A
aclausen
Guest
I see no reason to make that assumption before we’ve finished our quest for knowledge.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
I see no reason to make that assumption before we’ve finished our quest for knowledge.
I don’t worship anyone or anything. I reject your view of how how I look at the world.
A
aclausen
Guest
I don’t knowWhere did it all come from?
B
buffalo
Guest
Not even a guess?I don’t know
A
aclausen
Guest
Any guess at this point would be speculation with no means to test it. I’ve read plenty of interesting ideas, but even the researchers will concede they remain at best interesting mathematical models that may or may not have anything to do with reality.Not even a guess?
B
buffalo
Guest
Some pretty strong philosophical pronouncements have been made by science.Any guess at this point would be speculation with no means to test it. I’ve read plenty of interesting ideas, but even the researchers will concede they remain at best interesting mathematical models that may or may not have anything to do with reality.
You might be an agnostic, rather than atheist.
Yet atheists are sure “it cannot be God” or " we cannot let the divine foot in the door". Very weak and irrational.
A
aclausen
Guest
A scientist’s job is to formulate hypotheses, even if there is no way to test them. I do think some scientists go out on a limb too much; string theorists are guilty at times of speaking about their theories in a way that would make an uninformed layman think string theory had been confirmed. Of course just as quickly other physicists will be quick to remind them that until their theories can be tested, ideas like the multiverse and branes remain pure conjecture; mathematical models that, no matter how compelling they may seem, are a very long ways away from being confirmed or discarded.Some pretty strong philosophical pronouncements have been made by science.
You might be an agnostic, rather than atheist.
Yet atheists are sure “it cannot be God” or " we cannot let the divine foot in the door". Very weak and irrational.
As for myself, I have been described as a weak atheist, who certainly leans towards agnosticism. Atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible. As I’ve said elsewhere, my atheism does not stem from active denial, but rather that I just don’t see the need for a prime mover. It is more an application of Occam’s razor, or an invocation of the null principle if you will.
That is not to say I couldn’t be shown the error of my ways, but it might be a tall order to convince me that the Judaeo-Christian god is a valid description of the Creator. Deism has its attractions, though to me it still seems like an unwarranted attempt to fill a gap in our knowledge rather than a positive claim about some aspect of reality.
B
buffalo
Guest
God is absolutely simple.A scientist’s job is to formulate hypotheses, even if there is no way to test them. I do think some scientists go out on a limb too much; string theorists are guilty at times of speaking about their theories in a way that would make an uninformed layman think string theory had been confirmed. Of course just as quickly other physicists will be quick to remind them that until their theories can be tested, ideas like the multiverse and branes remain pure conjecture; mathematical models that, no matter how compelling they may seem, are a very long ways away from being confirmed or discarded.
As for myself, I have been described as a weak atheist, who certainly leans towards agnosticism. Atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible. As I’ve said elsewhere, my atheism does not stem from active denial, but rather that I just don’t see the need for a prime mover. It is more an application of Occam’s razor, or an invocation of the null principle if you will.
That is not to say I couldn’t be shown the error of my ways, but it might be a tall order to convince me that the Judaeo-Christian god is a valid description of the Creator. Deism has its attractions, though to me it still seems like an unwarranted attempt to fill a gap in our knowledge rather than a positive claim about some aspect of reality.
A
aclausen
Guest
He is still an entity.God is absolutely simple.
B
buffalo
Guest
He is pure spirit, immaterial. He is existence itself.He is still an entity.
A
aclausen
Guest
Adding these attributes doesn’t really solve the problem of whether He’s necessary or not.He is pure spirit, immaterial. He is existence itself.
B
buffalo
Guest
He is necessary. The universe cannot cause itself. The cause must be outside of space and time. We call this immaterial uncaused cause God.Adding these attributes doesn’t really solve the problem of whether He’s necessary or not.
A
aclausen
Guest
I don’t accept your basic claim; that the universe can’t cause itself. Furthermore, maybe it doesn’t even make sense to talk as if the Universe needed to cause itself. Maybe there’s always been a Universe.He is necessary. The universe cannot cause itself. The cause must be outside of space and time. We call this immaterial uncaused cause God.
Much as how you view God.
B
buffalo
Guest
At one time an eternal universe was thought to be possible. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proved the universe had to have a beginning.I don’t accept your basic claim; that the universe can’t cause itself. Furthermore, maybe it doesn’t even make sense to talk as if the Universe needed to cause itself. Maybe there’s always been a Universe.
Much as how you view God.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
It is possible…but how to get from a being of pure and simple energy to a loving/judgmental God with rules, rewards, and punishments…?He is necessary. The universe cannot cause itself. The cause must be outside of space and time. We call this immaterial uncaused cause God.
…a pure spirit that nonetheless has an eternal, physical son…?
O
OldArmyDog
Guest
I am formally trained as a mathematician, both practical and theoretical and am in love with physics and especially astrophysics. I say that not to be prideful but to set up a platform for my reply to your comment; you said it better than what I was in the process of writing when yours popped up on my screen. My reply is:I understand that (sort of) but no one has ever really been able to explain to me why a constant is a constant in the first place, except to say, “It is what it is”. Which has always sounded a lot like, “I am that I am” to me.
Amen.
OAD/Richard
B
buffalo
Guest
Since He created the universe He can easily enter our time and space. He chose to as a human who would live and teach among us.It is possible…but how to get from a being of pure and simple energy to a loving/judgmental God with rules, rewards, and punishments…?
…a pure spirit that nonetheless has an eternal, physical son…?
God as a perfect being is perfectly loving, merciful and just. Today we often forget the justice part.
A
aclausen
Guest
At best thehve proven the observable universe has a beginning, and I don’t think theyve even done that.At one time an eternal universe was thought to be possible. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proved the universe had to have a beginning.
H
HelenRose
Guest
Sometimes I think that we all approach the concept of God from the wrong angle. My own concept of God is a combination of intellect, power and self awareness[will or desire].A scientist’s job is to formulate hypotheses, even if there is no way to test them. I do think some scientists go out on a limb too much; string theorists are guilty at times of speaking about their theories in a way that would make an uninformed layman think string theory had been confirmed. Of course just as quickly other physicists will be quick to remind them that until their theories can be tested, ideas like the multiverse and branes remain pure conjecture; mathematical models that, no matter how compelling they may seem, are a very long ways away from being confirmed or discarded.
As for myself, I have been described as a weak atheist, who certainly leans towards agnosticism. Atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible. As I’ve said elsewhere, my atheism does not stem from active denial, but rather that I just don’t see the need for a prime mover. It is more an application of Occam’s razor, or an invocation of the null principle if you will.
That is not to say I couldn’t be shown the error of my ways, but it might be a tall order to convince me that the Judaeo-Christian god is a valid description of the Creator. Deism has its attractions, though to me it still seems like an unwarranted attempt to fill a gap in our knowledge rather than a positive claim about some aspect of reality.
I am not an intellectual at all, I have known truly brilliant people, and I know myself well enough to know better than to go head on with people who are highly skilled in logic, math, philosophy and physics. (That doesn’t always stop me however) I have listened to brilliant people debate and I have listened to rather stupid people debate and I learn from both. I admire intellect. There have been times in my life that I placed intellect on the highest pedestal. I don’t so much any more.
My sympathies are with atheists. My favorite saint is St. Therese of Lisieux. She described herself as sitting at the table with atheists and she meant it. She would never have tried to show an atheist “the error of their ways”. I don’t like it when people ascribe motivations to me for what I believe and I really try not to do the same.
I recognize the courage it takes to face fully what an atheists faces and still maintain peace in their hearts. I could not do it. Being a country bumpkin I will try to explain: Have you ever watched cows? A cow will look at you with their big dreamy eyes and stare with great curiosity as if trying to figure out what it all means. Then they will shake their heads and start eating their hay again.
That is what I often feel when late at night when I take the dogs out. I stare at the cold dark Colorado sky and watch the stars glitter. I am filled with such gratitude and wonder. I say thank you, thank you, I love you for all the beauty. I feel an answer back that says, “Child, I created this for you. I created this for all my children because I love them so.” The moment passes. I shake my head and in the morning I wash dishes, pickup dirty clothes, argue with my sister, irritate my husband and fuss over my grand kids.
In spite of the seemingly mundane life, I still call out thank you for such beauty.
So my logic is circular. It goes like this: Hope, Faith and Love. When I have faith, I can have hope. When I have hope, I can have love. When I have love, I can have faith. Nothing can take the love I feel when I call out to God. And the circle begins again.
I could not face the dark night sky alone if there was no one to hear me. I just couldn’t.
H
HelenRose
Guest
Think of the rules a parent gives a small child.It is possible…but how to get from a being of pure and simple energy to a loving/judgmental God with rules, rewards, and punishments…?
…a pure spirit that nonetheless has an eternal, physical son…?
Don’t go near the stove
Don’t go near the street.
Don’t eat to much candy.
Don’t kick your little sister.
Think of the rules of the road.
35 miles an hour on a winding road.
70 miles an hour on a freeway
Don’t drink and drive
Think of the thousand of rules you must learn if you are to speak several different languages.
Think of the rules you must learn if you are to travel to a foreign country.
The rules we learn to obey are the rules that give us freedom.
All we have to do is look into the eyes of a child whose parents don’t obey the rules that God has laid down for the security and love that is necessary for the welfare of a child. There are so many thrown away, misplaced, lonely and abused children because adults break the rules that limit their desires.
God doesn’t punish us for the rules we break. He doesn’t need to. We do that very well and then some.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.