LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time?  Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?

These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.

Allow me to get this right; You suggest that time and space will...eventually transcend time and space...?

...

What conceivable mechanism could "contract and start the cycle over again?"

Again, with the "Old Man with a beard (and now a robe)" thing, only serves to display your ineptitude of understanding the nature of the Universe and inability to ground your beliefs in sound logic. You much rather prefer grounding them in what you perhaps consider "witty" remarks.

[El Comandante de Córdoba]

LOL.  Im not an atheist.  Im just not so smug as to think I know the true nature of the universe.

EDIT: and of course atoms wont feel pain, but those that "he" created in his image will.

I also assure you that all life forms on Earth will have long passed on before the Heat Death of the Universe.

[eric42434224]

How is the idea of a supernatural being having no beginning any different than a universe that has always existed?  Why personify it?  Just human nature.  It is just as likely that the Universe IS "god".

Because the "supernatural being" is transcendent of space and time. God is separate from His creation.
 If God were the Universe, then why will it eventually succumb to pitiful Heat Death?

I was unaware that human beings, a few thousand years from wiping their asses with fern leaves, were privy to the facts surrounding the demise of the universe billions of years in the future.  LOL
Who says the universe isnt capable of transcending space and time?  Who says it hasnt created a mechanism to contract and start the cycle over again?

These explanations are no more far fetched than an old guy with a beard and robe magically creating everything.

Allow me to get this right; You suggest that time and space will...eventually transcend time and space...?

...

What conceivable mechanism could "contract and start the cycle over again?"

Again, with the "Old Man with a beard (and now a robe" thing, only serves to display your ineptitude of understanding the nature of the Universe and inability to ground your beliefs in sound logic. You much rather prefer grounding them in what you perhaps consider "witty" remarks.

No, something wont transcend itself.  Space and time are parts of the universe as we know it.  Why is it not concievable that The universe has other attributes?  Could it have a conciousness that is capable of altering itself or change things?  Why is this not possible, but the notion of a being that must exert control plausible?

And you can let "the old man with a beard" thing go.  It was a comment that was intended to make a point.  If that is what you must latch on to to feel you are winning an arguement (an arguement that cant have a winner actually) then so be it.  Im sure most people got the sarcasm.