Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Riet]

I've brought up old Hawking quote "Saying what came before the big bang is like saying what's north of the north pole" before. There are some pretty good objections to this idea - Though I do think it's a pretty good candidate for a semi-final answer.

A lot of the objections attack the idea of time just 'starting' for no apparent reason - We do have examples in quantum and even newtonian mechanics to support this sort of thing happening, but for a lot of people it just isn't enough.

Furthermore, the idea of 'infinity' seems to present some conundrums and there are some other ways to think of causation without time.

As a rambling explanation of the debates I've had with people on that topic - in this thread.

This was where I was going next but then I forgot about this thread

Edit: Whoo complex time.

 

[SylviaB]

WHY WOULD GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE

seriously, never had this answered properly before

 

[Enteebee]

WHY WOULD GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE

seriously, never had this answered properly before

One way I've had it answered is... somewhat anthropic, in that they'll say "the ONLY way the universe could have come into existence is if there were a God who wanted to do so".

 

[BlackDragon]

WHY WOULD GOD CREATE THE UNIVERSE

seriously, never had this answered properly before

I don't think there is a way to answer it without going to into theology, which is yucky. Its not really important anyway. Most theories that address space time [correctly] assume that there is no god. Otherwise, god is the theory.

 

[BlackDragon]

p.s. what is your display pic enteebee?

 

[KFunk]

Hmm. although this isn't my forte, I think it is important not to percieve space and time as separate, that they are the one structure. On top of this, although the universe is finite it is important to avoid the idea that it has boundaries and the concept of outside.


..You should read my lecturers notes on this, super interesting

You just reminded me of a brilliant analogy which I first encountered, if I remember correctly, in the physicist Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. It went something like this:

Suppose that you have a racecar hurtling along a desert plane at a fixed speed S. For all intents and purposes the plane can be considered to have two dimensions x and y. Whenever we consider the velocity of the car (i.e. the vector which indicates both speed and direction) we can resolve this into two orthogonal vectors (in the usual manner, using trig), providing the x-speed and the y-speed in each of the two dimensions.

Note, then, that because the speed of the racecar is fixed at S, the faster it moves in the x-dimension the slower it moves in the y-dimension. The limit case is of course when the speed in one dimension = S while the speed in the other dimension = 0.

To make use of the analogy simply replace the x-axis with space and the y-axis with time and let the racecar move with a constant speed c (the speed of light). In this case, as the racecar increases its speed in space it must simultaneously decrease its speed in time and vice versa. We thus arrive at a phenomenon akin to time dilation as entailed by Einstein's special theory of relativity (whilst being cautious with the limit case where speed in space = c). I always found this to be a nice intuitive way to grasp how seemingly disparate dimensions may become intertwined.

 

[KFunk]

On top of this, although the universe is finite it is important to avoid the idea that it has boundaries and the concept of outside.

In what sense do you mean finite? The picture you conjure up makes me think of an open set. A basic example would be the set of points (x,y) defined by x² + y² < r² , generating an infinite set that describes a space with a finite area and which is circumscribed by a conceptual boundary (x² + y² = r²) to which one can get arbitrarily close but which can never be reached. Finite in one sense, infinite in another? (unless space is discontinous/quantised?)

 

[Slidey]

Look at my horse - my horse is amazing. Give it a lick. Mmm - it tastes just like raisins. Have a stroke of its mane - it turns into a plane and then it turns back again when you tug on its winkie. Eww that's dirty. Do you think so? Well I better not show you where the lemonade is made. Sweet lemonade. Mmm - sweet lemonade. Sweet lemonade yeah sweet lemonade. Get on my horse, I'll take you around the universe and all the other places too. I think you'll find that the universe pretty much covers everything. Shut up woman get on my horse!

 

[Riet]

In what sense do you mean finite? The picture you conjure up makes me think of an open set. A basic example would be the set of points (x,y) defined by x² + y² < r² , generating an infinite set that describes a space with a finite area and which is circumscribed by a conceptual boundary (x² + y² = r²) to which one can get arbitrarily close but which can never be reached. Finite in one sense, infinite in another? (unless space is discontinous/quantised?)

This is what I was talking about with complex time, it is only finite from our perspective etc., but hawking later developed the idea to show that even in our timeline having a no boundary condition doesn't result in a closed universe.

 

[BlackDragon]

All I can say is that time dilation is fun . Wish I could go fast enough to be a part of it.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Found this: Falling bullet kills four-year-old boy | News.com.au

A FALLING bullet shot during New Year's Eve celebrations has tragically killed a four-year-old boy.
The boy, Marquel Peters, was inside a church in Decatur, Georgia, playing a video game when he suddenly collapsed at his parents feet, WSTV reports.
A police spokesman Jason Gagnon said it appears the bullet came through the church’s roof and struck Marquel in the head.
Marquel's parents were initially unaware of his injuries until blood started gushing from his head.
"I saw his Nintendo game fall on the floor, and I heard a sound and I heard him scream a little bit and I looked around and all I saw was blood coming from his head," Marquel's mother, Nathalee Peters, told Channel 2 Action News.
Attempts to keep Marquel alive at the church and later at a nearby hospital were unsuccessful.........

Inside the house of god as well... I mean, what are the chances!?!?!?

 

[lifequest]

I wholeheartedly support the teachings of most religion.
They spread morals or what is right and wrong and set a basis for what parents should teach their children. In this respect, religion is a great asset to society regardless of if you believe in God or not.

What I don't believe in, is the almighty God.
While I'm not a Christian, I have attended many Sunday sessions because I feel relaxed there; not because I'm reveling in the presence of a stone statue of some man pined to the cross, but because everyone else around me is at peace.

I feel that if such an Almighty Creator existed, why must he force his creations in his commandments to worship him. It seems like a tyrannical leader to me. It just seems so much more likely that, for whatever motive, some person created this image of God; in order to achieve social unity? or to gain power?.

Arguments revolving around the idea that "Oh, God is everywhere, he's almighty, he knows all. He was here since, like, EVER".
Sounds like my 5 year old brother when he stubbornly exclaims "I don't wanna!".

Science throws countless proven results at religion and all they throw back is "Na-uh! That still doesn't prove God doesn't exist". Find a new line for crying out loud.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You don't need religion to teach children right and wrong.

 

[dannyiraqi]

I wholeheartedly support the teachings of most religion.
They spread morals or what is right and wrong and set a basis for what parents should teach their children. In this respect, religion is a great asset to society regardless of if you believe in God or not.

What I don't believe in, is the almighty God.
While I'm not a Christian, I have attended many Sunday sessions because I feel relaxed there; not because I'm reveling in the presence of a stone statue of some man pined to the cross, but because everyone else around me is at peace.

I feel that if such an Almighty Creator existed, why must he force his creations in his commandments to worship him. It seems like a tyrannical leader to me. It just seems so much more likely that, for whatever motive, some person created this image of God; in order to achieve social unity? or to gain power?.

Arguments revolving around the idea that "Oh, God is everywhere, he's almighty, he knows all. He was here since, like, EVER".
Sounds like my 5 year old brother when he stubbornly exclaims "I don't wanna!".

Science throws countless proven results at religion and all they throw back is "Na-uh! That still doesn't prove God doesn't exist". Find a new line for crying out loud.

Thats a nice experience you have there... and yet in my Church i have grown up being told that God does not force us to worship or follow his commandments. He is not supposed to be seen as a enforcer or a tyrannical leader, but a God of love, and it is out of the love we have for him that we worship him, and if you think about it at the end of the day, if we followed his commandments, we will be better off.

And for those who dont believe in God, i still have deep respect for you brothers and sisters, as i have read alot of evidence from both camps, but one thing science does leave out is emotion, hope, a meaning in life. What if at the end of the day God was real? I have gained everything.... If he wasn't real? I have lived my life with peace in my heart, a smile on my face, and left a mark on society as a good citizen.

There comes a point in life where science can't save you...

 

[KFunk]

Look at my horse - my horse is amazing. Give it a lick. Mmm - it tastes just like raisins. Have a stroke of its mane - it turns into a plane and then it turns back again when you tug on its winkie. Eww that's dirty. Do you think so? Well I better not show you where the lemonade is made. Sweet lemonade. Mmm - sweet lemonade. Sweet lemonade yeah sweet lemonade. Get on my horse, I'll take you around the universe and all the other places too. I think you'll find that the universe pretty much covers everything. Shut up woman get on my horse!

We're going to candy mountain?

 

[BlackDragon]

I wholeheartedly support the teachings of most religion.
They spread morals or what is right and wrong and set a basis for what parents should teach their children. In this respect, religion is a great asset to society regardless of if you believe in God or not.

What I don't believe in, is the almighty God.
While I'm not a Christian, I have attended many Sunday sessions because I feel relaxed there; not because I'm reveling in the presence of a stone statue of some man pined to the cross, but because everyone else around me is at peace.

I feel that if such an Almighty Creator existed, why must he force his creations in his commandments to worship him. It seems like a tyrannical leader to me. It just seems so much more likely that, for whatever motive, some person created this image of God; in order to achieve social unity? or to gain power?.

Arguments revolving around the idea that "Oh, God is everywhere, he's almighty, he knows all. He was here since, like, EVER".
Sounds like my 5 year old brother when he stubbornly exclaims "I don't wanna!".

Science throws countless proven results at religion and all they throw back is "Na-uh! That still doesn't prove God doesn't exist". Find a new line for crying out loud.

You don't need religion to teach children right and wrong.

Yeah, I think one of the dangerous things about religion is the way they preach strongly to particular moral attitudes and a sort of elitism away from what makes us human.

 

[BlackDragon]

T
And for those who dont believe in God, i still have deep respect for you brothers and sisters, as i have read alot of evidence from both camps, but one thing science does leave out is emotion, hope, a meaning in life.

What if at the end of the day God was real? I have gained everything.... If he wasn't real? I have lived my life with peace in my heart, a smile on my face, and left a mark on society as a good citizen.

There comes a point in life where science can't save you...

That is so wrong. I think there is great beauty and meaning in the organic nature of life. Why do religious people need a higher being to have meaning?

Also, arguing that we should believe something because at the end of life we might be happy that we did is really bad. We should believe something because we want to, not because if it is actually true then it would be good to follow its rules.

I have lived my life with peace in my heart, a smile on my face, and left a mark on society as a good citizen.

And this is just an example of the moral elistism of religious people. They feel that what they are doing gives them a higher purpose and that they are spreading grace through society. Non-religious people "have peace in their hearts" too.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

There comes a point in life where science can't save you...

Oh I sincerely hope that you have read the lovely article I posted up at the top of this page. God didn't save that poor boy from a stray bullet now did it?

 

[0bs3n3]

You don't need religion to teach children right and wrong.

If your sense of right and wrong is jaded like yours, that is correct.

Science throws countless proven results at religion and all they throw back is "Na-uh! That still doesn't prove God doesn't exist". Find a new line for crying out loud.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, btw. And you obviously haven't researched religion too well if you think that is the strongest argument we have.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

If your sense of right and wrong is jaded like yours, that is correct.



You can't prove God doesn't exist, btw. And you obviously haven't researched religion too well if you think that is the strongest argument we have.

Well I certainly hope you read the article the article I found.

Funny how god had the power to create the universe and life, but the simple task of intercepting a stray bullet is beyond he's reach.

and @ your post: So are you saying that anyone who did not grow up in a religious background like yourself possesses a "Jaded sense of right and wrong"?

What about non-religous folks who oppose homosexuality?