Could all Religions Come Together?

[ding]

OK.

God is a dick.

According your "logic" I said that because God made me say it and therefore, by your logic, God is, in fact, a dick.

See? I had no choice.

Oh, and
Rapists, murderers, drug dealers, child molesters are all doing EXACT:Y what god wants them to do.

No choice, remember?

Dude, you can't even write a comprehensible paragraph. According to me, the fact that you can't stop yourself from making moral arguments even when you violate the moral law is proof of God's existence. A true atheist sees see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure and pain. Atheism proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. So your moral arguments prove you must believe in God and that God exists.

 

[ding]

Reported and blocked.

I choose not to take my moral lead from a murdering child rapist. You know. god.

I didn't say you did. I said you rationalize your immoral behaviors as being moral the same way he rationalizes his immoral behaviors as being moral. If God didn't exist you would have no need for making moral arguments but since God does exist you can't stop yourself from making moral arguments.

 

[ding]

No, the laws of this universe came into being when this universe came into being.

Incorrect. The universe was created according to the quantum laws of nature and conservation laws of nature which proves the laws existed before space and time. It's just science.

 

[ding]

THAT is science. Presuming the event that created this universe can be explained by anything within current comprehension is religion.

YOU should learn the difference. It will decrease your stupidity markedly.

I know the science like the back of my hand. You do not. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[themirrorthief]

I know the science like the back of my hand. You do not. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

all religions are bogus...put your trust in God instead

 

[ding]

all religions are bogus...

I think it's a little more complex than that.

 

[ding]

put your trust in God...

That's always good advice. How does putting your trust in God manifest itself in your real life?

 

[Dadoalex]

Where does that come from?

You and yours.

Sorry...edit

Since God created everything then logically God created evil.

Why did your God create evil?

 

[Dadoalex]

The Bible explains it. Evil is not God's will. Free will and God's will are two different things. That's what confuses many people.

God created free will
Therefore free will IS God's will
When some monster rapes and murders a small child he IS, according to you, doing "God's will"

 

[Dadoalex]

I see not only do you not understand the Bible, you do not understand me. Shall we try again?

The Bible was written by ancient man. Its inspiration came from God. Ancient man wrote the account in his own language and using the perspective of--not our culture--but the culture of his own time.

What was the original author telling the original audience?

If you wish to dismiss the Bible as a fairy tale, then dismiss it and move on. Others of us wish to discuss deeper meanings and wisdom passed on by our ancestors to those willing to listen to the knowledge and wisdom they were imparting to those of us who care to do the related studies. You want an early dismissal from such studies, so for you, the bell has rung, and you are wished farewell.

Made up lies
Really? what about the Gnostic texts?
Why were they left out?

I do. The problem is that you and yours INSIST that your beliefs, your fairy tales, be the be all and end all of belief. Unless and until you monotheists decide that other beliefs are just as valid (and offer just as much evidence) as yours the proposition is untenable.

 

[Meriweather]

Really? what about the Gnostic texts?
Why were they left out?

What about them? They weren't written until well after Christian texts.

 

[Meriweather]

I do. The problem is that you and yours INSIST that your beliefs, your fairy tales, be the be all and end all of belief. Unless and until you monotheists decide that other beliefs are just as valid (and offer just as much evidence) as yours the proposition is untenable.

I believe non-belief is valid. So you must be vehemently disagreeing with me about atheism, and therefore hold it in contempt. I believe my daughter's college roommate holds valid beliefs. She is Hindu. So you must vehemently disagree with me and you also hold Hinduism in contempt.

We already know you hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in contempt as well. Is there any belief or anyone whom you do not hold in contempt? If so, why not talk about that?

 

[BS Filter]

You and yours.

Sorry...edit

Since God created everything then logically God created evil.

Why did your God create evil?

God doesn't follow man's logic. The Bible says God is light and there is no darkness in Him. You're wrong...again.

 

[BS Filter]

God created free will
Therefore free will IS God's will
When some monster rapes and murders a small child he IS, according to you, doing "God's will"

Oh yeah, you use that when you stand before God. Good luck.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's not exactly how I see it. How I see it is that the early Hebrews - Abraham - lived in that culture and eventually broke away from the polytheistic beliefs of that culture and became monotheistic. So whatever similarities you see in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is because they had a shared culture but different religious beliefs. These aren't myths. They are allegorical accounts of history so similarities SHOULD be expected.

what's your issue with the golden calf, moses knew he had lost his base and made up his inane 10 commandments ... seems the christians knew no better than what the jewish liar made of them as well. at least the crucifiers who wrote the c-bible.

as jesus knew better and those of the 1st century who gave their lives for self determination than worshiping a false messiah.

- how about actually discussing the true religion than something made up in the desert.

 

[ding]

- how about actually discussing the true religion than something made up in the desert.

Go ahead. Will the discussion be longer than 6 words because in the past that was the extent of your discussion.

 

[Dadoalex]

What about them? They weren't written until well after Christian texts.

BS

The Gnostic texts were written in the 2nd century
The Gospels late first century

The gospels were written in Greek, Seems Jesus and his boys were Hebrew so...

 

[Dadoalex]

I believe non-belief is valid. So you must be vehemently disagreeing with me about atheism, and therefore hold it in contempt. I believe my daughter's college roommate holds valid beliefs. She is Hindu. So you must vehemently disagree with me and you also hold Hinduism in contempt.

We already know you hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in contempt as well. Is there any belief or anyone whom you do not hold in contempt? If so, why not talk about that?

No Hindi has ever condemned me to hell for being Buddhist.
Many of your fellow Christians have.
I'm not the problem, you are,

 

[Meriweather]

The Gnostic texts were written in the 2nd century

Yes. Mid to late second century, fifty to a hundred years after the Christian texts--which were already in circulation by the time the Gnostic accounts made an appearance.

The Gospels late first century

At least one of Paul's letters was mid first century; at least one Gospel was late 70s or early 80s.

 

[Dadoalex]

I believe non-belief is valid. So you must be vehemently disagreeing with me about atheism, and therefore hold it in contempt. I believe my daughter's college roommate holds valid beliefs. She is Hindu. So you must vehemently disagree with me and you also hold Hinduism in contempt.

We already know you hold Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in contempt as well. Is there any belief or anyone whom you do not hold in contempt? If so, why not talk about that?

BTW...Hindi are not Monotheists,

God doesn't follow man's logic. The Bible says God is light and there is no darkness in Him. You're wrong...again.

The Bible written by men who simply made it up.

BWAHAHA