Talking Religion...

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Why can't it be Zeus? Jupiter? Amon Ra? Hunab Ku? Baal? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? King Henry VIII?

JSV,
I haven't personally responded to your posts in this thread until now because your posts seem hostile and needlessly argumentative. For example you just submitted that question when BGrad clearly stated this. Clearly BGrad allows for the "cause" being nearly anything with this post. Sure he has a position, but its not contained within this post.

Now granted there is room to debate what the first cause is,

 

[buckeyegrad]

Why can't it be Zeus? Jupiter? Amon Ra? Hunab Ku? Baal? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? King Henry VIII?

Did you read my entire post? In case you missed it, let me state it again:

Now granted there is room to debate what the first cause is, but there has to be one because our existence requires it.

(Oh, and I assume that you know that none of your examples make the claim of "first cause". For exampe, the cause of Zeus was Cronus, the cause of Henry VIII was Henry VII and Elizabeth of York)

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

Did you read my entire post? In case you missed it, let me state it again:

Now granted there is room to debate what the first cause is, but there has to be one because our existence requires it.

(Oh, and I assume that you know that none of your examples make the claim of "first cause". For exampe, the cause of Zeus was Cronus, the cause of Henry VIII was Henry VII and Elizabeth of York)

Yes I did. and you said: "Ultimately, something has to be self-existing. If it is not God, it must be physical reality, or something else not yet perceived/conceived."

You propose 3 alternatives for "self-existing"
1. God (i.e. the Judeo-Christian God)
2. Physical reality
3. something not yet perceived/conceived.

I was protesting the privileging of the Judeo-Christian God over all the other deities that mankind has ever worshiped. They don't fall into any of the three categories, but have just as much right as the Christian God to be on that list :)

Just being fair and balanced!

 

[MaxBuck]

Actually, there is such as a thing as "first cause", in fact there must be one. The principle of nihil ex nihilo requires there to be a first cause...

buckeyegrad, I think you may be confusing the laws of logic with the Laws of the Universe. Something can be logically bulletproof, yet false as a 3-dollar bill. I think the converse also applies...

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

JSV,
I haven't personally responded to your posts in this thread until now because your posts seem hostile and needlessly argumentative.

I assure you that is not the case

I started this thread (didn't invade other threads) because I like a good argument. I like poking holes and pointing out fallacies in other people's arguments, and I like it even more when they point out fallacies in mine! I'm not hostile at all. (Otherwise, Jim would have left me at the dry cleaners and never picked me up. )

I know that this style (finding holes in arguments) is not everyone's style, but if I point out a loophole in one of your arguments, that does NOT mean I am hostile. It means I am just aching for you to point out a fallacy in one of my posts :)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

taking G-d out of the equation entirely, Bgrad's remark tends to be correct, I think. If we assume the Big Bang theory, and again, without a concept of G-d at all, we have to believe that the Big Bang itself occurred without cause. If we say "Well, there was a cause for the Big Bang, we just don't have the science yet to explain it" the question is begged.. "OK, then what caused whatever caused the Big Bang?" Ultimately, science is without any more an answer than is religion in these terms.

To "dumb it down" if I may - Science says the universe was created at some moment out of "nothing" It calls whatever came before the universe nothing. Religion calls it "G-d" Dont' know if I'm really expressing myself well here.. but.. If you cannot be satisfied with a G-d who is a non-caused existor, then it seems to me you cannot be satisfied with a non-caused universe which clearly does exist.

Religion - correctly or incorrectly, calls the "first cause" G-d. I don't know that there's any counter argument, really. The real argument, I think, begins when we start talking about this "G-d's" personality.

 

[Gatorubet]

I assure you that is not the case

I started this thread (didn't invade other threads) because I like a good argument. I like poking holes and pointing out fallacies in other people's arguments, and I like it even more when they point out fallacies in mine! I'm not hostile at all. (Otherwise, Jim would have left me at the dry cleaners and never picked me up. )

I know that this style (finding holes in arguments) is not everyone's style, but if I point out a loophole in one of your arguments, that does NOT mean I am hostile. It means I am just aching for you to point out a fallacy in one of my posts :)

Milli is dying to know what you think about Urban Meyer's recruiting pratices.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I assure you that is not the case

I started this thread (didn't invade other threads) because I like a good argument. I like poking holes and pointing out fallacies in other people's arguments, and I like it even more when they point out fallacies in mine! I'm not hostile at all. (Otherwise, Jim would have left me at the dry cleaners and never picked me up. )

I know that this style (finding holes in arguments) is not everyone's style, but if I point out a loophole in one of your arguments, that does NOT mean I am hostile. It means I am just aching for you to point out a fallacy in one of my posts :)

But, you didn't poke a hole in BGrad's argument. As BGrad made no argument to who or what was the first cause.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

But, you didn't poke a hole in BGrad's argument. As BGrad made no argument to who or what was the first cause.

See? You just poked a hole in my argument! Now I have to go outside and kick the dog

Gator, are you trying to "divide and conquer"?

 

[Bleed S & G]

Well without the existence of souls there's not much use for heaven.

True. For the record, I believe in some sort of "after life" but not in "heaven." I have no idea what is after this life, but I do feel there is something. If not, then oh well.

What do you mean by "hard proof"? Evolution is a scientific fact. It's not a concept that still needs more evidence to be accepted as true. The fine details and some of the mechanics still need to be understood, but the idea that populations evolve over time and that all living creatures share a common ancestor (such as humans and apes), is a fact.

Ok, what I meant by that is there is (to my knowledge) no missing link. And while Evolution is most defiantly what has taken place here, there is no way to actually prove it.

Back to my original point, while you can't prove something exists 1000% (such as evolution) all evidence points to, this is what has happened.

Brother, I am honestly really not trying to be mean or condescending, but you are dead wrong.

Dead wrong about what?

Why not read REAL science books about physics and evolution instead of new-age drivel? Real physics is so much more beautiful than this new-age caricature you seem to have read about. And there are MOUNTAINS and MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution.

First, "new-age drivel?" Really?

Second, I implied the exact opposite about evolution. IMO, evolution is 100% real.

Third, you have no idea what the book is about - and it's not a quantum physics book. I just started the book, and thought the passage was very interesting.

There are some very good popular science books that also contain real science, not sensationalist drivel. You don't have to be a math wizard or a molecular geneticist to read them.

Geez..

So since you can't understand some of the concepts because of your spirtual views or your views of the physical world around you, it's sensationalist drivel? Look, Quantum Physics may not be a "science", but I've always found it fascinating because it dives deeper. It goes to the atomic level of the world.. down to the foundation. I find it very interesting, and perhaps you don't, but holy crap.. chill out a little man.

Please don't get defensive. I am not attacking you, merely pointing out that the sources you seem to be getting your scientific information from are apparently highly deficient.

Do you make this claim assuming I was saying 'Quantum Physics says evolution is false'.

Learn how to comprehend before spouting off. Almost every post you make comes off as holier-than-thou. Not trying to be condescending, of course.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Allow me, to quote myself..

Quantum Physics may not be a "science",

While I maintain it's not the most reliable field.. it certainly isn't made up by a bunch of hippies either..

It is the underlying mathematical framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, solid-state physics, atomic physics, molecular physics, computational chemistry, quantum chemistry, particle physics, and nuclear physics.

The foundations of quantum mechanics were established during the first half of the twentieth century by Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schr?dinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli and others. Some fundamental aspects of the theory are still actively studied[1].

 

[DontHateOState]

Funnily enough, the "who came first" problem may not even exist as a problem. If one were to accept the Big Bang Theory as "true" then one would accept time as a function of this universe. That does not mean time is a function of the alternate dimensions, universes, realms, etc. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable that it simply always has been and always will be in that alternate universe. This is one of the reasons Albert Einstein came to believe in a God before his death. He did not believe in a personal God, but he believed in a Creator.

 

[MaxBuck]

I've always felt that one of the ending points of science is the consideration of The Beginning. What was, before The Beginning? I haven't read any discussions of a scientific nature that address this question.

 

[DontHateOState]

I've always felt that one of the ending points of science is the consideration of The Beginning. What was, before The Beginning? I haven't read any discussions of a scientific nature that address this question.

Well, science realized that the Big Bang Theory promoted a possible God/Creator so they came up with the theory of the Multiverse- a universe spitting out more universes. Other than being entirely untestable, it suffers from lack of evidence.

I should also add that the hypothetical multiverse could be where the "soul" resides. And/or the afterlife, cosmic planes, etc. Or it could be creating alternate universes as we speak so that there are an infinite number of universes.

It's all very theoretical and, ultimately, untestable as we have no idea how to even begin testing alternate dimensions. Or if it is even possible to test for that matter.

 

[Bleed S & G]

One of the other cool things with the Big Bang is that eventually, scientist predicts it will snap back like a rubber band and collapse on itself. Then another "bang" could start a new universe all over again.

I wonder how many times the universe has already collapsed and exapnded?