|
Joshuar
|
 |
March 19, 2015, 11:07:13 PM |
|
That is an awesome explanation. Never came across something like this before... The points there aren't valid however. The points at https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 are entirely valid, in part because scientists are proving them out every day, even though they don't often express them like this. Machine usage is in progression - That argument would mean that god himself is not god, and has a creator, since his abilities are intelligent as ours. Besides that, nature has evolved it so that we can be complex beings, doesn't mean we were "created". This idea - that God must or must not have a Creator - is not accurate because God does not necessarily have to be within the universe. Thus, He can have an entirely different set of attributes than the things of the universe, including to literally be eternal, while at the same time not being effected by eternity. The idea that God must or must not have a creator, is simply an idea, not even a theory, has no proof itself, and doesn't show or prove anything about God. Cause and effect show that even if there is evolution, God has caused it - the Great First Cause. The nations look for god - Have you ever wondered why the majority of people hundreds to thousands of years ago believed in God(s), this is because they had limited knowledge of themselves and the world around them. As we progress and learn more, we realize that most of the things around us(Even ourselves) were not made by god, but were formed after millions of years, which naturally leads to less people having to believe in God to explain the world around them. Nobody knows for a fact that millions of years exist. Measurements of geology, and extrapolations of such into the distant past, could in reality have been affected by multitudes of variables for which we have no indicators. For example. Physics constants in the distant past might have acted differently. We simply do not know. People STILL have "limited knowledge of themselves and the world around" us. We don't know for an absolute fact what will happen in the next second. The fact that our daily activities seem predictable simply shows the stability inherent in the universe. An example of the fact that we don't know even 1 second into the future is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many of the people of these cities did not have a clue that in the next second they would be gone, simply vaporized. The point is that we still need God today, just like all the peoples of ancient times. In fact, we can't get away from needing God. Even the people who are comfortable in their atheism have simply switched their god to themselves, because they still don't know even 1 second into the future what will happen. They are essentially calling themselves god by flippantly suggesting that there is no God. The belief in deities came about from the fact that earlier humans tried to explain the world around them. Since they didn't know the scientific method back then and hardly even had an understand of things like math, they decided to do what's easiest, and simply state that a higher being created everything and everyone. As we naturally progress, we learn that most/if not all of what we believed was not made by God(s), but was actually made/formed/evolved naturally over long periods of time(Volcanos for example, the Sun, etc). Because people have been devolving, people of prehistoric times didn't need our form of scientific method. They had the ability to naturally know the processes for all kinds of understandings, understandings that we, in our devolved state, have to use our step-by-step scientific method to figure out. Evidence of the greatness of our prehistoric ancestors has examples in the construction of their architectural works. For example, if we had to produce the Great Pyramid today, it would be a world-boggling task. And one or more of the pyramids in Bosnia are much larger than the Great Pyramid. If you look at Graham Hancock's video, Magicians of the Gods, snapshots of a work in progress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPgIphDWGY - you will see that we are finding out that the thing that we call Atlantis was really a gigantic, worldwide trade organization in prehistoric times. It may even have been a one-world government, further advanced than what we have become today. Their science was different, and may have been greater. We are still finding out the details. We are devolving, not evolving.
Also, the very concept of Infinity is broken in a way. People like to deem some things as being infinite, but the problem is that you can't make the declaration that something is infinite since you haven't reached it's finite limits. How do we know that PI is infinite? We actually don't. The same goes for those that believe in a God. The words that we use to describe "God"'s talents and power don't really exist, so to speak, so the concept of "God" itself is likely an incorrect one.
The fact that we don't know a whole lot of attributes about God, doesn't negate the fact that He exists. The evidences that prove the existence of God found at https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, don't really have any method for determining if God is a He, or a She, or an It, or Something Else. All they do is show that God exists. And it is all based on the definitions for the words "proof," "evidence," and "God" ... and the fact that our scientists are using the scientific method to prove the whole thing out, on a regular basis, every day, just by doing what they do, even though they don't say it this way.  "This idea - that God must or must not have a Creator - is not accurate because God does not necessarily have to be within the universe. Thus, He can have an entirely different set of attributes than the things of the universe, including to literally be eternal, while at the same time not being effected by eternity. The idea that God must or must not have a creator, is simply an idea, not even a theory, has no proof itself, and doesn't show or prove anything about God." There you are giving your opinion on the matter. You can't say that God is outside the universe, because I can equally say that he is inside the universe, which further points to the fact that the titles we use to describe God are incorrect, such as infinity(Which is an "impossible" concept). My opinion is simply a response to your opinion. As stated, your opinion has no real backing because we are talking about God. The fact that God, by dictionary definition, is greater than we, without having a first-hand look at Him, we can't tell whether or not he was created. In addition, because He is greater than we, even if we DID have a first-hand look at Him, we STILL might not be able to determine if He was created or not. Thus, the whole question is moot, unless we can find some evidence. Simply because you say that God "is inside the universe," doesn't keep me from saying that He is NOT inside the universe. You are trying to negate the thing that I am saying while allowing yourself to keep on saying the opposite thing. Not only is this NOT fair, but it doesn't even smack of reasonable science. I am unaware that anybody uses the title of "infinity" for describing God. While infinity is a difficult concept, it is not at all an impossible concept. "Because people have been devolving, people of prehistoric times didn't need our form of scientific method. They had the ability to naturally know the processes for all kinds of understandings, understandings that we, in our devolved state, have to use our step-by-step scientific method to figure out.
Evidence of the greatness of our prehistoric ancestors has examples in the construction of their architectural works. For example, if we had to produce the Great Pyramid today, it would be a world-boggling task. And one or more of the pyramids in Bosnia are much larger than the Great Pyramid."
Nope, the great pyramids were constructed similar to how the great wall of china was, through the labor and work of thousands of individuals who died for their king/emperor. The bodies of those who helped construct the great wall of china have even been found outside and inside the wall. It took many years, but those tasks were accomplished and neither of them are "miraculous". When we examine the method that was used to build the Great Pyramid, we find that nobody knows for a fact how it was done. New ideas about the process are popping up every now and again. We find no record of bodies being found inside the walls of the Great Pyramid that I am aware of. There is great difference between the construction of the Great Wall and the Great Pyramid, including the time frames, and the length of time. The fact remains, that if we with all our technology decided to build a duplicate Great Pyramid, the doing of it would be so expensive that it might be impossible for us to do it. Consider moving 30-ton stones, and larger, from Aswan all the way to Giza which is almost 600 miles by the Nile River course. Whatever their technology, be it blood, sweat and tears, or be it some form of anti-gravity, it is greater than ours... albeit different. People from prehistoric times also likely didn't believe in god. If you're talking about hominids such as Homo Habilis, erectus, etc, they didn't believe in god. Man used the concept of God to try and explain the world around him. Now that we(mankind) are gaining more knowledge, we now know that using God to describe things is no longer needed. It fits perfectly with the evolution of mankind and is also a reason why God doesn't exist. People from prehistoric times had way more reason to believe in God. They were closer to the time of the Beginning, when the Great First Cause started the whole thing. There wasn't as much time for the loss of ancestral memory. Standard modern theories about "hominids such as Homo Habilis, erectus, etc," are way more fable than they are fact. When you take a handful of skeletons, and try to describe whole cultures from them, you are constructing fable, not fact. If you happen to be accurate, it is entirely by accident. The Graham Hancock video that I talked about previously, Magicians of the Gods, snapshots of a work in progress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPgIphDWGY - is only one little video out of many showing that our notions of what prehistoric humankind was like are way off. It's time that our world of archaeology and paleontology wakes up to reality rather than it's self-created dark ages that we live in now. "The fact that we don't know a whole lot of attributes about God, doesn't negate the fact that He exists. The evidences that prove the existence of God found at https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, don't really have any method for determining if God is a He, or a She, or an It, or Something Else. All they do is show that God exists. And it is all based on the definitions for the words "proof," "evidence," and "God" ... and the fact that our scientists are using the scientific method to prove the whole thing out, on a regular basis, every day, just by doing what they do, even though they don't say it this way." I know you're trying to give reasons for God's existence, but those you've given in that link are hurting your point of view/what you're trying to express. There are few-to no "true", solid reasons for the existence of god, but there are a plethora for his lack of existence. Actually, the fact that the existence of God fits the description of the things that science is proving with overwhelming clarity, shows that atheism is simply one of the weakest religions around. Since the evidence for atheism is weak, and the evidence for God is universal, atheists have to have very strong faith to force themselves into a religion that doesn't have much evidence at all. If it had any evidence other than a good science fiction story (that most of you can't agree on regarding details), you and the other atheists would have provided it long ago. Most of what was said there is wrong, but I'll skip it in order to address the most important points. The concept of God is not possible as what we use to define him are incorrect. Infinity is logically, an impossible concept. Omnipotence is logically, an impossible concept. God is logically, an impossible concept. Everyone is welcome to his/her own opinion. The points at https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, and those listed above, are valid, because they can be proven out. In fact, not only are they valid, but they are standard points of operation used by all scientists who are using the scientific method to do their scientific investigations. Anyone can test this out. Everything that moves in the universe moves according to the laws of machine action, machine leverage. The concept of God is entirely possible because, unlike the animals, we have the ability to think outside of the box. If our definitions of God happen to be incorrect at times, this doesn't stop God from existing. Some concepts, like infinity and omnipotence and pure randomness, are concepts that we have a difficult time comprehending in their entirety. But simply because we can't comprehend them clearly doesn't make them impossibilities. After all, they exist as concepts. In fact, most things that exist involve concepts that we can't entirely understand, simply in their existing. That's why coming to conclusions about things scientifically investigated is often very difficult. Consider the wind. We feel it. We know it is there. We even know in a general way what it is made out of. But we don't have any kind of clue about any particular molecule of wind, where it comes from, or where it is going, except in an extremely general way that we can't be sure of. Huh? There are animals that are self aware of themselves, and therefore able to think "outside the box". Infinity and omnipotence are not just difficult concepts, they are impossible concepts and therefore only theoretical. Such things do not really exist. Most things that exist do involve concepts that we can mostly understand. For example, we understand the formation of stars, the properties and substances that make up the earth's core, and many more etc. Humanity has done some incredible things, the highest temperate we ever made on earth was 3 billion if I remember correctly, much hotter than even the surface of the sun. We can split atoms, the fastest traveling vehicle, New Horizons, which is a spacecraft, goes almost 100,000 mph, yes 100,000. We know exactly what causes the wind, what it's made of, and mostly of where it's going(Hence the entire field of meteorology. Here you go: "Wind is caused by differences in the atmospheric pressure. When a difference in atmospheric pressure exists, air moves from the higher to the lower pressure area, resulting in winds of various speeds. On a rotating planet, air will also be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator." Reading up on the almost countless achievements of man would make you rethink your stance on the impossible concept of god. The points in that link are not helping your argument, I am not atheist, but I accept that there are very, very few to almost no things that support the notion of god, but there are almost countless arguments that can be used against god's existence. The god I believe in isn't necessarily a "God", just a higher being, as I stated before that the way we define God in popular culture today is incorrect. |
