Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belief in "god" without a belief in religion

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I believe God is the First Cause.

    What's wrong with saying, "I don't know."
    Just because we can't explain something now doesn't mean it needs to be a supernatural event.

    Go back 1000 years and ask how the sun worked, a wizard did it. But we know now it is something far more beautiful.

    We don't know, but eventually we will, all it takes is time.


  • Options
    #33
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    What's wrong with saying, "I don't know."

    Er...the fact that I do know because there has to be a First Cause. It is The Source. I think It is doing marvellous work. I'm quite blown away by It tbh.


  • Options
    #34
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Er...the fact that I do know because there has to be a First Cause.

    Does there, why?


  • Options
    #35
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    toiletduck wrote: »
    Does there, why?

    I'd ask how, how does he know there is a First Cause.


  • Options
    #36
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    toiletduck wrote: »
    Does there, why?

    Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    I'd ask how, how does he know there is a First Cause.

    Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.


  • Options
    #38
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.

    So there must be a first cause for the Universe and everything, but not for whomever kicked it off depending on your own brand of monotheistic belief...


  • Options
    #39
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.

    Logic and reason != A Wizard did it.
    That's faith, logic and reason states we have no way of knowing, none, so leave that box blank for now.


  • Options
    #40
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

    Electrons. They do some crazy stuff without any particular reason. I always mean to read up on Quantum Mechanics, must get around to that...

    (Smirking at me smirking at you smirking at me smirking at you..... :p)


  • Options
    #41
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

    Your God apparently... now stop smirking ;)

    Tbf though your request won't happen, unlike Theists we don't make idle guesses about things we know nothing about. But by all means, keep guessing about what you imagine started this Universe, it's quite entertaining to see how someone can make something up and then call it "logic" and "reason"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    toiletduck wrote: »
    So there must be a first cause for the Universe and everything, but not for whomever kicked it off depending on your own brand of monotheistic belief...

    No, it has to be unbegotten or otherwise it isn't the first cause at all but something else.


  • Options
    #43
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Your God apparently... now stop smirking ;)

    :D
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Tbf though your request won't happen, unlike Theists we don't make idle guesses about things we know nothing about. But by all means, keep guessing about what you imagine started this Universe, it's quite entertaining to see how someone can make something up and then call it "logic" and "reason"

    But it's not an idle guess. It's based on observation. Had you observed anything at all that contradicts the theory that there is no creation without it's creator then I'm sure you'd have brought it to the table ;)


  • Options
    #44
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Electrons. They do some crazy stuff without any particular reason. I always mean to read up on Quantum Mechanics, must get around to that...

    (Smirking at me smirking at you smirking at me smirking at you..... :p)

    I've tried to wrap my head around quantum physics and it hurted. However it seems that the electrons and subatomic particles are doing things for reasons that we cannot yet discern rather than for no reason.


  • Options
    #45
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    No, it has to be unbegotten or otherwise it isn't the first cause at all but something else.

    Can there be a first cause then?
    Matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must have always been around, unless God got his EZ-Bake oven out OFC :pac:
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I've tried to wrap my head around quantum physics and it hurted. However it seems that the electrons and subatomic particles are doing things for reasons that we cannot yet discern rather than for no reason.

    So you don't know?
    (And the trap is sprung!)


  • Options
    #46
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Can there be a first cause then?
    Matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must have always been around, unless God got his EZ-Bake oven out OFC :pac:

    Regarding thermodynamics we only know what holds in this universe. It is unscientific to extrapolate it's laws of physics any further than it's physical extent. Why are you making the concept of God into a male btw?
    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    So you don't know?
    (And the trap is sprung!)

    I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there. I will not attempt to give this cause a name because it of minor importance to me. If it impacted on what I was and where my consciousness arose from then I would certainly have a name for it.


  • Options
    #47
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Why are you making the concept of God into a male btw?
    Meh why not, he is shorter than she. Or something.
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there. I will not attempt to give this cause a name because it of minor importance to me. If it impacted on what I was and where my consciousness arose from then I would certainly have a name for it.

    Quantum Mech is of profound importance. Quantum computing for example, ask it a question, it calculates all possible answers (For example; 2+2=A small snail) And returns the correct one, instantly.

    Also on the topic of consciousness, it is very hard to define it. Who knows, in a few years, we hook up a load of artificial neurons and out pops a sentient being...

    Remember though, it's fine to say you don't know, it's not so fine to think you know and be wrong.
    I don't know.


  • Options
    #48
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    But it's not an idle guess. It's based on observation. Had you observed anything at all that contradicts the theory that there is no creation without it's creator then I'm sure you'd have brought it to the table ;)

    You do not have a theory, let us get that straight first. You have a baseless, non sequitur hypothesis which amounts to purely a metaphysical assertion of subjective Bayesian rationale. You are making fundamental syllogistic mistakes.

    I know you think you have some loop hole which gives your beliefs weight but you do not.

    Ergo, saying "I came from my mother" does not prove "God created the Universe". You know nothing about the inception of this Universe and under no circumstances does it "require" a first cause.


  • Options
    #49
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Meh why not, he is shorter than she. Or something.

    It. TBH if you start calling It after sexes you're not dealing with the same concept I'm talking about.
    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Quantum Mech is of profound importance. Quantum computing for example, ask it a question, it calculates all possible answers (For example; 2+2=A small snail) And returns the correct one, instantly.

    Yes indeed, but that doesn't impact on me in the same way as the universe that changed me from stardust to plant to monkey to man.
    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Also on the topic of consciousness, it is very hard to define it. Who knows, in a few years, we hook up a load of artificial neurons and out pops a sentient being...

    Even if we do that, and it surely won't be in a few years, it will occur as a result of the universe we are and inhabit, it alters nothing.
    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Remember though, it's fine to say you don't know, it's not so fine to think you know and be wrong.
    I don't know.

    That's fair enough, you're an agnostic, that's a perfectly logical position to take. However I feel I do know because I hypothesize that there is no creation without it's creator and can find nothing to contradict this so the theory of God is good to go as far as I'm concerned.


  • Options
    #50
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    You know nothing about the inception of this Universe and under no circumstances does it "require" a first cause.

    As I said earlier, give me a list of things with no first cause and I'll stop smirking.


  • Options
    #51
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

    The concept of Closed Timelike Curves and the reasons behind the observations around the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser are probably worth a look.
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there.

    Have you considered the concept of retrocausality (the concept that effect precedes cause)? A good article on it with the layman in mind is here. Towards the end of that article it also touches on what it might mean for the purposes of the First Cause:
    If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.

    Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.

    And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

    This is getting into some pretty funky theoretical physics mind you, so I still think the only correct answer to the first cause question is "we don't know yet".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Quantum Mech is of profound importance. Quantum computing for example, ask it a question, it calculates all possible answers (For example; 2+2=A small snail) And returns the correct one, instantly.
    Anybody asked a quantum computer if there's a god out there?


  • Options
    #53
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    But it's not an idle guess. It's based on observation. Had you observed anything at all that contradicts the theory that there is no creation without it's creator then I'm sure you'd have brought it to the table ;)

    Time is a property of our universe relative to each individual observer and it can be manipulated trough relative velocity and gravity. In a singularity (infinite mass in a single point) such as a black hole or the universe pre big bang, time stops completely. So before the big bang there was no time, no progression and therefore no cause & effect. How can there be a prime mover without time?


  • Options
    #54
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sink wrote: »
    How can there be a prime mover without time?
    ...and how can there be movement without a time during which a change of location can happen?


  • Options
    #55
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Naz_st wrote: »
    This is getting into some pretty funky theoretical physics mind you, so I still think the only correct answer to the first cause question is "we don't know yet".

    Cool, I need time to digest this stuff. I must say I'm very impressed with the fact that "If CTCs exist, their existence would seem to imply at least the theoretical possibility of making a time machine" :)


  • Options
    #56
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    sink wrote: »
    Time is a property of our universe relative to each individual observer and it can be manipulated trough relative velocity and gravity. In a singularity (infinite mass in a single point) such as a black hole or the universe pre big bang, time stops completely. So before the big bang there was no time, no progression and therefore no cause & effect. How can there be a prime mover without time?

    But surely the singularity, the universe-pre-big-bang to which you refer only relates to this particular universe?


  • Options
    #57
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    As I said earlier, give me a list of things with no first cause and I'll stop smirking.

    Why does it matter? You are making a false argument that is utterly irrelevant.

    It's akin to someone who has only grown up around animals and living creatures who sees a plane and says, "because I know all things that fly have mothers, that flying thing in the sky must also have been born by a creature of the same type"

    You are looking at what you know and using it to explain something you know nothing about. Please tell me you understand why this is wrong.


  • Options
    #58
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    As I said earlier, give me a list of things with no first cause and I'll stop smirking.

    god?

    also, even if you establish that the universe was created, how do you jump from that to worshipping a jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago?

    And what do you know about how the universe began that the world's foremost scientists don't?


  • Options
    #59
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    But surely the singularity, the universe-pre-big-bang to which you refer only relates to this particular universe?

    Since time part of the fabric of our universe (spacetime) and is only relative to that which is in our universe, there is nothing to suggest time exists outside of our universe and even if it did it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't be relative to us i.e time outside of our universe has no meaning to us and similarly outside of our universe the time we experience has no meaning. It's kind of hard to explain.

    I think I explained it better over in the philosophy forum.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58902885&postcount=30


  • Options
    #60
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    But surely the singularity, the universe-pre-big-bang to which you refer only relates to this particular universe?

    Look, we don't know how the current version of this universe started, lets not bite off more than we can chew, yes?
    We know nothing of alternate universes, it's irrelevant to this current conversation. (As far as I can tell)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    Anybody asked a quantum computer if there's a god out there?

    Yes, the answer it gave was 42


Advertisement