A matter of time , or why god is nonsense

I am a rather uneducated person (I'm in the 9th grade), so feel free to prove me wrong, as I will learn from it.


An example could be a bomb. simply, you drop a bomb and it explodes, first its a solid assortment of matter, er... "order", then it turns into huge frenzy of energy, "disorder". That sudden energy also happens to destroy nearby objects, more dissorder.


From my knowlege, all that matter flying around as energy should eventually hit more peices of matter and turn into something else, eventually it would get big enough to constitute as something else, er... it becomes bound energy/matter?


The second one, in fact, I chose that a long time ago.

  

Actually, many religions promote humility. Infact Christianity teaches that we are no more than dirt.

I contend that it is atheists who wish to not feel small and insignificant. If there is no higher power, then they have nothing to fear, no one to answer to, no one who is greater than themselves.

You insist that if there is a creator, something must have created that creator. Why must this be? If the universe can just be, if there can just be strings and membranes floating around in the void, infinitely colliding and createing universes, why can't it have all started with an infinite being?

Instead of insulting ones beliefs, instead of sounding ignorant and frustrated, maybe you should calm down and present a case that is actually believable. Hmm?

This argument seems quite primitive to me. From what I have seen, most people who argue in these threads do not believe in God because they use God to explain creation. It is important in debate to mind your audience.



I don't see the correlation between the beginning of the universe and this "
edge" you are referring to. Please elaborate.



Thank you for the update. What does this have to do with God?



Two words here have struck me: I believe. Belief in something is a common human experience, the proverbial "leap of faith". The question is, "why do I believe this?".



...in which case, what, or dare I say, who created the dimension of time?



Again, enough with this science stuff. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God with science. Even the staunchest atheists know this.



So, I ask, what drives you? How do you justify a small, insignificant existence? I'm no psychiatrist, but I would imagine that most people who truly realize their own worthlessness would attempt to kill themselves.



Choose what? Your BELIEFS? Make that leap of FAITH? Keep your worthless, pessimistic , pathetic existence.

Hell, I'll even stab back with Occham's Razor. If existence and non-existence are truly equal, then the simpler solution, non-existence should prevail. Clearly, there is more to existence than meets the eye.

Or, at the other end, the desire to exploit others.

If our existence is no more than random chance, and not brought about by God - then do whatever you wish, whenever you wish.

Because in the end, it does not (and won't and can't) matter.

It matters not what 'history' writes about you, because that history will be replaced by a new history at some point.

It matters not that you do good or evil, because both concepts are merely relative to one another - but not absolute in any case.

If we are not a part of a larger whole - a greater good, than ourselves...
then why do I try to do what is right, at the expense of what is best in my own selfish interests?


Is it simply a misguided attempt to make the world a better place, or to justify the things that I have done (and do) that I see as lacking in some 'ideal of Life'?


If it is a misguided attempt, then I should surely hunt down the OP and kill him - for purely the self-satisfaction of quieting a voice that disagrees with my own thoughts.
And such a thing would not be 'wrong' in any way - if there is no God that determines right and wrong in a way that is above my own bestiality.



And I wonder as to the motives of Pmutzu in making this OP, as well.

You can neither prove God with words, nor disprove him. Believe in the Celestial Teapot, and it shall set you free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot

Pmutzu, people like you will be drowning forever in toughts of never realisig what is everything, and why it is. And because of that, they are imagining some wierd theories like your own, wich has nothing to do with nor quantum mechanics, general relativity, theoretical physics, metaphysics, AND ESPECIALLY RELIGION!

I am also a fan of the Celestial Teapot. It has an uncomfortable ring of truth to it for many devout believers of many Faiths. I am a fan not because it makes them feel uncomfortable, but because it deftly expresses the way I feel on the topic.

I have searched, asked, delved, prodded - vertually every way you can think of short of holding a gun to someones head - in an effort to get a key question asked:

"Where is the evidence for the existence of a Supreme Deity, that does not in itself depend on the existence of a Supreme Deity for its validity"

eg "He exists because Our Lord Jesus Christ said so", hmmm, well since by definition Jesus Christ is supposed to be the Son of God, and at present I am looking for evidence that God actually exists, such statements hardly clarify the issue. An issue I have an open mind about, and for which I am a willing potential convert - there no resistence to believing (put bluntly - hey its a good deal), but not unreasonably I need evidence.

I never get a straight answer, usually the conversation dives off into deep philosophical areas - anything but answer the question. A Cleric friend of mine even once said to me:

"Your assuming that all the various representatives of the various Faiths (Priests etc) believe it". Scary thought, but since I had never got a straight answer, it had a horrible ring of truth about it. Many times there is no solid evidence in life to many things, no problem, when that occurs, I park it up as a possible (maybe even probable), and move on. I dont create a fantasy just because I want that fantasy to exist. If others do that to gain some kind of inner peace, great, no problem, whatever gives them that inner peace can only be a good thing, right or wrong is irrelevant. That doesnt mean to say I have to follow their unsubstantiated conclusion.

Sorry to repeat what I said on another similar thread for readers of both, but I really am genuinely seeking answers, didnt get it on the other one, so thought I'd try here.

Regards
Zy

The problem with these threads is this: in the end, it relies entirely on logic and rational thought for its explanations of whether God does or does not exist and it ignores a single fundamental truth about faith.

To put it in gaming terms, it's like what a friend of mine used to say when a rules lawyer came after him saying, "But that's impossible, a nine=fingered grell doesn't have fireball." "Yes! You're right! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE! And yet, THERE IT IS, RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! What are you going to do now, huh?"

Logic can dictate that God does exist or that it does not exist in almost equal measure. Occam's Razor can cut both ways. But in the end, the question comes down to this: are you willing to concede the possibility that there are things that no rational thought or logical argument can prove or disprove? Or will you allow your mind to be constrained by your own human limits?

I think you just made a paradoxial statement. Is it possible for a human mind to exceed human limits?

Wow, so sure. Lets use your quotes in these contexts:

(300 years ago) Are there atoms? Simply put, NO. Atoms are a humans way of explaining that which he will never understand (everyone knows there are only 4 elements - fire, earth, air, and water) bullshit I say."

or how about

(700 years ago) Is the Earth round? Simply put, NO. Saying the Earth is round is a humans way of explaining that which he will never understand. Everyone knows the Earth is flat. bullshit I say.

I could keep going.

Why do we assume it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to exist because we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch God? As far as I am concerned, atoms don't exist. I have never seen atoms. Atoms are a lie made by scientists for all I know just to statisy their hidden agenda. You must know everything to know about everything to make a statment like that. Even I have to admit there is a chance that an eternal Hell of fire and brimstone exists where billions of us will burn forever. As utterly illogical and utterly absoultey f@@ing crazy this idea is, I have to acknowedge there is a chance it exists which I won't find out until I die.

You seem to be arguing that the universe cannot have a beginning/end because time cannot have a beginning/end. Why not? There would be nothing "before" or "after" time, but that's not necessarily a contradiction. You could think of the endpoints asymptotically, for example.

No. But it is possible for a human mind to acknowledge that there are things it cannot and possibly may never understand.

Stanley Tarrant:

Im sure you were partially joking, but I think the meaning of what themocaw was asking is can a human allow himself to believe there is something beyond what our human limits can figure out. And I say yes.

Put another way, if the car you own can only reach a speed limit of 45 mph, are you willing to believe there is a speed in another car that can go beyond 45 mph, or is that all you can accept because you have never experienced it yourself.

What's really interesting is that someone such as the original poster is so vehemently against things they cannot prove or see for themselves (such as God or a Creator), but are so readily willing to accept theories about black holes and quantum physics and so many other theoretical ideas that they will also never see or experience themselves. Usually when I mention this, they bring up the idea of oxygen or atoms and ask if I believe in those since Ive probably never seen one. To which I answer I most certainly do, but Im not the one refuting the existence of a higher being than myself.

Aethesists seem to believe that we only live once right? That we are born seemingly from nothingness, live, then die and go to absolute oblivion. Your argument makes it sound like there HAS to be an afterlife. I mean why couldn't the answer be that "nothing" resides past the universe's edge??? Afterall, aetheists say simply that "nothing" is the state we are in before we are born and after we die, right? Why can't the universe have a beginning or an end or finite limits? Afterall, you guys say that our "consciousness" has a beginning and an end and that our consciosness came from "nothingness" and will henceforth go to "nothingness".

Having seen it and knowing it exists - sign up



Of course. 500 years ago no way could we even contemplate flying machines could exist, impossible. Its perfectly normal to dream, wish, hope without a necessity to believe, however that process of wishing, hoping and dreaming is far from working with a verified reality. Its not a question of "conceeding", such a concept is not exactly alien or new to the human race.



Ahhh, the standard philosophical fall back, cane the mythical shallow mind. But since this shallow mind has pursued this question for some 50 years now, without receiving factual replys - only defensive excuses and theories - and is still searching, I venture to suggest its not as shallow as you may assume it to be. Its a two way flow, when some people hear what they didnt want to hear, they will also react in the way you describe, as many devout religious people do when tackled on the very difficult topic of evidence. They have decided on the balance of belief, not facts. Clearly I am the latter, the only difference is, its a different way of thinking which can rankle some who dont think and deduce by the same standards.



I dont assume its impossible, far from it, I would not be asking the questions I do if I thought it impossible. I am looking for evidence, not unreasonably - albeit religion appears to be the only field of human endevour where you are expected to prove it DOESNT exist, with everything else we are expected to prove it DOES exist. That difference has in itself always made me very cautious as much convienient myth can slip by under that illogical principle.

I do not venture to suggest there is a right and wrong. If I end up as finally giving up on getting "evidence", and others wish to move on with their belief giving themselves an inner peace as a result, I have no issue with that at all - getting an inner peace is a good thing, howsoever gained. Most "non-believers" have no passionate urge to say who is right or wrong, or suffer a near coronary because someone has the termerity to think differently. They are just trying to get answers by the standards they set, not by the standards others wish to follow. Thats perfectly normal, nothing wrong in that.

Regards
Zy

I'm kind of wondering where Pmutzu went after posting this thread.
We've debated this on two other threads on here, and Atheists and believers have gone around in circles using the same arguments time and again.

We need to accept that those who are firm in their respective view are not going to be "converted" to the opposing view. So as far as I can see, this is more like an attack thread. And while i'm no fan of religion of any kind, this thread was not needed.
I'd suggest sticking to one of the two threads that are active already.

You are absoutley right. I was joking when I said I don't believe in atoms, as I do. Just trying to make a point. I also was talking about the paradox mind thing without thinking through on that one. I will concede that there are things I cannot understand.

So, man created something that he so believes created him?

The creation created the creator?



Thousands of years ago, man "Knew" that there was no universe, there was only earth, so when earthlings realized "space" was there, religions started teaching that their gods created the universe/multiverse. So, what I'm saying is, religion "evolved", something they teach isn't a method of being/"creation".



We are still trying to explain that right now, in this very thread.
Basicaly, man has created two "theories" of how he came to be. And now, man is trying to figure out which one is right, even though, neither of them may ever be true.

  

Zydor, I agree with what you said. You are right, with religion, we should be expected to prove God does exist rather than expecting aetheists to prove He doesn't exist. Until then, the stance of everyone should be "He could exist, I just do or do not believe He exists." To say "God DOES NOT exist!" is really an impossible statement and is like believers saying He does exist without adequate proof. We just cannot say for sure if He does or doesn't exist. I beleive He does exist and I try to argue why I think that. I also agree that a proof of God is impossible with present technology, just as atoms would have been impossible to prove until electron microscopes.

Perhaps someday, we can invent a dimension ripping device 5,000 years from now that uses the power contained in 5 entire star systems. After ripping up this universe into a new dimension, God smiles back at us and says "well done my children". I believe God does exist because it makes sense to me (to me it is more logical for Him to exist than not to exist). I provide argument and counter-argument knowing it is impossible to prove He does or doesn't exist.

Nothing can't create something, your made from stuff your mom ate, breathed, and etc.

Not all athiest think that way.

I sure don't.

  

It expresses the central idea of atheism. The same idea is illustrated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and so on. And the cool thing about this idea is, there's no way around it. It's absolutely watertight. This is what "killed God", or rather it's widespread dissemination to society.



The problem is only that you can see atoms, or rather measure them. You measure something and call it "atom". And then everybody else knows that if you refer to "atom" , you mean exactly that measurement (data). And everybody can do it with the know-how and right equipment. It's not magic, everybody can "see" them if they want. And such it is with every single scientific theory, including the big bang. It's the physical evidence that's important.

The difference with God is that nobody can see or measure God. And nobody ever did. There's no way that you can show God to others. It is like God does only exist in your head. As such, God is an idea, and as an idea he surely exists. Theists believe in that idea, but it has nothing to do with reality on the outside of their heads.

Saying that "you can't know everything" is not the answer. Because then you'll also have to believe in the Celestial Teapot. Actually you 'll have to believe in every crazy idea ever uttered by every (for example) paranoid schizophrenic in history. I can claim right here that I walked on the moon as an astronaut, and you would have to believe me, since you don't know everything. Actually that's even more probable than the existence of God, because there exist people who walked on the moon. The Celestial Teapot itself is much more probable than God, because it's entirely possible to get it up there with modern techology, and who knows (can't know everything), NASA might have put it into a solar orbit already just for the laugh.



A debate is by definition rational. If you say that you can't entirely rely on rational thought you have "lost the debate". There isn't any need for debate if both sides don't agree on rationality, because then they would just throw unsubstantiated claims at each other, and there wouldn't be a debate. Actually, you're right: This is exactly what happens, since believers don't have anything substantiated to say.

Occam's razor might cut both ways, but only one side is sharp. To repeat: The notion that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist is no argument. It has no place in debate. But that's sad for theists, because it is the only thing they have, and since it's hollow, they lose the debates before they started.

The purpose of this post was to :
#1 get you people discussing the main drive of our species.

#2 demonstrate that there are things which have no answer

#3 explain my reasons for not believing in a supreme being.

here is A demonstration of the effects of "time"

Time as defined ,is the changing states of an object or the different units used to divide time.such as the second hand on a clock moving. mind you .the reason I do not believe in time travel is simple to describe. the universe is made up of parcels of matter and energy,all changing from moment to moment. modern time keeping relies on the changing states of say cesium atoms(in this case the vibration of ) to record the passage of time .

the atoms that exist in the universe all exist now.

the atoms that existed yesterday are the same atoms, albeit in differing states or forms but the same atoms nonetheless
the atoms that will exist tomorrow are the same atoms that exist today but in different states or forms .

so here we have 3 different times. yet occupied by the same matter . this matter always existed at that moment , so you see if you somehow traveled to the past the atoms that occupied that moment are all present in the now.

there is no future in existence just the human thought of a future. the same applies to the past.

these are human creations due to the fact that we have A memory.
but not physical objects in any way.

so to say that time exists as a dimension .and can be manipulated like play dough is folly.

as a side note some previous posters say that black holes and atoms are theories. that is untrue. these are facts and all modern society owes its existence to the knowledge of electricity and particle physics.

to say you never saw an atom is silly . as an atom is far smaller than the wavelength of visible light. and therefore undetectable by conventional means. but there are many wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that are not too big to interact with an atom . of course light interacts with atoms but this is on a large scale when many atoms are present.so the chances of a photon hitting an atom are great.
but that is not going to allow you to see an atom. only its effects.

as A sidenote. for all you religious . please go to your library and look for books written by historians whom lived at the time of jesus christ and you will find not one mention of the man. . only in the bible does it mention a man names jesus christ.
this book was written around 500-600 ad.600 years or so after this man purportedly
lived.

please watch this link to an educational program http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8461754114455236037&hl=en

In fifty years of looking at this I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have heard a devout religious individual of whatever faith say that. You get a free voucher to spend next time you are in the store   

No matter how hard you try, in discussions like this - except today - you nearly always end up with individuals taking the whole thing far too personally. Most just cant accept that many are asking for genuine reasons, or cant accept that others think and deduce in a different way. Sometimes I get the feeling a "cord" has been struck in their mind, and they dont like the doubt that has sometimes surfaced - or even has always been there, but dont like discussing it.

If you want to know what its like sailing the oceans, ask a sailor - you want to know what its like flying ask a flyer. Since the individual most qualified to tell you what its like to be god (euphamisms, dont make assumptions dear reader    ) is not around you tell you - even if he did exist - there is little choice but to discuss it with those who do believe in god.

When you do, oww, out comes the flamthrower most times with the assumption they are under attack. That gets frustrating.

Make it two vouchers   

Regards
Zy

God is always a touchy subject, weather or not you believe in God or not I don't think is the biggest problem... the problem lies when someone thinks they need to kill other people because they don't think the same, sorry to say its not god telling you to kill people but more a human need for power, ambition, or like sheep they are just plain ignorant. Personally i tend to be more a scientfic thinker so i really don't believe in god portraid through the eyes of "organized religon", but weather there be a higher power at work, or a higher plane of existance... who knows were all pretty much guessing. also to correct a few inaccuracies in a previous post:



actually not quite true, atoms change to different atoms... ie fisson or fussion.



actually jesus christ is an historical figure, but weather he was the son of god or not... i think probably not.

It is a fact that observations have been made that are consistent with black holes. The nature of black holes themselves, though, is not fact. It is currently a very active research area (See black hole information paradox).

So if we define black holes as "singularities with gravitational forces such that no energy can escape beyond a certain distance" then no, their existance is not fact. However, if we say "black holes are whatever it is that causes such-and-such observations" then yes, it is a fact that there are black holes.

Science is made up of observed laws about the world, plus models of reality to explain those laws. The laws (restricted to the appropriate scope) are fact, as they are obtained through experimentation. The models, however, are not factual at all. They are just made-up theories that succinctly describe observations. Every now and then scientific models are completely thrown out and replaced, in so-called paradigm shifts. So why, exactly, should so much credit be given to the particular models of the present day?