Why do you believe what you believe

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

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.

Quote:

-//1. the existance of the universe //-

This is known as the Kalam argument. The premise of this argument is this:

I. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
II. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
III. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

The above is a site that has the Kalam argument.

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

Quote:

-//2 & 3 the scientific laws & complexity of universe//-

The existance of scientific laws and complexity of the universe and their complexity can either be explained by extremely unprobable chance or simply a designer: thus God.


Apologies but after I gave some thought to it I realized they were basically the same argument except in different viewpoint and thus I have combined the two. one analyzes the scientific views while the other analyzes the complexity beyond. For the comoplexity of the world to prove that God exists. I must:

1. prove that they are complex, powerful, ingenius and the likes
2. analyze the probabilty of it appearing by chance and if it is not by chance then we can conclude that someone must have done it: hence a designer.


Though it is common knowledge amongst scientists that the universe is extremely complex and powerful while haning on a delicate balance, I will still go through a few of the complex and powerful here while doing the balance part in the next argument. I will do it only for the sake of "providing evidence/support". I shall simply list out some stuff and describe some of their functions. If you want more details or why it is considered complex, by all means do more external readings.
examples Wrote:
The gravitational constant. The force of gravity between any object is a law described by the mathematical forumla: Fg = Gm1m2/r^2. And within this formula G represents the gravitational constant. This constant is one of the many in this universe. If G was to be changed by even 0.000000001 then the universe would collapse. One reason that it will is becuase all orbits (thus planets, moons and the such) orbit around a body by centripedal force[its physics, I'm not going to explain though you can look it up] therefore, if the gravitational constant is changed by even 0.0000001 all orbits will fall out of place and create mass chaos. Similar effects will occur if you change ANY of the universal constants[corresponding their functions of course]

The chemical reactions. Some chemical reactions have the ability to go backwards from products back to the reactants. This scienfic law is also well known and is taught even in schools. Cellular respiration and photosynthesis is one such reaction. What the plants take in adn change into glucose we change back and use the energy. If the reaction was unable to reverse, then we could not possibly survive. Yet at the same time if all reactions could forward adn backward easily then we would also die because the chemicals in the air[essentially refering to the particals and components in air] would react and create an atmosphere that is not suitable for us to live in.

Law of friction. If friction did not exist, it would be impossible for us to even walk. Friction is a force that exist only to counter a pre-existing force. Ff = -uFn if you want to knwo the equation. If there was no friction then fish can not swim and meteorites would fall through the sky at a much higher rate than it is now. Our atmosphere has atmospheric friction which burns out most small meteorites as they pass through. Since meteorites are usually moving at such high speeds, if one was to fall onto the earth, they would cause a crator if not more damage [porportional to its speed and mass of course].

Law that binds electromagnetic waves and thus light. A small fraction of electromagnetic waves (at around 450-700Hz frequency) is what we can perceive as light. If light did nto have the reflection property then we would only be able to see sources of light and not the objects around us. We would live un utter darkness with the exception of looking up and seeing a blinding sun and stars at night. If light - since it has properties of a wave - moved only with properties of light and not matter then it would never reach us from the sun becuase space is a vacuum which is the absence of a medium[all waves need a medium to travel through...electromagnetic waves are exception]

DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid is the basic genetic coding that determines how each organism will be. The structure of the DNA is composed of long chains of base pairs known as adenine (abbreviated A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). A can only pair with T while C can only pair with G. It is the combination of these molecules that determines whether you have blue eyes or brown eyes, black hair or blond. Yet before we delve any deeper, you can already ask a question: How can 4 such molecules be the code that determines the attributes of my body? Indeed, if you were to study the actual making, working, and structure of the DNA you would realize that it is very unlikely that they came about on their own. Again, I apologize for not elaborating on the details of complexity but you can find out more should you decide to search deeper ie. external readings.


If you have not realized by now, these laws ALL benefit and contribute to the existance of mankind. If anyone of these were to be altered, humanity may cease to exist. These laws are powerful in that they have much more uses than what little I mentioned. In addition, the brilliance of having these laws in the right place and calibrated correctly that humans can live seems...a little improbable for it to be chance. The complexity of the laws and their placement and calibration are something that is well acknowledge.


What is the probability that all these scientific laws appeared by chance? First we must consider how the universe and its laws might have come about if we are going to look at it through the eyes of chance. How did the the universe come to be - if it did - ? How probable is it that these laws all contribute to the maintanence of the universe? If the universal constant that guides the structure of atoms were changed by 0.01 then all atoms in the universe would break apart, what are the chances that it is calibrated to exactly what it is now? What is the probability that these laws work together for maintanence of this universe? And what is the probability that these laws supports life on earth? If the earth was 5% closer to the sun humanity would end by the heat and if earth was 5% way mankind would cease by the coldness. How probable that we are just at the right place at the right time to be able to have life? Now if we think about it, which is more probable? All these coming together by chance, or someone who designed it all? [note: this is not proving that that someone exist but analyzing which is more probable: to have a designer or to have chance make all this]

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.

Quote:

-//4. the fact that the universe is moving //-
This is called the prime mover argument. The things in the universe are moving and many scientist say they are moving outwards. The universe moving is a well knwon fact so I won't go into proving it. But the question now is "how come it is moving?". Acording to inertia moving body tends to stay moving while body at rest stays at rest. However, if the universe is moving then there must be something that started its movements. What or who was it? Random chance cause movement? You can try putting a piece of cardboard on the floor in your house. Do not let anyone or anything move it or touch it. Would it move after you leave it there for say...10 years? no it would not. You would need a netforce to move it. Thus someone or somthign must have started the univese and moved it.

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.

Quote:

-//5. the existance of morality //-

The question here is either (a) there is a God or (b) there is no God.


There is a God.


Before we do anything, I would like to ask some questions. Does evil exist in the world? Is it okay to kill off all those who are weak and do nothing but leech off society? Is it wrong to rape an innocent little girl? If you answered yes or no to any of these questions you have demonstrated the existance of morality. You can not say somethign is good or evil unless you first know that there is something called good and something called evil. Even if you should deny its existance, society and the rest of the world acknowledges it.

Yet now that we have established that there is soemthing called "good" and something called "evil" we know that there is a standard that exist somewhere. If there isn't a standard, then who is to say killing off the useless people are wrong? Who is to say raping women is wrong? If you think about it, killing off all the "weak people" - those who doesn't benefit society - will free up resources for the rest of humanity. And if everyone continues to rape everyone then the human species will flourish with more reproduction. So what's wrong? Obviously there is something wrong with this picture.

You might say people have rights and by doing all that you violate their rights. Oh? And who gave them those rights? Do they intrinsically have something more than just another species of animals we can slaughter for food and use for experiments? [note: first world countries slaughter millions of animals every year for food and use other animals for experiments and such] If they intrinsically have something more, where did that something come from? Or better yet, what is it? If you say humans and animals are the same then what's wrong with the above picture? Or a better question may be "why is it wrong"?

There is a standard whether you acknowledge it or not. If you can say something is right or wrong, then you must have a standard that you use to make that statement. And standards are set. They are not there for no reason and made by no one. So who set the standards for morality? Humans? So for now lets imagine that is is. If it is, then my standard will be different from yours. If I say I can take your car becuase I think its right, obviously you are going to say that is wrong. So who's right? If you look in today's society you'd realize you don't need to argue. There are laws that says what is right adn what is wrong. So I ask you then. Does a society set the standard? If they do, then would it not be the same as my standard against yours? ie. one society's standards against another? If that's true, then who's right? If you look through history you would find similar standards spaning through time and space in different countries with different people. "Protect the weak", "Bravery", "integrity", "do to others as you would have them done to you" These are virtues that are highly regarded Regardless of where you are. Now, if we consider that fact, we realize something is very peculiar. A common standard spans through humanity. Why do we have similar standards. It has to be set by someone we know that, but who? If it was set by man, then what reason does another have to follow it? And why would different people's standards have similarities? Perhaps it is because this standard is made not by humans but by something/someone above us. If we say, the creator made the standard and wired it into all of us then it would make sense.

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.

Quote:

-//6. the Bible[I can, of course, prove the Bible to be true] //-

The bible proves the existance of God.


To prove that the previous statement is true I must do two things:

1. prove that the Bible is true
2. prove that the Bible says that God is real[common knowledge...I won't expand unless requested to]

The Bible is constist of historical accounts and spiritual testimonies. If you can prove the historical account to be false then you can condemn the whole book to be invalid in terms of absolute truth. Thus I shall reinforce that the Bible to be true by the historical contents using these points:

1. Manuscript Evidence
2. Archeological Digs


Before I enter into details you must realize a few things.

-In Biblical times, the printing press (AD1456) did not exist.
-Most people could not even read.
-The individuals entrusted with the task of copying the scriptures were called scribes.
-The Jews are known to be a group of very religious nation adn only the most devout Jews were allowed to study this art and become a scribe.

In fact, their dedication was so severe that after each page of writing they would check letter by letter to see if they made a mistake. If they did they would throw it away and restart. In addition, every time they have to write the word God, they would ceremoniously wash their hands for 15 minutes. So if one sentence had the word God in it 10 times, they would go wash their hands 10 times. That is how devout and serious they were. And with that in mind, the possible error is extremely thin if any at all.
Quote:
<
Manuscripts are tools that can be used to determine the accuracy and validity of different texts. The longer the time between the date written(original) and the oldest manuscript(copy that we have) found, the more possible errors there could be in the text. As well, we know that if the text was written while there were still eyewitness alive then the eyewitness could refute the text's contents base on validity and accuracy.

Up to 1947, the most widely used copy of the O.T.(old testiment) is dated around 900AD and is known as the masoretic text. It is also in this same year that a startling archaeological discovery was made, containing O.T. documents dating back to 150BC. These came to be known as the dead sea scrolls. For the N.T., over 5500 manuscripts exist today, which scientists can use to rebuild the original gospels. The oldest existing fragment comes from John 18 and is dated around 98-110AD from Egypt. The significance of this date is that it is written within the lifetime of an eyewitness. Thus if there was ANY flaw, the eyewitness can stand up point and thus crush the text.

<<

Author/ Title/ Date written/ Manuscript date / number of copies
Mathew Mark Luke John/ Gospels of Jesus / 40-100AD/ 98-150AD/ 5500
Homer/ The Illiad/ 600BC/ 200-300AD/ 650
Aristotle/ Poetics/ 343BC/ 1000AD/ 5
Tacitus/ Anals of Imperial/ 116AD/ 850AD/ 1

Thus by these two points we know that the credibility and validity of the gospel alone is much stronger than that of "The Illiad", "Poetics", "Anals of Imperial". From looking at these books alone (you can go find more if you wish) we know that there is no other ancient text that has the same degree of manuscript evidence as the New Testament. In addition, by understanding the care taken by the scribes - out of reverence for the holy words they were writing - we know the copies are highly accurate.

Quote:
<
Archeological finds can not by itself prove that the bible is correct but it can reinforce its validity. To the present day there are over 25000 archaeological sites that confirms the Bible [now how many confirms evolution again?]. Contrary to popular belief, dating of the artifacts found is NOT solely done by radioactive decay. Most scientists do not believe that this technique is accurate. So if that's the case, how are artifacts dated? Most are dated using the technique of extrapolation. Accurate timelines can be drawn out by comparing multiple sources and using simple deduction. Pottery style, inscriptions, and royal or family tree provide a wealth of information that can accurately date new discoveries.

<<(you can research on these if you like)
-The construction of Hazzor, Megiddo, and Gezer by Solomon [1 Ki 9:15]
-Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon [Daniel 5]
-Lysanias, Tetriarch of Abilene (AD 27) [Luke 3:1]
Pool of Bethesda [John 5:1-5]
Jacob's well [John 4:12]

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.  

[Dirk Bolero]

dboyzero

Please explain what you mean by "just making sense." I'm sure many people of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other faiths around the world would disagree with you.

Can you define how life here is in a controlled environment and providing for their every need? I'm sure that the many people who are starving around the world, who are being killed off systematically, who are people oppressed by tyrants and criminals would disagree with you.

How is free will given to us in the simplest way possible? I'm sure many of us have never been given the simple choice of whether or not to eat the fruit.

Lastly, about him obeying his own rules, I do believe that the flood of 40 days is enough to show that even a deity believes in divine retribution, whether or not it involves killing somebody.

When I say a controlled environment, I mean the whole Garden of Eden thing. After we screwed that one up (with a little help, I admit) we kinda went off doing whatever. Same with the fruit: In the beginning, after the whole 7days thing, He said we could have any fruit in the garden, except ONE TREE. He said not to eat from that tree, because we would die. Well good ol' Eve didn't listen, ate it, shared it with Adam, and now we are imperfect entities. That was free will in the simplest terms right there: Don't eat the fruit, but feel free to do whatever the Hell you want. The only flaw in that is that humans are idiots, and ate the fruit anyway. Since then, the number of choices increased more and more, until you have today.

But even now, are not our needs provided for? Dinosaurs, created eons ago, broke down and became fossil fuel. We have forests, fish, and the like. The problems you name, problems of starvation, tyranny, and murder, are caused by people. People raise the price of food, making it unaffordable; people could feed the starving if they wanted to, but do they? Tyrants are people never satisfied by what they have, always wanting more! It is people who kill other people, people who deny food to the starving, and people who rise in the political arena and abuse their power. We have the tools to end a lot of the suffering around us. Maybe not all of it, but we have been provided for.

As for following His own rules, He gave us free will. And yet we blame Him for murder, rape, chaos, and the like. In a sense, we blame him for not doing anything. But how can He? To step into the fray, to remove the guns from the hands of man so that they can do no harm to each other, takes away free will.

You also mention the flood, but do you really know what it was like back then? Surviving records tell of bloody sacrifices to stone idols, and the average age of prostitution for girls and boys alike being 6. Rape quickened the spread of diseases contracted from beastiality, and it came to the point of killing or being killed. This "society", if you could call it that, was more brutal than Rome and Egypt combined. Had God not sent the flood, humanity would cease to exist! It wasn't "divine retribution," but instead a preservation of the species!  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

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.  

[King Robert Silvermyst]

I grew up as a Roman Catholic, but have rarely felt the love of God among them. They condescended anyone who believed differently, and looking at the Spanish Inquisition and the near-destruction of the Native Americans, my faith in the church was shaken, not stirred. I kept searching for Jesus on my own, but my life had been miserable for the most part. It wasn't until recently, when I was in Iraq that the Goddess Sekhmet came to me. She is the Goddess of healing, Protector of the just and deliverer of divine retribution to those who did injustice to the innocent. she was very warm and caring and eventually She led me to the faith of the Kemetic Orthodoxy. From there, I became drawn to Asar (Osiris) the King and His Son, Yinepu (Anubis). I began learning many truths about the world that was closed to me before and gained an even broader insight to the Gods and Goddesses, whom are but Names of the One God, sent to us so that we may have a more intimate relationship with him through His many Names. God, no matter what religion, should not in my belief, be worshipped from afar as though He is something that can never be touched. Indeed He wants us to have a personal relationship with us, His children. Death is never the end. For those worthy, heaven awaits. For the unworthy, they are reincarnated with the weight of their sins of the previous life and given chance for atonement. And He does not care which path we take, so long as it leads us along the straight and narrow road, bringing us up when we are in need and breaking us down when we are in need of humility or are in need of being taught a lesson. In such, God, weather in the form of the Christian trinity or the various Names of the ancient kemetic Gods and Goddesses, is fair and just, even if we do not see as such. And since our souls are immortal, sometimes it is nessicarry for our mortal bodies to be taken and our souls reborn for our overall development, heading towards the goal of heaven.  

[souloe]

((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.  

[souloe]

Quote:

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.

Complexity does not neccessarily mean a deity yes you can say that. Then perhaps lets go on another logical train of thought. The things in this universe are complex, yes. Why is it complex? Or perhaps asking this question would be more proper, where did it come from?

Scientists have proved that the bodies in the universe are moving away from each other. If I have not mistaken, they have used this to induce the reasoning that the universe must have started at a singular point. And at the same time due to inertia, if it was a singular point then there must have been something to begin all the motion and expansion. Thus they have come up with the big bang. From what i understand, that is how the big bang theory came to be.

Suppose it were true. That means the matter, energy, all the laws and everthing must have existed at the one point already before the bang. This can be concluded because we know that the laws of this universe don't change, hence science and can be trusted. If it was there already, where did the singularity come from? Suppose one can find some logical explaination for its origin, how is it that such condensed mass can exist wtihout turning into a giant blackhole? If you ask me, I'd say that the big bang theory has a very low probability as being what really happened for those reasons.

But, if I have not mistaken, it is proven that the universe is expanding. So what's with that? The sequence is without a beginning, since the supposed beginning "big bang" doesn't seem logical. By entropy and enthalpy, we know that the universe can not have been infinite and thus must have a beginning. But if the beginning is not at "the big bang" then it must be between the supposed time of the "big bang" and the present time due to the logic that originated the big bang.

If the universe came into being in between, and it did not "start at a beginning" (if you know what I mean) then it must have started in the middle of the supposed sequence, then how did it appear like that? If a cause caused it then what is that cause? If no cause caused it, did it appear from nothing without reason and without purpose? refer to kalam argument for extension of this point. Suppose it was caused by something, suppose that it is God, then it would make sense how the universe, by the previous logic, can come into being in the middle of the sequence. And suppose not, what do you think it is?

Quote:

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.

It is good to question rather than to believe blindly. I agree. I can give proves that God and all exist but oddly enough, that is not why I believe that He does. Strange isn't it?

As well, don't you think its strange that God doesn't give obvious, visible, solid proofs of his own existance? Those who seek Him will find Him. He did say that he wanted us to believe by faith. Its not that there's no proof of His existance, in fact its everywhere if you truely seek Him. But there's no merit in believing that the computer exists in front of me when I am staring at it. "Of course its there" I can only guess his thoughts but I think its because of that that He want you to believe by faith. If you know everything then its not believing, its knowing. Personal opinion of course.  

[souloe]

-//prime mover//-

Quote:

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.

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.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

On the contrary, I assume nothing about science, although I do have faith in reason and logic, and that, given the time necessary, it will eventually advance to a stage capable of proving and analyzing just about anything. However, it still depends on time.

You see, my points are actually quite simple, and it is that we have no proof. The existence of any deity, like you said, is based on faith. All the rest your (and my devil's advocacy) is really just filler based on how strongly you have faith. I have faith in science and reason because it can explain how things work based on observation and experimentation. I put my faith in it because I have seen it work and seen it so. As far as we still know, there has not yet been an instance where an apple has fallen up from a tree.

There is much out there that we don't understand and that we don't even know about yet, but I feel that placing faith in something that doesn't really explain anything is not necessary. There very well could be a god up there that has led to the creation of all things, letting it all play out, but what does that end up meaning for us? People of different faiths aren't concerned with the afterlives of the others, just their own. Heck, there's the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies which explain why those who have faith "find god" and so forth. In the end, people gain faith from different things and times in their life, so when you try to prove something definitely (even something as simple as proving whether or not the computer in front of you exists), there will always be a exception to the rule, or some last little bit that runs counter to what you're arguing, wouldn't you agree?  

[souloe]

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.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

For me to believe in the presence of a real deity, as defined by a singular conscious and sentient entity that created the universe as we know it, I would need to see physical proof of existence, including but not limited to said being coming and communicating with me personally, or using some other means of making themselves known by use of supernatural phenomena.

People claim to communicate with gods through prayer, but, truth be told, there's absolutely no way to verify this. They may be working out their own problems, or talking to themselves, or a variety of other possibilities. The concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy states that if you believe something will come true, it will (within limits, of course). Thus, if someone prays and believes that they hear a deity tell them they will ace a test the next day, that will give them the confidence to do well on the test and pass. It is almost identical in concept to that of placebos, which have also been proven to work.

Going back to the beginning of the universe, like I said before, simply because we don't currently have the knowledge of the universe's properties or facts about its nature doesn't discount the possibilities of it being infinite. Absence of evidence and the like, no? And even if the universe is not infinite, there could have been thousand other universes which existed and collapsed before this one, or that there are a thousand parallel universes and dimensions to this one.

Quote:

As well, don't you think its strange that God doesn't give obvious, visible, solid proofs of his own existance? Those who seek Him will find Him. He did say that he wanted us to believe by faith. Its not that there's no proof of His existance, in fact its everywhere if you truely seek Him. But there's no merit in believing that the computer exists in front of me when I am staring at it. "Of course its there" I can only guess his thoughts but I think its because of that that He want you to believe by faith. If you know everything then its not believing, its knowing. Personal opinion of course.

Doesn't this automatically run counter to your point of proving the existence of a god? If he truly wants people to believe and not "know" that he exists, then wouldn't that mean that there will never be tangible proof of his existence or non-existence, as I've been saying? I suppose after analyzing this, I'm not to keen on "believing" in things, much preferring to "know" them for sure.

Let's use an example. I sell knives, so I'm gonna go with those.

I'm a salesman, and I tell you about the greatest knives on the planet. They cut cleaner, faster, and much easier than any other knife anywhere. I can tell you all about the process that goes into making it, the high quality of the raw materials we use, and the 100% customer satisfaction rate. Would you buy the knives? Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on how good of a job I did convincing you that these are the best knives ever. If I didn't convince you, it would probably be because you didn't BELIEVE what I was telling you, and thus have no incentive to give me your money. If I did convince you, you would absolutely BELIEVE that these knives were the best and would gladly give me your money for them. But you still wouldn't actually know how the knives performed, because you've never used them. You have to take MY WORD for how the knives perform, and if I'm a good enough con-man, I could send you the worst knives ever and you'd be stuck with them (barring legal action, of course).

Now, on the other hand, if I actually bring the knives in, and show you just how well they cut, let you cut with them yourself, you'd actually KNOW how well the knives work. If I bring in the knives of the top competitors, and show you how much better my knives cut, then you'd KNOW that I have the best anywhere else. The only way I'd be able to gyp you would be if I don't mention and hide the knowledge of another knife brand out there, one that does even better than me, and if you know that brand of knives I'm screwed. So, without that exception, you now have PROOF that I have the best knives ever, and you can easily part with your money knowing that I (and soon you) have the best.

Isn't knowing a lot better than believing?

Now, applying this to religion, you may KNOW that religion helps people and does wonderful things for them (think of this as customer recommendation), but you need the product for yourself in order to KNOW that it works well for you, even comparing it to other religions that you have experience with. However, dealing with an actual deity, you can only BELIEVE that it's there, because you can't deal with it yourself. You can't sit down with a god and talk it out with them (because of the aforementioned reason about whether prayers actually work) and you can't compare one god to another god because believing in one god automatically stops you from believing in a rival (read: alternative) deity. In other words, you just have to take people's word for his existence and his message, regardless of the positive effect those things may have on people.

I hope I made enough sense, if not I'll see if I can explain it better. In case you're wondering, yes, I KNOW that I have the best knives around because I've seen them used and compared to other knives and so forth. I'm still waiting to see if I can find a knife that can outperform mine.  

[souloe]

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.  

[souloe]

dboyzero

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.

You know, i've realized something by reading this. You've made countless statements without every Proving them to be true. While I give proof for my statments, and logical deductions to lead to a conclusion I would like to see the same in your statments as well.

Quote:

It is not required that a deity provide a moral code, it simply exists that way in modern religions.

could you please prove this statment to be true? You say "it simply exists that way in modern religions" but there is no proof. So in the same way can I not say "God simply exist and did create the universe" Both are of equal credibility when you look at it that way so I ask you to prove your statement true.

Quote:

There was no “good” and there was no “evil,” these concepts were introduced into society with the introduction of society

Quote:

Morality itself is a man-made concept

Both are example of how you stated your belief without giving evidence. It is nice that you have fabricated a thought out story, but as you do not give evidence for it, it is to me as much as God is to you.

What I'm trying to say is that by simply making statements is not enough. As you would ask me for evidence so I would like the same from you when you make statements of your own. As well, in essence you have not broken my argument at all.

the concept of "good" and "evil" exists today. I doubt you will disagree. you say that at one point it did not exist. Well, I challenge you to prove it. Good and evil has always existed in the history of mankind. And I do challenge you to search the past and prove me wrong.

In addition, good and evil that we have is not particularly based on "survival of mankind" and "coexistance" and "settle disputes". I have mentioned examples of such already in my other post.

If all human knows of the concept good and evil then where did it come from? If suppose man did make up the concepts of good and evil, then what Is good and evil? You said good an evil was to solve disputes and for people to live together. But if there was no good and bad before, who is to say that disputes is a bad thing? And who is to say even the extinction of humanity is a bad thing? And if there is zero good and bad in the first place, how does it begin? Essentially, if there was no good and evil to begin with, I can not see how good and evil will come to be. Perhaps you, who claims that good and evil at one point after the human race came to be, can explain the origin of good and evil then.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

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.  

[souloe]

dboyzero

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.

So in essence, you have not broken the argument that the universe is deliberately willed into existance. Therefore, can we say that we have a concent that "This universe must have had a beginning and that beginning was deliberately willed"?

If we can have a concent, then we can move on from there rather than to repeat what we have already discussed. And of course, since you have yet to respond fully I shall wait for your responce before sharing my own thoughts. It should actually be more "discussion-clean" (if you know what I mean) to wait till you finish a complete responce before I do any of my own input.

And... I'm glad you are not offended. Many people now-a-days are rather over sensitive and demands everything to be "politically correct". Personally, in arguments as such, i find excitement in discussing it and if anything, I try to bid myself to enjoy the logical swordplay Without the need of anger or fustration. Of course, I can't say I've never failed but... working on it.  

[beaulolais]

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.