celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 16, 2002 18:21:35 GMT -5
wow! I hit the character limit! Continuing post...
Actually, when SleepyTemplar said "I'd be most interested in hearing your coherent, non-contradictory definition of god, how your belief is falsifible, " you posted your link to the Tillich article and said that you would be interested in hearing the flaws of which he spoke. Now.. that wouldn't be a problem except that he asked for YOUR definition, and you pointed him to the Groundbeing article which would imply that this is YOUR definition. If you need to double check that, it's on the third page of this thread, 6th post down.
I think he said time .. AS WE KNOW IT.
We don't know that the universe is not infinite. As you said, the only thing we know is "cogito, ergo sum". The most common theory is that the universe is not infinite, but its another uncertain fact... remember what you said about science calling things 'truth' prematurely?
The evidence for the Big Crunch theory is gravity. Surely you don't deny gravity? Although it IS true that there is no evidence for another explosion, but I believe that it is likely that it could, since it would have most if not all of the conditions it had at the time of the Big Bang.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 17, 2002 9:29:49 GMT -5
Hm.. well IF time was created with the universe (which is possible), and assuming that the universe requires a cause (which I'm still not sure). Then yes, I can agree that the universe was caused by something outside of time. However, I would not call any such thing God, for my definition of God differs. I'd be intrigued to hear your definition of God. Call 'God' whatever you want, whatever the connotation is. Okham's razor has to be the worst theory ever. Not only has it no basis but it depends on how people define 'simple'. The big crunch has no scientific basis, neither suggested nor implied by empirical evidence, ll, and sounds suspiciously like a cop out. But still its a possibility and should be treated that way. It is my definition for the sake of the argument. The fact that such an entity would cause anything at all in the first place suggests there is more to it that timelisness. Moving from the desire (and means) to create and actually creating for a timeless being is zero. And lo, the explosion continues to expand. It is logically conceivable that a timeless entity exists at all time within time. So, he is in 2002AD the same 'time' he is in 0AD ; he is starting the big bang the same time he is in 2002 AD.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 17, 2002 9:35:13 GMT -5
wow! I hit the character limit! Continuing post... Actually, when SleepyTemplar said "I'd be most interested in hearing your coherent, non-contradictory definition of god, how your belief is falsifible, " you posted your link to the Tillich article and said that you would be interested in hearing the flaws of which he spoke. Now.. that wouldn't be a problem except that he asked for YOUR definition, and you pointed him to the Groundbeing article which would imply that this is YOUR definition. If you need to double check that, it's on the third page of this thread, 6th post down. Did I say that was MY definition? When I gave my definition he still kept on about the Ground of Being. Then I would ask him to tell me a different version of time or an official link that says Uncertain but hugely likely. Like the theory of gravity has had an 100% accuracy but it doesn't mean someone wont fall upwards tommorow.
|
|
celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 17, 2002 10:46:51 GMT -5
My definition of god (note: lack of capitals) is any being, real or believed to be real, that has powers above and beyond my own that is either deserving or commanding worship. I just watched Superman 2 the other day, and these three beings from the same planet Superman is from, and have the same powers Superman does, come to earth and cause a lot of havok. These beings, if real, would fit my definition of god. Unfortunatly, I realise this definition is infalsifle and beyond logical reasoning. I use this definition as it is the most plausible definition when dealing with classical mythology.
You posted the link after quoting his paragraph asking for your definition, therefore you implied that it was yours. Your definition is quite vague and leaves a lot to interpretation. I'm sure sleepy probably thought when you posted your definition originally that this was inclusive to the Ground of Being article. I thought the same thing.Now that you have clearly stated that it is not, the matter should be dropped.
It is implied by the law of gravity. Just like when you through a ball in the air.. it has initial inertia but gravity pulls it back down eventually. Since everything in the universe is made of matter (and energy, which is a higher state of matter) it is plausible that they would eventually start falling back towards one another. However its ALSO possible that there's too much inertia and the universe would continue to expand forever, much like a satellite being lauched into orbit or a rocket being launched to the moon. I recognize both possibilities exist, and the first is what is what was believed most likely until the studies showed the universe flat.
However, it would have to have time to do so. Without time, there is no 'before' and 'after'. A thing that is timeless must be immutable. If a thing changes, it is not immutable. If it is not immutable it cannot be timeless.
It continues to expand after having been initiated. However a timeless being with all the conditions required to initiate the big bang would be unable to stop making big bangs.
So.. all times happen at the same 'time' for him. So.. 3000AD happens at the same time for him? That's pretty determinist. That would mean that the principle would be experiencing our death at the same moment as our birth, which would mean that our lives are mapped out at the instant of our births and there is no room to choose to change your life. Basically, the logical conclusion to your argument, if true, is that our lives are determined by fate.
Agreed. Just like its uncertain, but hugely likely, that time began with the universe. Also just like its uncertain, but hugely likely, that gravity will eventually pull the universe back together.
I have no problem agreeing the plausibility of with what I understand of your argument so far, however you have to realise that there are serious implications to your arguments. 1) If the principle is timeless it would not be able to stop creating Big Bangs, and therefor there must be other universes, ours is not 'special' or 'unique' 2) If the entire life of the universe happens at the same 'time' for the principle (which it must, if it was timeless), then our lives are essentially determined by fate. 3) The principle would not be able to change to react to what happens in any of the universes. It would be in no way able to help us in our lives.
If you can agree with this reasoning then I can agree that your theories are plausible, but not very heart warming.
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Nov 23, 2002 9:57:53 GMT -5
If I believe in God... I dunno. Everyone around me do. It's hard to believe the bible; I mean... there's no solid proof Those things the bible say happend. People just believe... I don't know... I really try not to think about it too much... I don't think God made humans. This subject is very... eh... my country is very religious. Especially Jerusalem. 65% of the people there wear those black hats and black cloths. I don't like these people. They don't have a life, you see. I've been constantly thinking about that subject. Those religious people can't go to the pool to swim and have fun, they can't go to the Rollercoaster or to run in the park with their dog. They have nothing, except money which they don't use. All they do is sit around the house and pray. Pray and pray for someone who doesn't exist. So no, I don't believe in God. I believe in proofs. I believe humans were made out of scientific reasons. This subject is very complicated and strange to everyone. Every religion believes in diffrent things. Jews believe in they're God, Christians believe in Jesus and Muslims believe in Alla. Really, I don't think anyone really exists. I think people just made them up. I don't want anyone to be offended by that, especially Rolin. But think. They always say how people talked to god in the past. But how come God talks to no one now? I think all of these religious things are just not true. No one knows where we came from, anyone can come out and say he just talked to god. Does he have any proof? Is there any way to proof it? I don't think so.
So, for conclusion, No, I don't believe in god because there is no scientific proof and that there's no way to proof it. I don't think we'll ever be 100% positive that god exists or not. I'll try not to be offended by Kevin's words.
|
|
|
Post by Grunthor on Nov 26, 2002 11:03:21 GMT -5
I don't believe in God. My beliefs are a mixture of emotionalism, and based upon scientific fact. The emotionalism, is due to the fact that I have seen too much evil done in the name of religion. I cannot follow any religion, which condones murder, rape, slavery, and other abominable things. I was born an atheist, raised as a Christian, then went back to being an atheist. I will die an atheist, and that's perfectly fine with me.
\quote I do believe that those who die without Christ go to Hell for eternity and suffer everlasting torment. But those who have Christ will be given everlasting life in Heaven. \quote
Jacket make your threats of eternal d**nation, they hold no sway over me, or many other atheists.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 26, 2002 20:03:10 GMT -5
Okay here's the question... What if your a masochist and REALLY like serious pain? Wouldn't you enjoy Hell?
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Nov 26, 2002 23:26:29 GMT -5
If hell's like I think... no. They torture you there like you've never been tortured before. That's what I'd assume if there was hell.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 27, 2002 16:30:25 GMT -5
Yeah but my question is what about the MASOCHISTS who really like torture and pain?
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Dec 1, 2002 12:55:53 GMT -5
Still. I think hell's like that: You can't die, because you are already dead. But you can feel pain. So they rip your hands, they put knifes into your body and stuff. I don't think anyone, even the biggest masochists would enjoy this. But I don't think there is hell. Why? because that thought came to someone mind one day and he believed in it. It's 1 of the endless possibilities where you go after life.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Dec 2, 2002 22:04:49 GMT -5
After I die I plan to "go" into the ground and be wormfood.
|
|
|
Post by smilez on Dec 4, 2002 12:29:40 GMT -5
There may or may not be god, I Don't know but I hope there is because heaven sounds like a good place...earth is just a bunch of sinners, what is the point...
my question is what is the meaning of life?(in your point of view)
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Dec 5, 2002 14:46:40 GMT -5
Hey Smilez, why don't you register? anyways... the meaning of life? can't answer that. But I just thought of something... maybe... if what I think is true, that when you die you reborn and without your previous' life memory... maybe that's Deja Vu. Something happend in your previous life, and it happens again... you get me?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Dec 5, 2002 15:46:09 GMT -5
Which god are you talking about, Smiley?
Meaning of life? Well, if I answer on an objective level, you might not like it. Survival and reproduction. This is easily verified through watching any organism's life cycle. Yet, since we humans are able to abstract and have a greater brain capacity, we want it to be more, at least for many of us. So, my advice is learn something about existentialism, which is the branch of philosophy that holds that life meaning is subjective (in other words, we create our own meaning of life on an individual basis). Kierkegaard, Sarte, Nietzsche, are a few writers over the matter.
Really, I don't see how positing a god and heaven makes life worthwhile. If anything, it cheapens what life one does have, as such religions are entirely focused upon death: *THIS* life isn't important, only the next one. Perhaps we're all familiar with the phrase "Promising pie in the sky so you'll eat nuts now" (Pardon the language)? If anything, the knowledge that our lives are finite gives worth to what time we *DO* have. If, as many theists say, that this finite time is worthless, how can they say that this extending infinitely is meaningful?
Neanderthal, are you familiar with Occam's Razor, and falsifibility? Deja Vu experiences may have a much simpler, better explanation for them instead of the need to posit reincarnation (not to mention it is very, very weak support for your idea to where it lacks any convincing power). Not to mention I'd love to hear what contrary evidence would overturn your explanation.
|
|
Maduin
RPG Town Newbie
Posts: 4
|
Post by Maduin on Dec 5, 2002 16:34:20 GMT -5
Templar, is that the theory that Deja Vu is caused by a glitch in the memory process, where current events are accidently recorded, and then moved on to the frontal lobe for processing? Instead of vice-versa, whatnot.
- Maduin the Delusionan
|
|