The universe is still expanding, and the Big Bang refers to the expansion of the entire universe. I think it’s a mistake to call the Big Bang only the point at which the universe is compressed as small as it can possibly get: it’s really just one point in the shape of the universe.
As an analogy, the Earth expands from the point called the North Pole outwards to the equator. But we still say that the North Pole is just a point somewhere on the Earth’s surface rather than saying that the North Pole causes the Earth to expand, or that the North Pole is caused by something North of the North Pole - we’re just talking about the shape of the Earth.
Ahhhh just when I was thinking about complimenting you for the moderate rational tone of your recent posts the familar** Der Trihs ** shows up. I realize how this seems to minimize human suffering but it is merely an exercise in logic. Ever watch a movie where people suffer? Do you consider yourself or anyone who watches that movie a sick bastard because they watched suffering and horrible deaths for entertainment? We can enjoy getting into a movie because we know it’s fleeting and when we leave the theater we put it behind us. That’s the principle I’m talking about.
Either you missed the point or this is complete bullshit. It seems painfully obivious to me that you, myself and just about everyone on the planet could be doing more to alliviate the suffering around us. That’s what God was saying in the movie. Gandhi said “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
And you’ll need at least that long, maybe longer.
I think you’ve got your version and mine mixed up. You do that a lot ya know.
If you admit that none of the premises can be proven true or false, then you just proved that Dio is being illogical. To claim that something is illogical, there must not be a single way that the statement is true.
Very well. If the withheld definition of omnibenevolent means that not one single feeling of pain, even if we make this pain up, is allowed, then yes of coarse God is not omnibenevolent. If God was omnibenevolent, according to this definition, then He never would have been able to create us with free will and an ability to learn.
For some reason you are under the assumption that I have the view that Christian=good. Your character and the things you do while noone is watching = good.
I will agree with the fact that God does not give “signs” as you say but I don’t think the disaster is a sign to worship God. I do not assume anything about what the disasters mean since I have no discernable way of knowing what they mean.
This is not my argument. This is my stance based on faith. The sooner we all agree that everything returns back to faith, the better.
Get the faith out of your eyes. You keep saying how you feel it is emotionally reasonable to believe in god, but you keep using the word “logical.” That word does not mean what you think it does.
Thanks. It’s interesting. A few years ago I was staying in a rooming house and across the hall was a nice man from Poland who was here getting his doctorate in physics. One evening he came out all excited and tried to explain what he had realized about his thesis. It was over my head and in broken english but in short;
His thesis was about black holes and how they expand. He explained that as it expands outward the edges expand downward until at some point it meets itself. All I could think of was a shape like a doughnut. Then I thought pf a passage from the Book of Mormon “the course of God is one eternal round”
Does his thesis make any sense to you at all? {even with my feeble explanation of it}
I’m only trying to present an alternative arguement to the excessive suffering means God is not benevolent stance. Your what ifs don’y apply.
Of course his values are pertinent. They are the constants and it is our perspective that keeps changing. That changing perspective causes much of our suffering. We can reduce our own suffering by choosing to change our perspective.
Actually it’s not. You just assumed that you know what punishment fits the crime. Only God knows this my friend. You are basing everything on human terms. Therefore, my premise that God is just, is not contradicted.
Why do I have to give a reason why God wants something to do with His creation? Sure, God could have sacrificed all the lambs in the world instead of bringing Christ. That brings up big problems such as if sacrificing lambs would even come close to punishment for what we have done and also how sacrificing a lamb doesn’t just cause more suffering in the world until something else works it out. Either way, simply because God could have choosen to do something, does not mean that He has to have chosen that way. Do you disagree with this? Because there is nothing to disagree with. I’m afraid your logic is lacking. You just accused me of being illogical. Show me where I am being illogical. Once again, noone cares what you think about this. All I simply want to know is where the logic is wrong.
You are using what you consider “just” like it is anything remotely close to how God is just. The fact is, other than yourself, you have no idea what anyone deserves. You have no idea what they have been through. You have no idea what they have been given and have not been given. You can certainly equate justice in human terms. But you cannot in God’s terms. You also do not even have any idea what the life after this will be like. We have guesses. But we do not know. Who is to say that this life is not instantaneous when compared to the infinite line spectrum of “Life”.
Ahh. You are close to realizing a key point. In scientific discussions, we come up with premises. After we have verified that these premises are true, we attempt to find a conclusion. Once we find a conclusion, we verify that the conclusion is true. One thing that we do almost unconciously, is that we compare the evidence to universal laws. For instance, we take gravity on earth for granted. If evidence goes against this, we can, for the most part, assume that the logic is invalid.
In regards to faith, we come up with premises that we have almost no way of knowing are true or false. We then, assume that these premises are true, and determine whether the conclusion is true or false based on every premise we know. Also, since all the premises that we know are not as well known, the common sense premises are not known to those who are questioning me. For example, in my scientific discussion, we would all consider it to be common sense that if someone said a premise that went against gravity, that the premise was false. You do not have this luxury in regards to religion. You can only conclude whether the conclusions are true or false based on all of the premises. Therefore, it is possible to come up with the various possible attributes that God has. For example, we can come up with the premises that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent if you assume that there is evil in the world (which implies that God needed to not be omnibenevolent to create us the way He did). After a ton of deductive reasoning, you can figure out what God could be, and what he could not be.
If you get this, you will realize that there is not going to be anything wrong with my logic. All we are simply doing is breaking further down what God is and is not.
Hmm, it sounds a little like he’s talking about either how black holes form (as the centre becomes denser, spacetime becomes more and more ‘bent’ until eventually it completely curves around such that there is no path of escape from it, even for light) or how black holes evaporate (as Hawking says, pairs of particles at the surface appear ‘out of nowhere’, ie. the quantum field fluctuates, and one of the pair is sucked into the black hole while the other one radiates away: black holes ain’t so black. After billions of years, this radiation causes the black hole to shrink until light can just about escape, and the black hole again becomes just another visible lump of dense matter). Wihout more info, I couldn’t say which - he might have been talking about somehing else entirely, like string theory manifolds or something.
Your obvious distaste for God is not necessarily invalid. It is def. a rational point. However, you are attempting to understand things based on your limited knowledge. It would be like my cat trying to understand everything we are talking about. My cat doesn’t even understand our language.
Of coarse I have to make judgment calls on other religions. If I didn’t, then I would never be able to decide on what I believe. Take the example of racism. I am not anywhere near racist. But if a black guy walks up to me in a dark alley by my car, I am gonna be afraid. If a girl walks up to me, I wont be afraid. Now I know this is a downplayed example but we all have to make judgment calls at some point.
When I say modern day religions I am referring to, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and a few others. When I said modern day, I meant the common modern day religions. Not the I guess, “new age” religions or something close to that.
Non-modern day religions that worshipped false idols are for example, the religions that worshipped the sun gods and the moon gods etc. According to our present knowledge, this is not a very likely (to say the least) possibility. There is a reason when you look up at the sky, there is nothing to worship falsely imo.
All of the modern day religions are similar to Christianity. Buddhism seems very similar to Christianity. When you look at the specifics, they start to differ widely.
See, opinnions and prejudices, are not necesarily logical. Thank you for pointing that out,
In reality, Budism and Christianity are nothing alike, on the surface or otherwise. In addition, older religions have not been disproved in any way that does not also apply to Christianity. The fact that you believe that oposite, however, does not reflect on the reality of the situation, but simply reflects your shallow judgments of the situations.
That is very possible. I will admit that I do not know everything that you believe. Simply because I do not see a way that you can completely understand the concept, does not mean that you are being illogical.
I could very well not understand your entire viewpoint. But what I don’t get is how you can simply change the concept from something physical, to a concept of time, to a concept that the universe never not existed. It’s still a concept. I completely agree with you that it is easier to take in. But it is nowhere near the end of the story. Are you satisfied with your reasoning or are you simply satisfied with it until our knowledge increases?
Thank you Lord. 2 pages of trying to explain this to others and you get it right away. I appreciate your honesty and it reflects very well on your character which makes your point of view all the more easy to value. If everyone would use logic like this I am confident that we can understand every point of view. We may not agree, but we can at least understand.
Faith without correct logic, is well, incorrect. Faith with logic, is possible and at the same time it might not be possible. Please notice the distinction. Faith always uses logic when used correctly. The only difference is that it might hold different (or more) premises than your set of logic holds.
In this suggested view, our primary reality is spiritual, not physical. The physical is only a refelction of our spiritual state. That’s why it says in the Bible we will be judged according to our deeds. It’s not about a physical equity of suffering to pleasure. It’s about a spiritual balance and the consequences of our choices on that level.
I’m not even saying salvation is the goal, or the only goal. I think the journey, the experience, the excercise of free will, {even it is is an illusion} is as much the goal as salvation. So for God to just forgive everyone without any journey would be defeating that purpose. Once the journey is begun much of it is about our choices.
Absolutely not.
I understand how it seems that way and I am always somewhat reluctant to have the discussion because of it, but I assure you that is not my point. As timeless beings our eternity exists within each moment and our choice about what to do with it. I do not trivialize the life that exists within the flesh. We are called to revere that life and in doing so we must care for the flesh which reflects it, not only ourselves but others as well. We also must not place the fleeting above the eternal. When we deny or sacrifice the spiritual to protect the fleeting then we must deal with the consequences of our choices. It’s not an easy balance to find, but consider this. Is there more, you or I or anyone can do to revere that life and alliviate suffering. Of course there is, but situations have variables.
At what point would I allow someone to starve if they refused to make any effort to provide for themselves. Would I be benevolent to aide them in their lack of responsibility? We must make choices about where this balance lies. God already knows.
Until you admit that statements of faith still require the exact same amount of logic as any other kind of statement, you are doing the entire sdmb a diservice. Faith cannot be proven either false or true. It does not mean that it is illogical. If the faith is illogical, then that person has contradictory beliefs. If that persons faith is logical, they take into account all the premises (which now become their set of beliefs) and reach a valid conclusion via these new beliefs. It still requires just as much logic. This is how we indirectly determine what God could and could not be. You consider all the possibilities and then formulate a hypothesis of what is the most likely choice based on everything we know. For example, it is more likely that if there exists a God, then he is all-knowing. Your premises (and conclusions) that do not take into account that God is all-knowing could be assumed incorrect since this goes against the very definition of God. After repeating this process a few hundred times and asking incredibly tough questions, you can come to a valid view of what the most likely way God would have to be.
I didn’t say I completely understand anything. I said I understand it enough to consider that God is no longer a necessary element in cosmology, ie. that the universe can be explained without Him.
The nature of spacetime, ie. that it can be “bent”, and even that it can be infinitely bent such that it can;t be more bent, is not merely a “concept”: it has observable consequences which have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.
Like I say, I hope never to be completely satisfied in my lifetime - how dull that would be, to lose one’s curiosity so! But from my 32 years so far I am satisfied enough by the natural explanations for the universe (and everything in it, including human thought) that supernatural or divine entities are unnecessary, and thus to be parsimoniously shaven off.
Indeed, this entire thread appears to revolve around disagreement over the premise that God is necessary, for one reason or other (mainly cosmological so far). I reject this premise: I think God is optional. Optional things might exist, but I personally prefer getting rid of such clutter.
No and Yes. By definition, racism means that you prejudge someone because of the color of their skin. If it was a white person I would be scared as well but then you would not have understand my point in the first place. The fact that they are capable of doing huge harm, and that the statistical odds of something happening are much more in a dark alley with my car makes me scared. My point is that there comes a time where we have to understand that we have to make judgment calls. If we do not make decisions, then we do not change.
So if your definition is that you are not allowed to make decisions based on statistics or what we know, then yes my statement is illogical. If your definition of racism is that I think any less of a black person than a white person, then no, this is not illogical.
