Zone1 No Wonder Why I Had Doubts In God's Existence Before

[Blues Man]

How many times are you going to post that same video?

 

[BreezeWood]

God may be non-existent to you, but He hasn't been to all. The question before us is whether we want government to be the highest power and supreme decision maker.

if that's your question - rewrite the u s constitution ... and no there is nothing special about religious fanatics than their own self opinion of themselves.

were they to prove their desert deity and those bibles people might take them seriously than have to listen to their gossips.

 

[MarathonMike]

Believe whatever you want to believe, Deism works for me.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Americans should be free from atheism, Constitutionally. This is a weakness in the document and it needs to be amended. Atheism is the most destructive force that exists.

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of
Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and
humbly to implore his protection and favor." --George Washington

"Morality is the necessary spring of popular government.... Let
us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without Christianity." - - George Washington

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – President John Adams, second president and Founding Father

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” - Patrick Henry

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.... This is a Christian nation." --U.S. Supreme Court (1892)

 

[BreezeWood]

Americans should be free from atheism, Constitutionally. This is a weakness in the document and it needs to be amended. Atheism is the most destructive force that exists.

Our Constitution ....

George Washington signed the Constitution of the United States on September 17, 1787 at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

the christians are either liars or deliberately misrepresent the very reason the 1st amendment - congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion - is written in the u s constitution ... and signed by jeorge washington.

 

[ding]

How many times are you going to post that same video?

As many times as it takes to explain how the universe was created from nothing according to laws which existed before space and time itself.

It's important evidence for a creator.

 

[Blues Man]

As many times as it takes to explain how the universe was created from nothing according to laws which existed before space and time itself.

It's important evidence for a creator.

No it really isn't. All it means is we really don't know what happened

 

[ding]

No it really isn't. All it means is we really don't know what happened

Creation is the evidence of a creator. If you created something I could use what you created as evidence.

 

[Blues Man]

Creation is the evidence of a creator. If you created something I could use what you created as evidence.

YEs a watch is evidence of a watchmaker blah blah

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tons of evidence. It's all around you.

Like I said... nor will you be naming any or describing how to study any...

 

[ding]

YEs a watch is evidence of a watchmaker blah blah

Tangible items are evidence. It's kinda hard to argue against that statement. Maybe use google to understand what constitures evidence and what doesn't.

 

[Blues Man]

Tangible items are evidence. It's kinda hard to argue against that statement. Maybe use google to understand what constitures evidence and what doesn't.

So tell me if evidence of anything is evidence of a creator who created your creator?

And what about all the intangible stuff that makes up 95% of the universe?

 

[ding]

So tell me if evidence of anything is evidence of a creator who created your creator?

And what about all the intangible stuff that makes up 95% of the universe?

How many times do I have to explain this? The only logical solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means it can be no thing. So the answer to your question is the constant presence of mind has always existed and is uncreated.

 

[ding]

And what about all the intangible stuff that makes up 95% of the universe?

What about it?

 

[Blues Man]

How many times do I have to explain this? The only logical solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means it can be no thing. So the answer to your question is the constant presence of mind has always existed and is uncreated.

Nice out there isn;t it.

Everything has a cause but one thing.

Maybe it's the universe that is eternal and not your god.

Maybe all we see as the big bang was just a normal function of the eternal universe. Maybe we aren't seeing the whole picture because w are incapable of seeing the whole picture

But no you can't even entertain these ideas because the bible tells you differently

 

[ding]

Nice out there isn;t it.

Everything has a cause but one thing.

Maybe it's the universe that is eternal and not your god.

Maybe all we see as the big bang was just a normal function of the eternal universe. Maybe we aren't seeing the whole picture because w are incapable of seeing the whole picture

But no you can't even entertain these ideas because the bible tells you differently

Nice has nothing to do with it. It's just logic.

The universe didn't exist 14 billion years ago. So, no. The universe is not eternal.

If you understood how the CMB came to be you would understand there is no such thing as an eternal into the past universe. Which means it's not eternal even if it has no end going forward.

I haven't gotten within a hundred miles of the bible. I'm discussing the science. Science that can be used in the investigation of whether the universe was created intentionally or accidentally. Because that's how you would infer there being a creator or not. All of which are things you have never attempted to do but doesn't stop you from arguing against the existence of God.

 

[Blues Man]

Nice has nothing to do with it. It's just logic.

The universe didn't exist 14 billion years ago. So, no. The universe is not eternal.

If you understood how the CMB came to be you would understand there is no such thing as an eternal into the past universe. Which means it's not eternal even if it has no end going forward.

I haven't gotten within a hundred miles of the bible. I'm discussing the science. Science that can be used in the investigation of whether the universe was created intentionally or accidentally. Because that's how you would infer there being a creator or not. All of which are things you have never attempted to do but doesn't stop you from arguing against the existence of God.

Again we don't know what existed before the big bang. we only know what existed after.

You name it "nothing"

All this is based on your arrogant assumption that we humans with our limited intelligence can actually know what happened before the big bang and that this universe is the only one in existence or that there might be extradimensional planes we can't fathom. You know with absolute certainty that the way you think the universe began is the one and only way it could have ever happened.

You name that cause god then you attribute power and a personality to that god and even better in your absolute hubris you say you are the very image of that god.

When you speak of the Christian god as the creator you are in the bible. When you think that creator magically turned himself into a fetus and implanted that fetus in an illiterate virgin living in the Iron age you are in the bible.

You are interpreting theories of the inception of the universe so they agree with your religion

 

[ding]

Like I said... nor will you be naming any or describing how to study any...

Really? I guess you were wrong. Big time

Inflation Theory, 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.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. 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.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

Again we don't know what existed before the big bang. we only know what existed after.

You name it "nothing"

All this is based on your arrogant assumption that we humans with our limited intelligence can actually know what happened before the big bang and that this universe is the only one in existence or that there might be extradimensional planes we can't fathom. You know with absolute certainty that the way you think the universe began is the one and only way it could have ever happened.

You name that cause god then you attribute power and a personality to that god and even better in your absolute hubris you say you are the very image of that god.

When you speak of the Christian god as the creator you are in the bible. When you think that creator magically turned himself into a fetus and implanted that fetus in an illiterate virgin living in the Iron age you are in the bible.

You are interpreting theories of the inception of the universe so they agree with your religion

See post #898

 

[emilynghiem]

I was just having this conversation with my fiancee. A long time ago I couldn't make up my mind on what I actually believed since there are so many beliefs out there, but that's the problem. I was thinking with my mind instead of my heart and the mind can deceive you and has caused me to doubt in the past, but my heart has never faltered.

Do you believe that Jesus represents, embodies and fulfills God's Universal authority of Justice? Do you believe that living by Restorative Justice is the equivalent of Christ Jesus governing all relations, people and the world to bring heavenly peace? If you believe forgiveness can heal and restore all people and nations to unite the planet, that's faith in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If you question these things then you are still in process, just like Jesus and Buddha were both assailed with negative naysaying and nagging doubts while they prayed and meditated to resolve these issues in their minds. Even Jesus had to pray to reconcile with God.