It just strikes me as common sense. There's an infinite number of things that could be believed in and I struggle with the idea of picking one because ... just because.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
It just strikes me as common sense. There's an infinite number of things that could be believed in and I struggle with the idea of picking one because ... just because.
I find it illogical to see how God appeared out of nothing, or has always existed, especially when there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest this to be the case? Surely at some point there was nothing in some sense of the word?
What's even more bizarre is when this very belief is used because of ones own inability to believe the universe could explode out of nothing?
The point is that God didn't arise from nothing. God exists outside of the realm of Human Understanding in a Material Universe...there was no 'before' God, God didn't arise at all, least of all from 'Nothing' god simply Is...God created not only the Universe, but Time itself. So any supposition on what existed before God is irrelevant to what they believe and is a measure of our own limitations rather than that of God.
That is why the notion of Nothing--->God--->Universe doesn't have an logical consistency.
I disagree, as the stance is a very difficult position to hold due to our own perception being dependent upon linear time. It asks more difficult questions than it answers.
There are religions, including those related to Christianity such as Mormonism that have a different view, for example they believe that God was once a mortal who progressed to Godhood. So then the question would have some relevance...but the way in which you phrased your position is not, as it assumes God was created and is limited by linear time as are we. It essentially assumes a framework that doesn't apply to the subject therefore is not logically sound.
It's the opposite, as that definition has more difficulty being conveyed than others, like the example given with the LDS Church...
That the explanation is essentially beyond our own limitations due to our reliance on a perception defined by linear time doesn't mean that it isn't coherent or designed to avoid such questions...it answers such questions...
What existed before the Universe? --->God
What existed before God? ---> [we have not the ability to answer that question within a framework due to the limitations of our innate perception]...God simply exists.
If you are a follower of Startrek TNG, you may remember an episode where the Enterprise is forced beyond Warp 9.9....the extra-relativistic speeds meant that the Enterprise then occupied all points, at all times within the Universe simultaneously...think of God as doing the same thing, but with the addendum of also being extant outwith the Universe where there is no limitations defined by Space-Time.
As above really...you are attempting to understand a position through your own adherence to a linear time framework. You assume that there must be a beginning (and by association an end) to all things, yet God is defined as having neither Beginning nor End, he is inherently both as regards the Universe itself as he created it (as in Revelation 22:13), but God is not beholden to that linear framework...God created that framework within the Universe, God isn't subject to it.
Last edited:
Again, Castiel, I agree with what you have written. So much better at answering than poor old me!
If you define god created the material universe whilst being conveniently external from it, then remaining in some *other* supernatural dimension from which nothing can be defined, or detected, nothing can be said, no questions can be asked or answered, then you basically have the ultimate bulletproof vague theory.
Everyone may as well just down their tools and go home.
What's the point in continuing if the whole thing get's pushed so far out of any form of understanding? To me it just looks like a desperate attempt to drag the thing out to the very furthest point, so can never be ruled out, ever.
Last edited:
Understood, but it just seems too "magical" for me to accept. (a) A super magical being appeared out of nothing... or (b) We have the even more outlandish suggestion there has always been such a being and there was no "before"?
We are living in a universe with clear laws/rules, none of which accept "magic" or require the need for "magic". Yet here we are with some folks suggesting "magic" is required with the evidence being nothing more than we can't explain something.
This - interestingly - of course is exactly the same pattern we've seen for thousands of years. Can't explain a volcano? Magic! Can't explain the night sky, the Sun and the moon? Magic!
I fail to see the slightest reason to believe in magic now?
Indeed... It's seemingly the ultimate teapot in orbit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I don't personally define God....that is the definition of a Universal Creator God, which was the subject of the question presented by Neil.
Neither you, Neil or myself is being asked to believe this is the case, only that is how it is theologically defined by major religions such as Christianity...if we are going to present an argument against Christianity then we need to consider their theological definitions in order for the criticism to be valid. We may feel that it is akin to 'magic' or 'convenience' but nonetheless the question must be representative of the subject under discussion.
The terms 'magic' and 'convenience' really only represent the limitations of our own understanding, rather than any validated criticism of the position.
It should be said also that Religion generally (mainstream Christianity is an example) doesn't seek to understand or define God..it simply accepts that is beyond our ken...but it seeks to do is understand Mankind's relationship with God, nothing more.
Last edited:
That's fair enough tbh,
I don't really have any arguments against Christianity as such, my only argument is that there isn't a supernatural explanation for nature, or physical law, that's the only time I start shouting
I'm not very well up on these things but did we come from nothing? Isn't it thought that there was something and whatever there was prior to the expansion of the Universe, was outside the material universe we know, in that our universal constants are not an extension or duplicate of whatever may have been? If I remember rightly a more scientific reason to hold belief in a creator is because some say there is a harmony to the laws we observe which in theory hold many possible permutations when a universe comes into being. Although this would be less miraculous should the life of our universe be cyclical, or with it being one of almost if not an infinite amount.
If you don't believe in God, do you think it likely that the universe expanded from something that just has always been though is not sentient, or must it have come from nothing?
If you do believe on God and can accept the idea of perpetual existence, does that existence need to be sentient?
Something -----> Universe
Why does that something have to be God?
I haven't read much about the origins of the Universe so I don't have strong views, I've heard a theory about there being positive and negative energy, as far as I am aware this existed outside the constrains of what we know of our universe and would be in a sense, supernatural, but I may be mistaken.
I just wasn't sure if scientifically the origins of the Universe were more of a 'We probably came from something, but we don't know what.' Than a 'We think there was nothing, then the Universe appeared.'
If you don't believe in God, do you think it likely that the universe expanded from something that just has always been though is not sentient, or must it have come from nothing?
If you do believe on God and can accept the idea of perpetual existence, does that existence need to be sentient?
Something -----> Universe
Why does that something have to be God?
I haven't read much about the origins of the Universe so I don't have strong views, I've heard a theory about there being positive and negative energy, as far as I am aware this existed outside the constrains of what we know of our universe and would be in a sense, supernatural, but I may be mistaken.
I just wasn't sure if scientifically the origins of the Universe were more of a 'We probably came from something, but we don't know what.' Than a 'We think there was nothing, then the Universe appeared.'
Indeed...the factor prior to the Universe doesn't necessarily have to be God (as defined)...it can be either :
Nothing ---> Universe.
Something ---Universe.
All a theist is doing is replacing Nothing/Something with God. That's it.
The term 'supernatural' just represents something we have no explanation for.
Nothing ---> Universe.
Something ---Universe.
All a theist is doing is replacing Nothing/Something with God. That's it.
The term 'supernatural' just represents something we have no explanation for.
What about the film Dogma?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,524
- Location
- Woking
I think the point is how, as someone debating and asking questions, can you ask a question that you have no genuine answer for? And when the question is asked, come up with such an evasive answer?
The answer isn't evasive. It is what it is, a response according to the theological definition of the nature of God. That it doesn't conform to the questioners expectations or their perspective and perception they had when phrasing such a question doesn't mean the answer is evasive.
I think it irks slightly because when a theist is asked how the universe came into existence, rather than saying they don't know, they'll say that god created it. The logical question then is to ask, how could this god have always existed outside of the material universe to be able to create it.. They're quite happy to say that they don't know the answer to that, it seems, so saying that god did it doesn't really explain anything.
Atheist - How did the universe come into existence? - Don't know.
Theist - How did the universe come into existence? - God did it. - How? - Don't know.
Saying god did it explains nothing, it just pushes the "I don't know" response back a stage.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 3,089
- Location
- Edinburgh
"Where did that chair come from?"
"ikea"
beyond that, someone's ability to understand where a chair came from might be limited.
God->Universe
Nothing->Universe
both unprovable, though I can't say I've heard any valid argument for "Nothing->Universe"
That is because they believe that God created it, they wouldn't logically answer "don't know" simply because due to their beliefs they do know. If you ask "How does God exist?" that is not something that their belief deals with, as it is outside of the relationship between them and their God, so logically they "don't know".
I don't understand why that irks people so much. I can understand why it would irk people to be told that is what they should also believe, but that isn't what is happening here..in fact the opposite is happening..people are telling theists that they shouldn't believe as they do, that they are stupid and ridiculous for even entertaining such ideas. That irks me as much as a theist telling me I am condemned because I do not share their particular interpretation of the Universe and any meaning to be had from my existence.
Ah, you mean the "special proof" which has been thought up, to conveniently get around the problem of actually proving whether something is right or wrong?
On the subject of experience, about 10 years ago I went to a heavy metal concert (I'm a big Slayer fan) and I got right at the front, and I became completely consumed by the whole thing, it was utterly incredible - it was one of the most incredible things I've experienced, the feeling of power, being consumed by this raging inferno, 10000 other people going crazy, it was like hell on earth and I've never ever felt anything like it. I've climbed big mountains, won big competitions, seen incredible things in nature - nothing compares to how I felt there.
A few years later I was at a LAN party, in the main hall there was a new age Christian thing going on, where they have a preacher going crazy and he touches the head of somebody and they fall over - an organ is playing like crazy in the background and everybody is consumed by this thing.
And I learn't that people are so easy to fool - my experience at the Slayer concert, was not really any different to what these people were doing, I saw just how easy people can over-do their experience then claim it's something otherworldly, when in reality - it's just an intense experience.