If there is no God? - Page 13

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Calm

Over a billion people do not believe the universe had a beginning. What of them? It is known as “beginningless time” and is part of Buddhism, Taoism, etc. Scientists themselves theorise about time, and admit that it is theory alone that the universe has a beginning at all.

I am so pleased to learn this. I think if I have any belief about the origin of the universe, it is that it (somehow) has just always been. But never before have I read anything that supported that idea.

Oh, and I the idea of substituting the word "love" in prayer! That is powerful to me.

[DaryLLL]

Calm mentioned Buddhism and its idea of beginingless time. Before Buddhism was Hinduism. I wrote this up as a concrete example of an Eastern view of creation.

One of the major Hindu beliefs is reincarnation. The
creation stories of India reflect this precept.

This is not the first world, nor is it the first
universe. There have been and will be many more worlds
and universes than there are drops of water in the
holy river Ganges. The universes are made by Lord
Brahma the Creator, maintained by Lord Vishnu the
Preserver and destroyed by Lord Shiva. These three
gods are all forms of Supreme One and part of the
Supreme One. The Supreme One is behind and beyond all.


Before time began there was no heaven, no earth, and
no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the
shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A
giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its
endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. Everything was so
peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by
dreams or motion.

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble,
OOOMMM... It grew and spread, filling the emptiness
and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu
awoke. As daylight broke, a lotus grew from Vishnu's
navel. In it sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma.

Vishnu spoke: 'It is time to begin. Create the world.'

How dies Lord Brahma create? Some tell of how he grows
lonely and splits himself in two to create male and
female. Then he becomes one again and human beings are
created. In the same way he creates all the other
living things. Others say that everything comes from
different parts of Lord Brahma's body.

Some tell it this way:

A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent
vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower,
floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms
and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split
the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part
into the heavens. He made another part into the earth.
With the third part of the flower he created the
skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created
grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To
these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and
the insects to live on the land. He made birds and
fish to swim for the sky and sea. To all them, he gave
the senses of touch and smell, power to see, hear and
move.

Brahma's days are millions of earth years long. When
Brahma closes his eyes, Shiva destroys the world. When
he opens his eyes, a new world is created. After a
lifetime of these days and nights, Shiva destroys the
entire universe and Brahma retreats to the lotus.
Vishnu retreats under the sea. After an unimaginable
time of water and chaos Lord Vishnu returns to the
surface and the cycle begins again.

This goes on forever.

[Nankay]

Whew..I was away all weekend (bought a new computer! hooray!)

Great work Calm and daryLLL!

[Unagidon]

Impressionism grew from the advent of photography. You might want to study the movement and sound less ignorant.

Now that wasn't very nice, was it? I don't call you ignorant about religious studies even though you don't read history, philosophy, or theology, do I?

Both are abstract concepts which can be approached by science, as I have shown (brain experiments on the one hand and sacred geometry demonstrated by Pythagorus on the other.)

I'm sure that the rest of the world would be intrigued by your theory, but you don't seem to know much about the asthetics of other cultures. Rather surprising for an "inter-religious gnostic".

[Unagidon]

Unagidon, I seem to have stuck a nerve with the Paul speculations. Personally, I find it fun to think about. The theory is not my own but comes from the mind and studies of the late Talmudic scholar, Hyam Maccoby, from the 1987 book

I don't care about Paul and for all we know you are right. But we will never know. What strikes a nerve is theorizing about the psychology of someone who lived two millenia ago and then extrapolating from that to subsequent events in a causal fashion.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Unagidon

Now that wasn't very nice, was it?

I'm sorry, it was abrupt.

I don't call you ignorant about religious studies even though you don't read history, philosophy, or theology, do I?

I do read history and theology however. Comparative religion study involved both.

I admit I have not studied Kant and Nietzsche and those guys the way you have. You know more about the Enlightenment than I do. I am working on ancient history lately.

I'm sure that the rest of the world would be intrigued by your theory,

If you mean the golden ratio, it's not my theory , it is from the ancient Greeks. And the "world" is already familiar with it, even that hack Dan Brown!

but you don't seem to know much about the asthetics of other cultures. Rather surprising for an "inter-religious gnostic".

Well, I do know something about Asian and African art, actually, but didn't want to make this a discussion about art and derail. You seemed to want a definition of beauty and harmony and I gave you a couple quick links. A discussion of world art styles would belong in a different forum, or on a different board entirely.

Let's get back to God now, can we?

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Unagidon

I don't care about Paul and for all we know you are right. But we will never know. What strikes a nerve is theorizing about the psychology of someone who lived two millenia ago and then extrapolating from that to subsequent events in a causal fashion.

Sorry to be casual. This is an AP parenting board, not my doctoral thesis! I hope you can get a copy of The Mythmaker. It is intersting if admittedly controversial.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Nankay

Whew..I was away all weekend (bought a new computer! hooray!)

Great work Calm and daryLLL!

Thanks, Nankay and congrats on the new computer!

[Wausau74]

Sunnmama- simply put, yes it is possible that the ways things are are so that humans could evolve. But there are no facts to support macro-evolution. Also, God is absolutly moral. That is why sin must be punished. Sometimes bad things happen to innocent people because of sin. (There are answers to your question, which I believe is If God, why Evil on the Stand to reason website. See link below) That is why Jesus came to die for our sins as the perfect sacrifice since no person could every fulfill the law. Jesus' sinless life was sacrificed on the cross for each persons sin. He became sin for us so that we are not doomed to the punishment we deserve.

What is my worldview? That of Christian theist. Do I think the world is getting better ( and no not everyone will share my view)? Sure, every day is a day closer to Jesus coming back.

Define Law- something that one must adhere to ie the Law of Non-contradiction

I did not just write up a bunch of theories because if all we knew were theoris we basically know nothing and we can go on and on in circles about this. And FWIW evolution is also a theory. I hope that those who are skeptical about God are just as skeptical about their skepticism. If anyone wants to ask me further questions, please feel free to PM me. If people chose not to accept facts then that is that. I am chosing to bow out of this, not because I am defeated, but because there are a few who are quite convinced they are correct and won't look past that to consider other view. My finite little mind cannot do the evidence for the Lord justice over the internet like this. Like I said, for those who want to have some questions answered, I will be happy to talk to you via PMs. Here are some books and things I suggest people read which deal with why it is true God exists and why the Bible is true (and they might be a good laugh for some of you as to what these fundi Christians thinks are facts):

I Don't Have Enought Faith to Be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158...Fencoding=UTF8

Who Made God?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...lance&n=283155

True for You But Not for me by Paul Copen
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076...lance&n=283155

What We Can't Not Know- J. Budsizzewski
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/se...0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

Stand to Reason website
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

Institute for Creation Research
http://icr.org/

Soul Device
http://souldevice.org/

FORGOT TO ADD THIS ONE:
This is by one of the founders of Harvard Law School- why we can believe what the New Testament witnesses claim is truth:

http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html

[DaryLLL]

Oh, whoops, you said causal, not casual!

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

And FWIW evolution is also a theory. I hope that those who are skeptical about God are just as skeptical about their skepticism.

I have no problem labeling evolution as a theory. I am skeptical about God, and I am skeptical about science. That is not to say that I reject them equally--I reject the God idea (as it makes no sense to me), but I do accept science. I am just aware of it's limitations, esp as science is filtered thru human interpretation and understanding.


I spent some time looking at the "stand to reason" site (much was unreasonable to me....), but I noticed something in there that I've seen in your posts. It is a generalization about "what atheists believe". I think that is a fundamental error, because, as I understand and experience it, atheism is a rejection of a belief--but not a belief in and of itself. Each atheist may have individual beliefs, as they are free from doctrine of theistic teachings.

I actually really dislike the label "atheist", because it says so very little about me, and, imo, nothing meaningful about me. I dislike being defined by what I am not. I'd much rather defined (if at all necessary) by what I *am*.

[Calm]

I've only read up to here, but I often forget what I want to write.

Help me out here, first you say,

That is why sin must be punished.

Then you say,

He became sin for us so that we are not doomed to the punishment we deserve.

So which is it? Are we punished or not?

[Unagidon]

Well, I do know something about Asian and African art, actually, but didn't want to make this a discussion about art and derail. You seemed to want a definition of beauty and harmony and I gave you a couple quick links. A discussion of world art styles would belong in a different forum, or on a different board entirely.

No, I don't want a definition of art. All I have been saying is that the question of whether or not there is a god is more similar to the question of whether art exists (and what it is) than the question of whether, say, rocks exist. I draw the parallel because art (or literature, or love for example) are things that people believe in, that people claim to have empirical evidence for, but which can't be captured by science and which contain a large measure of necessary subjectivity. By necessary subjectivity, I mean that art, literature, and love require the presence of someone feeling or experiencing them in the sense that the lover (shall we call the art, literature or romantic lover simply "the lover"?) feels that they are what they are and this feeling is part of the identity of the thing as art, literature, or the beloved.

The natural counter to this, of course, is that art, literature, etc. wouldn't exist if humans did not exist, so to link god to this is also to say that if humans didn't exist, god would not exist. This would probably be consistant to what an atheist would say. To this I will counter that whether or not god would exist if humans didn't exist, god would not exist as humans know god if humans did not exist. This sounds like an odd or trivial thing to say, but I think that this thread has been conducting several conversations simultaneously. A god that exists whether humans exist or not is not something that can be proven or disproven by science. This is one discussion. The second is "is there any tangible evidence of any sort that god exists"? The answer is yes, in the sense that people who belive in god generally also experience the presence of god in tangible ways. This is not proof that god exists in a scientific sense, but it may be proof that god exists in the sense that art or literature or love exists. The third conversation asks the question "when people say they are experiencing god, what are they actually experiencing"? Some of you will say, simply, "god" and some will say something else. The fourth conversation, one we have not quite started, is "what difference does it make if one believes in god or not"? This is the question that I thought that the origional poster was asking at the very beginning.

Let's get back to God now, can we?

[Unagidon]

Originally Posted by Calm

I've only read up to here, but I often forget what I want to write.

Help me out here, first you say,


Then you say,

So which is it? Are we punished or not?

I am sorry that Wausau74 seems to have quit because I wanted to ask her if her sig quote from Thomas Aquinas meant that she was a reader of Acquinas. I found some of what she said echoes him, but some of what she said contradicts him, or some of his later followers. In general, her theological statements looked like a sort of mixed bag and were inconsistant and somewhat contradictory. I would have liked to know if this was a problem in her expression of them or if she actually held these ideas in the way that she presented them.

[Calm]

Wausau, in case you still read, I assume you refer to me in your post, as I am the one who gave perspective to your post on your proof of God. And the reason is I don't like theories being called facts and used as proof of anything.

And FWIW evolution is also a theory. I hope that those who are skeptical about God are just as skeptical about their skepticism.

Always, are you? I do not hold to any theory. Including evolution. I've said to both the religous and the athiests that firm belief or rejection of anything is premature and limiting.

If people chose not to accept facts then that is that.

See, this is where you'll lose me. I will accept your evidence, but don't be calling it fact, please. That isn't playing very fair, is it?

I am chosing to bow out of this, not because I am defeated, but because there are a few who are quite convinced they are correct and won't look past that to consider other view.

Aha, but this is where you are completely wrong. Sorry to put it so bluntly. I assume you mean me, as mentioned. What am I convinced I am correct about? What exactly is my opinion? Do I believe in God? I do believe I said many posts ago, "not the God of western culture" but what does that mean? And when you say 'consider another view', be careful because there are people here, such as myself and a very biblically learned lady, Darylll, that are doing everything in their power to consider other views. I ask questions, questions are rarely asked of me. I find that telling as to who is doing the learning here, and who is open to other views. Any questions?

Here are some books and things I suggest people read which deal with why it is true God exists and why the Bible is true

I read your stuff, want my list? Would you read books on my list?

[Calm]

Of my four brothers, one of them chose to be a Christian in his twenties. 25 years later he is still Christian. When we discuss our views, he makes it clear that we all choose what to believe, whether it be the latest scientific theory or the oldest biblical text. It is all belief. I respect that. I respect that deeply. He owns his belief as his belief and not as fact. As much religious study as he has done he realises there is little factual support for very much at all, scientific or religious. So he made a choice, the choice he resonated with most. He is open to crop circles, psychic phenomena, quantum mechanics, external God, whatever. It is possible to be that way, as I see it in him, and he is not conficted or confused. But during our discussions at no point do I ask for proof and no point does he say he has any. It is up to the individual and I do think these discussions would be more graceful if the word proof were eliminated altogether.

As mentioned, science is having enough trouble proving gravity and other things we believe as provable, so how on earth are we supposed to prove the subtleties of life?

[Nankay]

"As mentioned, science is having enough trouble proving gravity and other things we believe as provable..."

Say what????!!!! I am NOT open to the idea that fairies are holding onto our feet to keep us from floating off.

[Calm]

Even though I know ye jest, I thought for thought's sake, I'd respond anyway. I guess you missed this post:

“Prove is not a word that is used in science. We can show evidence for it. We can create a certain degree of confidence that an effect is what it appears to be. Has anyone ever ‘proved’ gravity? Newton said gravity is the force of attraction between masses. Einstein said mass curves space/time geometry, which then causes masses to come together. But they can’t prove that’s what it is . At best the mathematical description can be seen to have no evidence to the contrary.” – Dean Radin.

How about I put it to you like this: prove gravity. Perhaps you'll then say, but I'm not floating away, so there must be gravity holding me down - there's your proof. However, that is not proof. First, why should I assume we'd float away? Second, "what is 'holding' me down?" or is it, "what is 'pushing' me down?" or is it, "compared to outer space, we don't float around, so we call that anomaly 'gravity'." What is gravity, why do you believe in it? Is it because you believe that if in outer space you would float, so therefore, on earth we must have a force that stops us from floating?

Say what????!!!! I am NOT open to the idea that fairies are holding onto our feet to keep us from floating off.

Why do you think that they must be talking about fairies (or other such like) just because literally the very foundation of your existence is questioned? What if fairies ARE holding your feet? Why do you need proof of gravity, why not just believe it is there and that not floating off is good enough? Why not disbelieve gravity altogether and go out and prove Einsten completely wrong somehow? (Maybe gravity doesn't exist afterall, and it isn't a "force"; the "force" is the one that makes us float in outerspace? Just my offhand attempt at theory ) It isn't too hard to think outside the box, or question reality, or question the whole darned system. What is easy is sitting back and waiting for things like "proof" to stand before your breakfast table one day on a fluffy white cloud with a scroll in one hand and a hooked magical cane in the other.

[Thao]

Wow, I actually read this entire thread!!!

I had quite a bit of respect for Wausau's tone and arguments until this

If people chose not to accept facts then that is that. I am chosing to bow out of this, not because I am defeated, but because there are a few who are quite convinced they are correct and won't look past that to consider other view.

I mean, it's a DISCUSSION board, right? Did you expect that everyone would just suddenly agree with you? As others pointed out, who is "convinced they are correct" -- the ones who are willing to discuss, or the one who isn't? Truly, I'm disappointed.

I was going to add, although it may be pointless now, that the whole idea that the Big Bang (and I do think there is a good deal of evidence to support it) proves that the universe had a beginning is not necessarily true. It could be that it was simply the beginning of OUR universe, and that there are an infinite number of universes constantly beginning and ending, being created out of one another. Meaning that The Universe is infinite, it is just our particular universe that had a beginning and one day will have an end. This is taught by Buddhism, and I was interested to read an article about a scientific theory that postulated the same thing although now I can't remember any specifics.