Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, this took a while. And I didn't even finish.

WARNING: HIDEOUSLY LONG POST. DO NOT READ IN ONE SITTING. DO NOT COLLECT $200.


This (and is readily admitted to in the site) assumes that the universe is not infinite, or that time is not infinite. Time, like most things, is a concept that depends on interpretation. For all we know, the entire universe popped into existence five minutes ago, as well as all the scientific evidence proving otherwise.

According to the expansion of the universe (which is scientifically proven and a point we are in agreement of), the universe coalesced into a single point around 14 billion years ago. This proves that the universe that we know has a beginning, but what about beyond that universe? There is a lesser known theory that believes the universe did have a big bang in a sense, but holds that the total universe is cyclic, in a never-ending series of big bangs and big crunches.

Further still, it depends on the scale and scope of your viewpoint. Even if this universe is singular and has a beginning, time could extend far beyond the scope of what we know. This universe may be but on of many others, some older, some newer. Like the existence of a higher power, there will probably never be any scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Regardless, the Kalam argument (biased in its own right, I suppose) is not without its flaws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Objections_and_analysis


As you said, these are all scientific and definitely exist, but you do not produce any evidence to prove that they are the work of a higher being. Simply because things are complex and in balance does not imply that they had to have been designed by a deity. This is essentially the same argument taken by those who support Intelligent Design, which is located in another thread in this forum, if you’re willing to look for it.

In any case, for you to prove this true, you must first define what is designed intelligently, and what is not. However, because this applies to everything in the known universe, there is no way to have a separate experimental group to find the difference between that which is creator design and that which is not. Therefore, there is no way to test or experiment with this argument.

It is also possible that because the universe was formed the way it was, that we were placed in the specific niche that we find ourselves in, not the other way around. If the earth was 5% closer to the sun, we would have developed in a way that suited us for it. The same goes for specific pH balances, scientific constants, and the like. The way we are and the way life exists is not the cause of the universe’s scientific laws and principles, but rather, the laws and principles are the cause for the way we are. Once again, this is a bit of a chicken-and-egg phenomenon (used only for its symbolic meaning, I have much contention with the actual discussion, mostly due to scientific reasons), in that there is no way to prove whether one side is true or not, due to the scope of the experiment.

You’ll find that the majority of my responses to your argument will follow as thus. I find that the more we learn as a species, the more we realize we do not know, and to make assumptions or take leaps of faith seems rather foolish in my opinion. This does not mean, however, that I do not put my faith in things; I am just more particular what I put my faith in.


While the expansion of the universe is indeed a proven phenomenon, simply because it has a cause does not necessarily imply that this cause is a higher deity. That is, one can say that it is the work of a divine being, but it may just as well be the work of cosmic or inter-dimensional forces we are not yet familiar with.

Using your analogy, let’s say you come back to your house and see the cardboard had moved. Would you immediately assume that a person had moved it? Or how about a cat, a mouse, or maybe even the wind? I suppose with enough time, effort, and equipment one could deduce what moved the cardboard judging by its position and clues left by the mover, but we don’t have that luxury for dealing with the expansion of the universe. Yes, I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I’m confident that even though science may not be able prove or figure anything out at the moment, science is always progressing and improving, so a time will come when it can.


Firstly, the existence of morality doesn’t necessarily prove the existence of a deity, and vice versa. It is not required that a deity provide a moral code, it simply exists that way in modern religions. Also, morals vary from one religion to another, who is to say which is the correct one?

Modern day morals have been dictated over centuries by society and religion, which has dominated civilization for thousands of years. However, this is not enough to prove that it exists. Before the onset of organized religion, before the onset of “civilization” (I use quotes because I’m referring to the rise of nation-states, the actual semantics of the word are open to interpretation), humans did behave much like animals, hunting and gathering and eating to survive. There was no “good” and there was no “evil,” these concepts were introduced into society with the introduction of society; that is, with so many people beginning to gather in one place, a more organized system of settling disputes was needed than whomever was the biggest or the strongest. Organized religion, which developed from shamanistic ritualism, also introduced this moral code, generally made to align with the laws of the land.

Morality itself is a man-made concept, and therefore there is no real “standard” to our morality other than the ones that we put on ourselves over millennium. Remember that all religions have similarities due to assimilations and sharing of culture over the centuries, so it would make sense that there would be some overlap. Also remember that the morals of different societies do not mix or get along, regardless of overlap, and thus we have war and conflict. I suppose that it would be hardwired into our genes to associate negative feelings with the death of human beings, so as the preserve the continuation of our species, but even this is not fail-safe, as seen by those who, shocking as it may sound, do not feel any regret or sorrow from the deaths of others.


Firstly, regardless of whether or not any mistakes were made by the transcribers (and there have been many, many others who were not nearly as devout or dedicated as the originals, not to mention crossing languages and the like), this doesn’t prove that the source material is true. No matter how dedicated or historically accurate the book may be, there’s no way to prove that it is the word of a higher deity, other than it being assumed so. Simply because this book may be more accurate or credible than other books doesn’t prove that the source material is what people say it is, only that it is more accurate.

The Bible is not as historically valid as you believe it to be, and its accuracy is the subject of much debate among scholars. Not taking the evolution pop-shot to heart (by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of different examples, experiments, and researchers reinforcing the validity of evolution, and we know the Bible has yet to be “confirmed” as absolutely true because there is still researching going on to contend it), the Documentary Hypothesis talks about how many books in the Old Testament had to have been written by different authors, compiled and edited by a single person. In fact, no original manuscript has ever been found, and no matter how accurate the scribes were, that cannot match the weight of having a primary document.

Are you sure it’s called “extrapolation?” As far as I know and researched, it is solely a mathematical term. Still, the method you describe seems like a relative dating method, rather than an absolute method, like radioactive dating. Also, just what scientists believe that it is inaccurate? I have yet to meet any, as radiocarbon dating itself is a science and mathematic process which has yet to be proven drastically wrong. Do explain how people have criticized it.

I looked up the validity sources you provided, and even they seemed a bit unverified.
[1 Ki 9:15] The Exodus and Solomon’s construction of those cities is historically contended, as the dating methods used for different events lead to inconsistencies in the actual chronology of the events as they were recorded.
[Luke 3:1] Lysanias has never been mentioned in secular history, but for a single authority figure executed by Mark Antony before the time of the writing. They did uncover a temple inscription mentioning Lysanias, but they’ve also uncovered a tomb supposedly belonging to the brother of Jesus Christ, later proved to be false. Additional evidence is needed to make a compelling argument.
There are a number of sites that have been uncovered which are mentioned in the Bible, a number of which can be found here: [link]. Still, the evidence of these sites does not inherently prove that the entire Bible is true, only that it indicates various places and events in real history. It would be the same as taking a comic book which mentions both New York City and the Sept. 11th attack on the World Trade Center and then believing that the entire contents of that story is true, when it obviously is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Criticism_of_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
hideously long link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Schools_of_archaeological_and_historical_thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodology_(archaeology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Once again, I apologize for the sole use of Wikipedia, if you have any contention with the sources I will do my best to find a suitable replacement.

But had any of us today been in the Garden of Eden, who is to say that we would not have rejected the fruit? Can you really blame a child for the mistake of its parents? You don't send a kid to jail because his parents killed somebody, and you don't assume all of one kind of people are bad based on one example.

Just how much are our needs provided for? We're using up our fossil fuels at an alarming rate, and we pollute the environment with reckless abandon, all in the name of taming the earth. Granted, this also is caused by the choices of people, but remember that for centuries people have been making choices almost solely based on religion. Just about any environmental conservationist worth a grain of salt will tell you that (and I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, if you wish to contest it with me please do so in the global warming thread) the cause of just about every major problem in the environment today is western culture and civilization. If we're being provided for and working with the guidelines given to us, and we're STILL making a mess of things, wouldn't that call for a better or clearer set of guidelines?

Regardless of anything else, I do believe in free will and personal responsibility and the like. I'm not sure wear it seems like I was blaming him, but I apologize for the misconception.

The flood of 40 days is a bit of a hiccup in actual history, as at no point has there ever been signs of a complete and total global inundation (fancy word for flood). Even if one area of the world had reached the peak of its decadence, there have been civilizations flourishing around the world since before Christianity was even conceived. I mention the flood in a metaphorical manner, and therefore I don't think preservation of the species is quite adequate if you're going to kill them all off anyway. Even if this is true, wouldn't this be the same as mercy killing? Ending lives before things become worse or prolonged? If not divine retribution, I'm think you could still call it divine judgment, proof that it is necessary to kill when things get out of hand.

((eh, sorry I havn't been here much, hopefully I have enough time to do a return post, if not, then I'll just make half a return post XP

oh, this post is getting rather long so I'll leave it as only the kalam argument post. I'll continue the others in another post for reader friendlyness))

-//1. you say that the kalam arguments assumes that this universe is not infinate.//-
Incorrect. It argues that the universe is not infinte rather than assume. As for your statement of how the universe came to be 5 minutes ago... apologies but I would have to ask...what was the relevence of that statement? It doesn't seem to talk about the concept of time but rather the beginning of it. Regardless time is still flowing so...???

-//2. you say the universe is a cycle of never ending big bang and big crunches//-
If I have not mistaken then please allow me to ask this question. Does this statement not have the same amount of credibility as me saying God created everything and stopping there? You can't say you were there to witness the event and you certainly can't give direct proof. Scientists have proven the expansion by the colors that they see in the stars. I won't go into much details but essentially the colors give hints of their velocity direction. yet regardless, using this point can not prove that the univserse started at one small point and expanded outward till today. Like you said, who is to say that God didn't create the world to be as it is 5 minutes ago? If that were true then there the universe never needed to start at a single point. Thus unless you can give proof, it is rather unconvincing to merely say that the universe is a never-ending series of big bangs and big crunches.

-//3. time could extend far beyond the scope of what we know adn thus we could be in the n-th universe//-
if you could post this up then I am assuming that you may not have fully understood the kalam argument. In my own simplified version, I present the following argument to you.

-//The argument//-
First keep in mind that the universe is space and time and essentially the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space.

1. the universe can be a) infinite or b) not infinite.

If it was infinite then it has infinite of time before this point and infinite of time after this point - definition of infinite. If it has infinite amount of time before this point, then it would take an infinite amount of time to reach this point. If you think about it, if you have to move through an infinite amount of time you will never make it to the end. Thus the universe should never have reached this point if it was infinite. Now how do you explain that we Have in fact reached this point?

And suppose it was infinite. Then the laws of entropy and enthalpy would have infinite amount of time for completion. thus the universe would have reached a perfect state of equilibrium by these two laws. Obviously, it has not.

Thus we can conclude that the universe is not infinite.

2. Suppose now we have confirmed that the universe is not infinite. What of it? If it had a beginning then the beginning of the universe must either be a) caused or b) uncaused.

if we say the beginning of the universe is uncaused we are saying from nothing came the universe without reason and for no reason/purpose. Is it logical to say something came from nothing without reason or intervention by anything else? I would hope not.

If it is not b) uncaused, then the universe must be a) caused.

3. If we say that it was caused, then by logic, the beginning of the universe must be caused by something outside the universe. and that would lead to our next premise. Is the cause a) random or b) not random?

Now lets do some thinking. If a cause caused the universe to begin then there must be a sufficient cause regardless of what that cause is. The cause can either a) have always been present or b) have not always been present. If the cause is a) always been present then the universe too would have always been present.

An analogy would be a match. When struck against a proper surface, it will ignite immediately without gaps between the cause and effect. At any situation we can realize that there is never gaps between cause and effects. Thus if the sufficient cause was always present then the universe too would always have been present. Which, we have proven not to be the case.

Therefore, the sufficient cause must not have always been present. Something must have changed/happened to make the sufficient cause. Yet if we think back, time is within the bounds of the universe. Thus this change/thing-that-happened must not have been made due to time. Thus it could not have been by random - since random is the probability of something happening over time. And if it is not random thus it must have been a purposeful cause. And purposeful cause can only mean that there is a higher being that willed the creation of the universe. We call this being, by definition, God.

By the way, the objections in the wikipedia you showed me are, in my opinion, flawed. If you are 100% that they are not, bring them up here and I will respond to each correspondingly.

-//prime mover//-


Ah, so you Assume that science will advance to such a stage and Have Faith that there would be a time when it can prove/figure it out. Funny, I thought that's what I did when I played my Faith in the God whom I am in debt to. Different targets of course.

actually, i can think of quite a few rules that have no exceptions...but that's not the point. Regardless of whether you think there are exceptions, I am more interested in "what does it take for you to believe?"

And in addition, i would definately like to hear your opinions on at least the two train of thoughts that I have posted recently.

and...I'll read your other comments on my other reasonings another time, its getting late now.

hahaha, indeed I may have contradicted myself by not portraying my thoughts correctly. When I said "obvious, visible, solid proofs" I meant say proofs that are undenyable and on display for all to see easily - with an emphesis on the latter. It is not that there is absolutely no proof nor that the proofs are insufficient but rather, the proofs are not obvious.

On personal experience, if you care to listen, I've experienced events that self fulling prophecies can not explain. in addition, I've heard many testimonies that are similar in that the things that happen can not be self fulfilling prophecies. Still, I don't believe you will even listen to this subtopic in general simply because it would seem that you want or to say, need to touch it and test it before saying "yes it is"

As for the universe being infinite. It is not that we do not currently have the knowledge. You have a misunderstanding. I used logical deductions to show you that it is impossible for this universe to be infinite. I'm afraid using "not knowing enough" will not be a sufficient shield to dodge this logical decuction unless you could prove otherwise.

As for thousands of universe possibily existing or not existing before this one. You have to realize then, supposing that this statement was true, that it is not the beginning of the universe but merely a phase it passed by. Thus, perhaps you may consider me slow but, I do not find that it disprove the arguments that points to that this universe must have been deliberately willed into existance.

I think I understand now what Jesus meant when he told the people that they would not believe even if He should perform miraculous signs.

But regardless, then, the logical deduction is an argument that points to a deliberate willing of the beginning of this universe. That is quite solid if you ask me. Yet you brushed it aside using hypothetical situations that has zero scientific proof and used "don't know enough to prove anything" as a shield. Even then it seems a little flimsy. And I do apologize if I offended you in saying that, but in my own limited point of view, that is how I see it.

Without arguing semantics, I believe it's more of a question of definition. When I describe the universe, I'm referring to the universe as we currently know it, originating with the Big Bang and expanding to its current point today. My point was that yes, the universe could merely be a phase in a much larger universe, and that there could be many other "universes" contained within one massive plane of existence, encompassing all things that are, were, or ever will be. And even then, who knows what may be beyond that plane?

In all fairness, things all must inevitably have a beginning, and that I agree with. However, the idea is that things very well could be so much bigger and more expansive than anyone could even imagine that even deities may merely be the pawns of an even greater creative entity. Which god is our god, and what if there's something even higher than that god? You see, even gods, assuming they exist, must have come from somewhere. Even if the aforementioned plane of all existence was deliberately willed into existence, the entity who willed it into existence must have already been in existence, and therefore, couldn't have created ALL of existence. Do you see the paradox? For something to be created, something else must have already been around to do the creating. Even the Bible supports this (which in itself lends a question to the philosophical ramifications). According to the New Oxford Bible (it's fairly recent, I'm using it for a textbook in a Bible as Lit. class), the world was already around when god decided to start things off.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the original writers and editors of the Bible probably didn't think back to the massive scope that I was referring to earlier, instead, like so many other creation myths, feeling comfortable with placing the deities in space before the world, not bothering to wonder where they came from.

PS: Don't worry about offending me, this is all for kicks anyhow.

PPS: I'll get to the other stuff in a bit, I've got a meeting to attend.

i believe in freedom of conscience.

we should all find our own path, without coercion.

we should not belittle the spiritual choices of others (although, sadly, that goes on here at gaia all the time)

if the result of our choice lands us in a group with similar-minded people we smile and make the best of it, realizing we all have faults and shortcomings and maybe we can even help and encourage each other.