The Universe

JimiTime

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ironic, you appear to be quite arrogant in that sentence.

Pinch of salt tbh. You seem to think alot of folk are arrogant, whats one more ey.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Pinch of salt tbh. You seem to think alot of folk are arrogant, whats one more ey.

So, that's all the reply I'm getting? Ok, this debate appears to be over so.

JimiTime

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, that's all the reply I'm getting? Ok, this debate appears to be over so.

Indeed it does.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Nor do I intend to show its been caused. My observations and views show 'me' its been caused. Where it leads you is of no consequence to that. You may believe its spagetti man, teapots, or that you don't know. It matters little to me. As far as I'm concerned though, Its either been designed, or given purpose, or its an accidental phenomenon. IMO, I can't rationally asses this world as an accident. Its without doubt the work of thought. What you believe about it is of no consequence to that. My view is simple, you either believe its an accident, its purposeful or you're undecided.

How do your observations show you that the universe has been caused by God? Remember what I said; the universe is not obliged to subject itself to your personal ideas of cause and effect. Just because you, personally, are unwilling to believe that the universe can exist without being caused by God does not mean the universe needs to have been caused by God. This is not subject to personal opinion. This is the case for both you and I.

And can we stop using your personal definition of accident? A physical law which has not been brought into existence cannot be an accident. That's like saying God is an accident. Instead, 'accident' refers to unforeseen consequences of the actions of an intelligent individual.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

How do your observations show you that the universe has been caused by God?

It doesn't. Thats a seperate issue. My observations tell me that there is intelligeance behind the world.

Remember what I said; the universe is not obliged to subject itself to your personal ideas of cause and effect. Just because you, personally, are unwilling to believe that the universe can exist without being caused

Well I've heard nothing to convince me otherwise, to put it simply.

And can we stop using your personal definition of accident? A physical law which has not been brought into existence cannot be an accident. That's like saying God is an accident. Instead, 'accident' refers to unforeseen consequences of the actions of an intelligent individual.

Simply put, no. Merely swapping to your definition is not an option for me. Though I'd be curious to know what you would call it if not an accident? Oxford Dictionary definition says 'something that happens by chance or without cause'? If there is nothing causing or planning, then all you have is accidental no? Laws etc happened by accident surely if there was no mind giving purpose? As i said though, if there is an alternative term?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't. Thats a seperate issue. My observations tell me that there is intelligeance behind the world.

I'm not sure how someone would reach such a conclusion.

What are you comparing this universe to? What do you think a universe that wasn't intelligently designed would look like?

JimiTime wrote: »

Simply put, no. Merely swapping to your definition is not an option for me. Though I'd be curious to know what you would call it if not an accident?

Did you see the posts about "unexpected"

An accident is an unexpected outcome. Ultimately what is or is not an accident is dependent on the point of view of the person observing it.

For example if I'm riding my bike and I get hit by a car that is an accident because am not expecting to get hit by the car.

On the other hand the same situation would not be an accident if I was suicidal and rode into the car in full knowledge that this would happen.

Whether or not it is or is not an accident is defined by how unexpected and unplanned the event is to the participants.

To say the universe is an accident is not actually defining a property of the universe, more defining a property of how we observe the universe.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And are there quotes in the bible that state, or can be interpreted to state, that God is eternal? Or is it just an assumption? I'm not making diggs at the Bible; I'm actually curious to know.

"The eternal God is your refuge" (Deuteronomy 33:27)

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (Psalm 90:2)

That's one of the reasons why I don't believe in religion. I don't find the answers "God's eternal" and "God made the universe" to be in anyway satisfying. It's simplifying one of the greatest questions ever. What actually created it all, in my opinion, was far greater and more mysterious than any God; and trying to figure it out is one of sciences greatest missions: A mission I hope to be part of. Religion, to me, is just too easy.

God is the Supreme Being. So you are saying that you think the Universe was created by something greater than the Supreme Being. Which is a bit like saying, "I don't believe there's a highest mountain in the world, because I believe there's one that's even higher"

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

God is the Supreme Being. So you are saying that you think the Universe was created by something greater than the Supreme Being. Which is a bit like saying, "I don't believe there's a highest mountain in the world, because I believe there's one that's even higher"

Indeed, but isn't the query more about why you say the Universe was the product of that Supreme Being. Could it not be the product of an Intermediate Being, created by that Supreme Being?

Again, I know this brings us quite close to a circle, because if the response is 'why invent an Intermediate Being? Its not needed', then you won't be surprised that the next step is 'why invent a Supreme Being? Its not needed either'.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

God is the Supreme Being. So you are saying that you think the Universe was created by something greater than the Supreme Being. Which is a bit like saying, "I don't believe there's a highest mountain in the world, because I believe there's one that's even higher"

Well no, "God" is your religion's definition of what a supreme being would be like, but to a lot of us he just looks like a rather powerful human with ego issues. I can certainly think of a supreme being that is more supreme that your religions notions of a supreme being.

But I would imagine that Jammy isn't talking about a being at all as we would understand it, but rather some fundamental physical force or energy. Kinda like the stuff they are now talking about in super string theory.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, "God" is your religion's definition of what a supreme being would be like, but to a lot of us he just looks like a rather powerful human with ego issues. I can certainly think of a supreme being that is more supreme that your religions notions of a supreme being.

Yes, my religion's definition of a supreme being - which is hardly suprising since we are on the Christianity forum for the purpose of discussing Christian issues.

If you want to discuss some other God then take it elsewhere (Spirituality forum perhaps?)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, my religion's definition of a supreme being - which is hardly suprising since we are on the Christianity forum for the purpose of discussing Christian issues.

If you want to discuss some other God then take it elsewhere (Spirituality forum perhaps?)

I don't want to discuss some other god, my point was only to get you to realise that just because your religion defines your god as the supremacy being that can exist doesn't mean something greater is impossible to imagine.

God doesn't become the definition of what a supreme being is just because you guys say so, any more than me saying Pizza Hut is the best restaurant in the universe makes it so.

Jammy saying he can think of something greater than your god is not in anyway like him saying he can think of a higher mountain than the highest mountain.

It is like him saying he can think of a better pizza restaurant than pizza hut.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

We do not yet have a theory of quantum gravity. (Quantum mechanics is a regime where events are not simply caused by prior events or agents.) So we cannot say we know the nature of the 'beginning' of the universe. We therefore cannot say that God must be the cause of the universe.

I'm not saying that God must be the cause, even though I do believe He is the cause. I'm just asking what the alternatives are. The universe is either causeless or caused. The fact that it exists would lend more to the probability of it being caused rather than not being caused wouldn't it? If you come home and find a steaming hot cup of tea on the table your first intuitive reaction is not that the steaming hot tea that is on the table has no cause or causer. No you would straight away understand that the tea was made, possibly by your wife or companion knowing that you were on your way home at that time who decided to make you a cup of tea. That it was caused is the more logical conclusion, simply because it exists. To appeal to a causeless universe is just pussyfooting around the issue in order to avoid the only plausible cause, which must exist beyond what was caused i.e. space time etc.

Now we can argue all night about what that cause may be, but surely you must concede that it cannot be causeless even if you are an atheist. It might be purposeless or meaningless but not causeless. And if caused then it couldn’t have been the universe that caused it, for to do so would mean that the universe was in existence in order to create itself and we know that it wasn’t, not even the potential for it existed, which means then that the cause must be separate to the universe and different from the universe which means that the cause exists outside of the universe i.e. space, time etc and is thus eternal in nature, and if eternal in nature then that cause has no cause, for being eternal in nature means it always was.

It appears that religion and science are at somewhat of an impasse when it comes to the cause of the universe. Religion accepts the causer to be God but Science cannot because there is no scientific evidence to support such a notion nor are there any scientific models of God to test it on. If we close the door and say that the universe is causeless and that is it, then science is dead in the water. If science cannot determine what caused the universe from a scientific perspective then surely science proves itself to be ill equipped as the answerer of ultimate questions. Religion at least points to an answer, albeit an un-definable one, but its un-definableness cannot be grounds for ruling it out as a cause, unless science can come up with a better explanation then religious people are entirely rational to believe what they want to about how, why and what caused the universe. After that it becomes a theological debate between religions as to what one best asserts itself as the right one, and we would be all year debating that, but hey I’m willing to if anyone else is

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, but isn't the query more about why you say the Universe was the product of that Supreme Being. Could it not be the product of an Intermediate Being, created by that Supreme Being?
Again, I know this brings us quite close to a circle, because if the response is 'why invent an Intermediate Being? Its not needed', then you won't be surprised that the next step is 'why invent a Supreme Being? Its not needed either'.

Well yeah sort of. The gospel according to John calls Jesus the Logos (the Word) of God through whom God created the Universe:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1 v1-5

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," John 1 v14

There is your mediator. And the writer to the Hebrew agrees with him:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11 v3

The above verse is claiming that it was from the invisible that the visible things were made, curious when you think of the atomic makeup of stuff which is invisible to our senses but which constitutes every object in the universe. 2000 years ago the writer to the Hebrews understood this simply by faith. I find that rather amazing.

Schuhart

Soul Winner wrote: »

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11 v3

The above verse is claiming that it was from the invisible that the visible things were made, curious when you think of the atomic makeup of stuff which is invisible to our senses but which constitutes every object in the universe. 2000 years ago the writer to the Hebrews understood this simply by faith. I find that rather amazing.

If you find that amazing, then you will be absolutely blown away by the Scientific Miracles in the Quran.

Personally, I'd be impressed by any holy book which included precise instructions, including accurate illustrations, on what to do if your car won't start.

Witness the miraculous Book of Schuhart.

Soul Winner

Schuhart wrote: »

Personally, I'd be impressed by any holy book which included precise instructions, including accurate illustrations, on what to do if your car won't start.

Until one comes along you should try

Soul Winner

Schuhart wrote: »

Personally, I'd be impressed by any holy book which included precise instructions, including accurate illustrations, on what to do if your car won't start.

Until one comes along you should try this:

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, "God" is your religion's definition of what a supreme being would be like, but to a lot of us he just looks like a rather powerful human with ego issues. I can certainly think of a supreme being that is more supreme that your religions notions of a supreme being.

But I would imagine that Jammy isn't talking about a being at all as we would understand it, but rather some fundamental physical force or energy. Kinda like the stuff they are now talking about in super string theory.

Uh no, our 'religions' definition of God is derived from what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Helix

Soul Winner wrote: »

surely you must concede that it cannot be causeless even if you are an atheist. It might be purposeless or meaningless but not causeless. And if caused then it couldn’t have been the universe that caused it, for to do so would mean that the universe was in existence in order to create itself and we know that it wasn’t, not even the potential for it existed, which means then that the cause must be separate to the universe and different from the universe which means that the cause exists outside of the universe

so then god must have been caused too

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Uh no, our 'religions' definition of God is derived from what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Not really relevant. You can't say to Jammy, an atheist, that he cannot think of anything better than your god because by definition your god is the best god there can be.

Again, it is like saying to someone that you cannot pick a better restaurant than Pizza Hut because Pizza Hut is the best restaurant there is by definition.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

"The eternal God is your refuge" (Deuteronomy 33:27)

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (Psalm 90:2)

Thanks. I was just curious as to whether there actually was passages saying He was.

God is the Supreme Being. So you are saying that you think the Universe was created by something greater than the Supreme Being. Which is a bit like saying, "I don't believe there's a highest mountain in the world, because I believe there's one that's even higher"

Wicknight is exactly right about what I was attempting to say.

Saying a supreme being created it all doesn't get us anywhere; it doesn't answer anything. It's being content with what we already know, and being sure that it's correct: that's the arrogance of religion. Science doesn't pretend to know the answers; that's what's so great, the great mysteries are yet to be solved. I'd rather delve into trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe over trying to decide how to please a petty God. As I said, religion is just too easy. How arrogant of humans to assume that they know the answer to the greatest question of all; and to assume that we're paramount in it's grand scheme.

But anyway, Wicknights analogy of a pizzaria is perfect. I can think of far better gods that the God of the Abrahamic religions. A god shouldn't have such horribly human traits like jealousy and anger, it should be more, well, for lack of a better word, sophisticated than that.

As Wicknight has said, I was refering to some physical phenonomon when I refer to it being greater than a "supreme" being. And, to me, a physical beginning, opposed to an intelligent one, is all the more amazing.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Uh no, our 'religions' definition of God is derived from what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Then either humans have either recorded it wrong, of the God of the Abrahamic religions isn't very god-like.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not saying that God must be the cause, even though I do believe He is the cause. I'm just asking what the alternatives are. The universe is either causeless or caused. The fact that it exists would lend more to the probability of it being caused rather than not being caused wouldn't it? If you come home and find a steaming hot cup of tea on the table your first intuitive reaction is not that the steaming hot tea that is on the table has no cause or causer. No you would straight away understand that the tea was made, possibly by your wife or companion knowing that you were on your way home at that time who decided to make you a cup of tea. That it was caused is the more logical conclusion, simply because it exists. To appeal to a causeless universe is just pussyfooting around the issue in order to avoid the only plausible cause, which must exist beyond what was caused i.e. space time etc.

I don't think you've raised any point in this passage at all.

Obviously, well at least it should be blatantly obvious, the universe was caused. If it wasn't caused, it wouldn't exist at this moment in time, would it? No.

Theists attribute the fact that it was caused to a god. Atheists attribute it to a as of yet unknown natural phenonomon. Theists pretend to know the answer; atheists openly profess that they don't. But, to reiterate my main point: yes, the universe was caused.

Now we can argue all night about what that cause may be, but surely you must concede that it cannot be causeless even if you are an atheist. It might be purposeless or meaningless but not causeless. And if caused then it couldn’t have been the universe that caused it, for to do so would mean that the universe was in existence in order to create itself and we know that it wasn’t, not even the potential for it existed, which means then that the cause must be separate to the universe and different from the universe which means that the cause exists outside of the universe i.e. space, time etc and is thus eternal in nature, and if eternal in nature then that cause has no cause, for being eternal in nature means it always was.

But coming to the conclusion that a god created it is adding more spurious details to the creation.

Atheists, and scientists for that matter, don't pretend to know the answer to that question. They don't pretend to know what caused it all. There are theories, but nothing is concrete; nothing is even close to being concrete.

As I've said, theists attribute the beginning to a god. Atheists, and indeed scientists, don't have an answer. But, I know the answer isn't as simple as saying "God did it, and God's eternal so we don't need to explain him - oh, and we can never know the mind of god, so we'll never know how He created it". Whereas atheists say "I don't know, but I can't wait to find out. It's one of the greatest mysteries ever, how exciting is that? How exciting is it to be a being with the potential of being capable of finding out?". I know which side I'd like to be on. Science isn't arrogant enough to assume that it has the answer, whereas religion is.

It appears that religion and science are at somewhat of an impasse when it comes to the cause of the universe. Religion accepts the causer to be God but Science cannot because there is no scientific evidence to support such a notion nor are there any scientific models of God to test it on.

But isn't that deeply unsatisfying? To assume we know the answer to the greatest question ever? And so early in our career of attempting to find out. I find the "God did it" answer to be so very deeply unsatisfying. I don't understand how anybody could be satisfied with such an answer.

If we close the door and say that the universe is causeless and that is it, then science is dead in the water.

Science has never, not once, said it's causeless. If it wasn't caused, it wouldn't be here today. We just don't know what caused it. Religion is the one that is dead in the water, assuming to have such a relatively simple answer; and, it is a simple answer: "God created everything. God is eternal, so we don't need to explain how He arose. We can never know the mind of God, for He is so great, so it's pointless attempting to find out how He caused it."

If science cannot determine what caused the universe from a scientific perspective then surely science proves itself to be ill equipped as the answerer of ultimate questions.

Science is very early in it's career of attempting to find out. Think of how fast science is progressing; think of how much new knowledge is ammassed each decade, each year. It's truely a great question, and one which I hope one day we'll answer. But, even if we never answer it though science, it doesn't automatically make the concept of a god the correct answer.

Religion at least points to an answer, albeit an un-definable one, but its un-definableness cannot be grounds for ruling it out as a cause, unless science can come up with a better explanation then religious people are entirely rational to believe what they want to about how, why and what caused the universe.

But there is nothing to indicate that a god did it! It's just one of an infinite number of explanations that could be used. It points to an answer, but, I could make up any story that pointed to an answer. That's a moot point.

rockbeer

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not saying that God must be the cause, even though I do believe He is the cause. I'm just asking what the alternatives are. The universe is either causeless or caused. The fact that it exists would lend more to the probability of it being caused rather than not being caused wouldn't it? If you come home and find a steaming hot cup of tea on the table your first intuitive reaction is not that the steaming hot tea that is on the table has no cause or causer. No you would straight away understand that the tea was made, possibly by your wife or companion knowing that you were on your way home at that time who decided to make you a cup of tea. That it was caused is the more logical conclusion, simply because it exists. To appeal to a causeless universe is just pussyfooting around the issue in order to avoid the only plausible cause, which must exist beyond what was caused i.e. space time etc.

Relying on this kind of common sense approach is liable to get you into trouble once you get into questions more complicated than who made the tea. Common sense has historically suggested all kinds of things that have subsequently turned out not to be true. Common sense tells you the sun moves round the earth. Do you believe that to be the case?

Our conception of cause and effect, like our linear conception of time and our sense of scale, is determined by the way we experience the universe, which may have little or nothing to do with how it actually is.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Religion at least points to an answer, albeit an un-definable one, but its un-definableness cannot be grounds for ruling it out as a cause, unless science can come up with a better explanation then religious people are entirely rational to believe what they want to about how, why and what caused the universe. After that it becomes a theological debate between religions as to what one best asserts itself as the right one, and we would be all year debating that, but hey I’m willing to if anyone else is

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone else to indulge in baseless speculation. Why you would actually choose to live your life according to a set of rules and beliefs derived from such baseless speculation is anyone's guess.

Soul Winner

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Obviously, well at least it should be blatantly obvious, the universe was caused. If it wasn't caused, it wouldn't exist at this moment in time, would it? No.

Tell that to Mobert who says: “Quantum mechanics is a regime where events are not simply caused by prior events or agents.” Which suggests that we are to believe that it was something after the creation event that caused the creation event?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Theists attribute the fact that it was caused to a god. Atheists attribute it to a as of yet unknown natural phenonomon. Theists pretend to know the answer; atheists openly profess that they don't. But, to reiterate my main point: yes, the universe was caused.

As above.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But coming to the conclusion that a god created it is adding more spurious details to the creation.

How do you know that when you don’t know how it was caused?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Atheists, and scientists for that matter, don't pretend to know the answer to that question. They don't pretend to know what caused it all. There are theories, but nothing is concrete; nothing is even close to being concrete.

Eh, I know. Hence my point that people of faiths are perfectly rational to believe what they want to about it.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

As I've said, theists attribute the beginning to a god. Atheists, and indeed scientists, don't have an answer. But, I know the answer isn't as simple as saying "God did it

How do you “KNOW” this?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

and God's eternal so we don't need to explain him - oh, and we can never know the mind of god, so we'll never know how He created it". Whereas atheists say "I don't know

So what your suggesting is that we submit our beliefs and adhere to people who openly tell us that they don’t know about the deeper questions of existence? Why on Earth would anyone do that? I’ll stick with Jesus thanks.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Science isn't arrogant enough to assume that it has the answer, whereas religion is.

So there’s no such thing as an arrogant scientist/atheist? But wasn’t it the eminent atheist/scientist Peter Atkins who said: “What’s wrong with being arrogant if your right?” Check below, 1 minute 23 seconds in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-xBu8y-Ao4

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But isn't that deeply unsatisfying? To assume we know the answer to the greatest question ever? And so early in our career of attempting to find out. I find the "God did it" answer to be so very deeply unsatisfying. I don't understand how anybody could be satisfied with such an answer.

I disagree. I think if the answer “God did it” is the real answer then the universe is not all that there is, and I for one am glad. It might be a beautiful place to behold from our vantage point on earth but it is an extremely hostile place and without God it is meaningless and pointless anyway. It is disinterested in us and has no plan for our ultimate benefit. And will eventually die in either a very hot or very cold death. However if God did created it and what He has promised to us is real, then what might be ahead of us in eternity could put the beauty of this universe to shame. So if I found out tomorrow that beyond a shadow of a doubt it was proven that God didn’t do it, and that He doesn’t exist, then the real answer to how the universe got here would have little or no relevance to me whatsoever. It is a violent hostile place full of death and destruction, and you would call finding that out very satisfying would you?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Science has never, not once, said it's causeless. If it wasn't caused, it wouldn't be here today. We just don't know what caused it.

If we are to concede that it was caused then all that’s left to find out is what caused it, and as the cause must be separate from what was caused then the cause must resides outside what was caused and is therefore eternal and powerful enough to cause the universe to come into existence from nothing. My money is on God.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Religion is the one that is dead in the water, assuming to have such a relatively simple answer; and, it is a simple answer: "God created everything.

But you guys are so fond of citing Occam’s razor all the time, doesn’t it favour the simplest explanation? If so then the “God create everything” explanation wins.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

God is eternal, so we don't need to explain how He arose. We can never know the mind of God, for He is so great, so it's pointless attempting to find out how He caused it."

Until relatively recently the science world took it for granted that the universe always existed and never tried to explain how it got here simply because of that. But God who theists claim always existed must explain Him. If God is, then He always was, hence no explanation needed, just like the universe didn’t need one before it was discovered that it actually had a beginning.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Science is very early in it's career of attempting to find out. Think of how fast science is progressing; think of how much new knowledge is ammassed each decade, each year. It's truely a great question, and one which I hope one day we'll answer. But, even if we never answer it though science, it doesn't automatically make the concept of a god the correct answer.

If God is the correct answer then it won’t be based on what science finds out or doesn’t find out. It’s either true or it’s not true, and if it is true now then it always was true, and if it’s not true now then it was never true.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But there is nothing to indicate that a god did it!

If we define God as an eternal, personal all powerful being and as such transcends space and time which have themselves a beginning in the big bang, then what else does the discovery that the universe has a beginning from a nothingness state like this point to? It came into existence at a finite point in the past from nothing. Now it either came into existence from nothing and also by nothing hence has no cause which you yourself object to or God (if He exists) created it, God being defined as an eternal, personal all powerful being who transcends space and time. The “from nothing by nothing” answer is absurd in the extreme but yet it is either that or the cause lies elsewhere?

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's just one of an infinite number of explanations that could be used. It points to an answer, but, I could make up any story that pointed to an answer. That's a moot point.

Make one up then and let us have it. Try and be as creative as Zilah, his are really funny :pac:

Soul Winner

rockbeer wrote: »

Relying on this kind of common sense approach is liable to get you into trouble once you get into questions more complicated than who made the tea. Common sense has historically suggested all kinds of things that have subsequently turned out not to be true. Common sense tells you the sun moves round the earth. Do you believe that to be the case?

Nope. But I'm sure I would have believed that it did just like everyone else (including many scientists mind you) before Copernicus and Galileo came along. Do you have a better method of approach than a common sense approach?

rockbeer wrote: »

Our conception of cause and effect, like our linear conception of time and our sense of scale, is determined by the way we experience the universe, which may have little or nothing to do with how it actually is.

What other way do you suggest we experience it then?

rockbeer wrote: »

You are, of course, as entitled as anyone else to indulge in baseless speculation. Why you would actually choose to live your life according to a set of rules and beliefs derived from such baseless speculation is anyone's guess.

Baseless? How so?

rockbeer

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nope. But I'm sure I would have believed that it did just like everyone else (including many scientists mind you) before Copernicus and Galileo came along. Do you have a better method of approach than a common sense approach?

Precisely. You would have believed it. So would I, and just about everybody else on this board. Then people came along with the imagination and courage to think differently, to ask the right questions, and to look for the truth. Which turned out to be in complete defiance of common sense.

So what can we learn from this and other similar lessons? That trusting to common sense and our idea of the obvious is likely to lead us astray. Far better to devise experiments that can tell us what's really going on, independently of the way we perceive it

Yet you still advance common sense notions like our simplistic view of cause and effect as arguments in favour of the existence of god. Can't you see the contradiction here? It's as though you use your lack of knowledge as both evidence and justification for your view, whereas in reality it is neither, and you are just demonstrating - almost celebrating - your ignorance. (I'm not having a go here. I'm just as ignorant, the difference is that I prefer not to make a virtue of it.) Meantime, while you retreat behind your common sense perspective, other people out there are, at this very moment, asking the right questions and engaging in the research that might actually uncover the truth.

In answer to your question, the scientific method is a far better approach than common sense, since it applies a methodology which allows for and, when properly implemented, eliminates the risk of perceptual error.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What other way do you suggest we experience it then?

I'm not suggesting we experience it differently. We can't - not easily, anyway - it's how we're programmed. The point is that how we experience it often turns out to bear little relation to how it actually is. So if you base your idea of what's possible entirely on your perceptions - your common sense - the chances are high that you'll turn out to be wrong. Experience is fine for getting us through everyday situations - indeed, many of our misconceptions have vital survival value - but it's demonstrably useless for guiding us towards the answers to questions that lie beyond that experience.

We can't necessarily change how we experience things, but we should at least try not to repeat the basic error of mistaking our perceptions for the truth.

The other thing to say about this is that the way we experience things does change - with knowledge as the driving force for change. Think about how our relationship with the universe is affected by the knowledge that we are not at its centre. You mentioned Copernicus so I'm guessing you have some grasp of the implications of the Copernican Revolution.

Or, for another example, think how your experience of illness is effected by your understanding of modern medicine, bacterial infection, viruses and so on. Compare that to how you might have experienced it in a time and place where illness was commonly ascribed to spirits and witchcraft and demonic possession. In such a situation, you would genuinely have believed you were possessed by evil spirits when you got ill. Indeed, you would have fully experienced your illnesses that way, knowing with utter conviction that you were possessed. To all intents and purposes, experientially speaking, you would have actually been possessed. But in real terms it would have all been complete nonsense. Another perfect illustration of how even the most profound experiences and beliefs can have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Baseless? How so?

Baseless because entirely speculative and unsupported by evidence other than hearsay.

ironingbored

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's why Jesus voluntarily paid such a high price for our salvation.

I have to disagree with this statement. What "high" price did Jesus have to pay? One day of suffering when he knew he was going to heaven to live an eternal life of sumptuous luxury as King of the Universe.

Many people in the world suffer a lot more than that.

I also hardly think it was voluntary. Wasn't he instructed to do this by an imposing father?

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

I have to disagree with this statement. What "high" price did Jesus have to pay? One day of suffering when he knew he was going to heaven to live an eternal life of sumptuous luxury as King of the Universe.

He paid the price of all the punishment for all the sins in the world (ie the pain of hell multiplied billions of times over) all concentrated into one short period to make an intensity of suffering unimaginable to any mortal being.

Many people in the world suffer a lot more than that.

No they don't.

I also hardly think it was voluntary. Wasn't he instructed to do this by an imposing father?

He voluntarily chose to die on the Cross. As God the Son, He was equal in power and glory to God the Father and could not be constrained or ordered to do anything.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

He paid the price of all the punishment for all the sins in the world (ie the pain of hell multiplied billions of times over) all concentrated into one short period to make an intensity of suffering unimaginable to any mortal being.

Give me a break. He got nailed up. Horrific, yes, but he wasn't the only one.
Arguably less horrendous than the deaths of the heretics who got burned at the stake.

He suffered precisely the same as anyone would suffer who got nailed to a tree. No more and no less.

Assuming the story is true, of course.

Or are you suggesting that he got some 'extra' suffering from somewhere, over and above the horror of crucifixion?

This sort of thing really annoys me about christianity. You would think that Jesus was the only person to ever be tortured and killed for saying something unpopular with the authorities, whereas arguably he got off lightly compared to some. The chinese communists apparently had a nice habit of skinning dissenters alive.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that he got some 'extra' suffering from somewhere, over and above the horror of crucifixion?

Absolutely. If someone suffering the physical pain of crucifixion was enough to pay for the sins of the world then there was no need for Jesus. Particularly since he actually endured it for less time than most crucifixion victims.

The real suffering on the Cross was not the physical pain, but the wrath of God being poured out upon Christ. That's why, on the Cross, he cried out, "My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?"

Hell is absolute separation from God.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

The real suffering on the Cross was not the physical pain, but the wrath of God being poured out upon Christ. That's why, on the Cross, he cried out, "My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?"

I think I might come up with something a little stronger than that if I was suffering all the pain of humanity for all time.

But seriously, how exactly was this wrath of god 'poured out'? Why was there a need for a crucifixion at all - and why has the crucifixion become the symbol of christianity - if it wasn't the 'real suffering'?

And where's your evidence for these claims?

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Simply put, no. Merely swapping to your definition is not an option for me. Though I'd be curious to know what you would call it if not an accident? Oxford Dictionary definition says 'something that happens by chance or without cause'? If there is nothing causing or planning, then all you have is accidental no? Laws etc happened by accident surely if there was no mind giving purpose? As i said though, if there is an alternative term?

Well at least we're getting somewhere. The laws of the universe aren't an accident under the oxford dictionary definition. Gravity, for example, is described by Einstein's field equations. To say gravity is an accident is to say that it happened by chance. To say it happened by chance implies there was some probability that something else in a line of possibilities could have happened instead. But gravity, the expression of the geometry of spacetime, simply is. The Einstein field equations aren't some lucky strike that could have happened some other way. They describe space and time, and are not subject to space and time themselves. So you cannot say they are an accident because they did not happen by chance. They did not 'happen' at all, because 'happen' implies an event *in* space and time, while the field equations describe spacetime itself. And if you want to put forth some contrived argument that they are an accident under the atheist perspective because we cannot relate a cause to them, then you would have no choice but to say God is an accident because God has no cause.

But again, this is beside the point. You cannot say the universe must have had a cause and, in the same breath, claim that God doesn't need a cause. We can certainly say that the observable universe should be better understood. But we can't claim the universe *itself* must have a cause. Heck, "What caused the universe?" might not even make sense on a fundamental level.

And as for claiming there is intelligence behind the universe. That, too, is a claim without evidence. Evolution has shown us that complexity and functionality does not *have* to go hand in hand with intelligence and purpose.