faith (1 Viewer)

[boris]

yes go study

it seems like you will need it

 

[turbomedi343]

meh

 

[D94]

ergo god is just a hypothesis. one that doesn't satisfy any law of science. one that isn't even logical. for example if you want to hypothesise that god exists to explain the origins of the universe, then where did god come from?

If I were to take a philosophical standpoint, I'd say that a timeless, spaceless (concept of) God would not require the satisfaction of any law of science, as God would not traverse physical space and time. And a law of science, more specifically, physics, is very narrow minded and isolated to the experiences of human beings in a planet which is minute compared to the size of the Universe. Whilst in our current time, we have plenty of evidence to support theories of physics, hence they become theorems, we have yet any proof that this can exist beyond what we know, but this doesn't matter though.

Now, to take a theological standpoint, the argument of "who designed the designer" is petty and pointless, as no one talks about God being created (which is essentially what you're asking). Then this begs the question of what do I/you mean by God. If I were to say he was a timeless, spaceless being, then the concept of "created" does not come into play. Then this begs another question, how can something be timeless and spaceless. The simple answer would be the definition of God, but a more sophisticated answer would be using the concept of requires the use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (yes, this is argued here and there, but it appears to fit the argument well) where anything which had a beginning had to have to a cause of its existence, the universe began to exist (no one today would rightly argue an eternal/infinite universe; Second Law of Thermodynamics), therefore, by logic (but I must admit it can be argued here and there) the universe must have had a cause of its existence. Now, if we consider what physicists say that the universe is the time barrier from nothing to something, then the cause of the universe's existence must be outside the realms of time and space. Thus (the concept of) God satisfies this argument, therefore he is timeless and spaceless. So essentially, the who designed the designer question is void in it's own definition of God, but I must admit this can be argued here and there.

Please note I haven't advocated for any religion; the concept of God can be considered in an irreligious manner, but in a philosophical and reasonably rational way.

 

[boris]

imagine if you could just make up exceptions to rules to satisfy your beliefs

 

[D94]

imagine if you could just make up exceptions to rules to satisfy your beliefs

I haven't really made up any exceptions to rules to satisfy my apparent beliefs; they've been logical and have meaning. Arguments are meant to satisfy your beliefs; it's how people tear them down (rationally and logically) which carry good discussion and argument, something which might appease the situation (which will never actually be solved in our time).

Anyway, carry on, don't mind me.

 

[cheese_cheese]

If you can't prove that God does not exist, then you cannot conclusively say he does not exist (likewise, on the opposite side if people can't believe God does exist, then we can't conclusively save that). Thus, if people want to experience God they have every right to do so.

 

[abbeyroad]

So your telling me that you have scoured the entire universe in search of a pink unicorn????? I don't think so so obiviously you have FAITH in that you don't think there is. Faith is defined as the substance of things hoped for and certain of what we cannot see.

jesus fucking christ if there's no evidence that an apple is sitting on your desk then believing that there are no apples on your desk does not require faith 'omggg haw u knw hav u chekc all da desks'

whether pink unicorns exist elsewhere in the universe is irrelevant, we have no evidence that they exist on earth, we have no evidence that they exist in this solar system, it does not take faith to believe that they don't exist here on earth. saying that unicorns exist because nobody had ever searched the entire universe for them is a fucking frivolous appeal to ignorance.

 

[noworriez1]

but i think the argument here is that nobody is concluding its existence or nonexistence
but saying it remains as merely a hypothesis until substantial proof arises

and thats the basis of conclusive statement
(something like that, cbb to read the entire thread)

 

[abbeyroad]

If I were to take a philosophical standpoint, I'd say that a timeless, spaceless (concept of) God would not require the satisfaction of any law of science, as God would not traverse physical space and time. And a law of science, more specifically, physics, is very narrow minded and isolated to the experiences of human beings in a planet which is minute compared to the size of the Universe. Whilst in our current time, we have plenty of evidence to support theories of physics, hence they become theorems, we have yet any proof that this can exist beyond what we know, but this doesn't matter though.

Now, to take a theological standpoint, the argument of "who designed the designer" is petty and pointless, as no one talks about God being created (which is essentially what you're asking). Then this begs the question of what do I/you mean by God. If I were to say he was a timeless, spaceless being, then the concept of "created" does not come into play. Then this begs another question, how can something be timeless and spaceless. The simple answer would be the definition of God, but a more sophisticated answer would be using the concept of requires the use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (yes, this is argued here and there, but it appears to fit the argument well) where anything which had a beginning had to have to a cause of its existence, the universe began to exist (no one today would rightly argue an eternal/infinite universe; Second Law of Thermodynamics), therefore, by logic (but I must admit it can be argued here and there) the universe must have had a cause of its existence. Now, if we consider what physicists say that the universe is the time barrier from nothing to something, then the cause of the universe's existence must be outside the realms of time and space. Thus (the concept of) God satisfies this argument, therefore he is timeless and spaceless. So essentially, the who designed the designer question is void in it's own definition of God, but I must admit this can be argued here and there.

Please note I haven't advocated for any religion; the concept of God can be considered in an irreligious manner, but in a philosophical and reasonably rational way.

yeah if you could conceive of a concept of being that is timeless and spaceless, why can't you think of the universe of itself as timeless and spaceless before the big bang?

occam's razor dude

 

[cheese_cheese]

Also I never said god was logical I believe he is beyond this reality, he's supernatural and the natural course of thinking cannot be used to explain the supernatural. And I'm not gonna lie I can't explain the origins of god I don't know all the answers and I font pretend to know all the answers, I'm just a young Christian dude trying to find my way, but I honestly would like to talk about this all day but I have to study for physics peace and dare i say it god bless.

This is a good way of putting it into words. Good Bless you too.

 

[abbeyroad]

If you can't prove that God does not exist, then you cannot conclusively say he does not exist (likewise, on the opposite side if people can't believe God does exist, then we can't conclusively save that). Thus, if people want to experience God they have every right to do so.

yeah you have every right to believe that god exists just as you have every right to belive that there's a giant teapot orbitng around earth. but that shouldn't stop others from ridiculing you for being credulous

omgzz you can't disprove dat a teapotz donesnt orbiting erth dere4 it doezz11111!!!

 

[cheese_cheese]

yeah you have every right to believe that god exists just as you have every right to belive that there's a giant teapot orbing around earth. but that shouldn't stop others from ridiculing you for being credulous

You can't say with 100% assurance that there is not a giant teapot orbiting around the Earth.

 

[boris]

how big are we talking

 

[boris]

as big as the moon
or anything large enough to be seen with the naked eye 500m across @ 250km?
sure
100% certain

 

[cheese_cheese]

how big are we talking

Approximately 1 x 1 m.

 

[boris]

thats not giant at all
novelty sized as best

 

[boris]

cmon get with it, hitler

 

[boris]

ss-tv just doin their job

 

[abbeyroad]

You can't say with 100% assurance that there is not a giant teapot orbiting around the Earth.

you have no evidence that there is one either. saying that a teapot exists because there is no evidence that it doesn't is an appeal to to ignorance

what separates the credulous from the incredulous is that the credulous are willing to believe in almost anything without proof while the incredulous require evidence before they would commit themselves to a belief.

 

[cheese_cheese]

you have no evidence that there is one either.

what separates the credulous from the incredulous is that the credulous are willing to believe in almost anything without proof while the incredulous require evidence before they would commit themselves to a belief.

Just because we can't prove a theory does not mean it is not true and will be proved at a later date. Albert Einsteins theory of relativity went unproved for many decades yet was generally accepted before it was actually conclusively proved.