~why johnny (atheist) can't beleive ~ and the cure~

You're playing semantics. As pointed out previously, just because we have no words to describe "before" outside of time doesn't mean that something came, for lack of a better word, "before".

The Yupiks have several words for sea ice. Just because we only have the one phrase doesn't mean all of the forms described in the Yupik language do not exist. http://mentalfloss.com/article/33693/how-many-words-do-eskimos-really-have-snow

In the case of "before" the Big Bang, we have a two fold problem; describing things outside of time and the complete inability to know the answer. Logic says the Universe just did't spontaneously pop into existence for no rhyme or reason, although you are free to believe it did.

 

Calling it semantics does make your problem go away, and unless you're going to resort to math, semantics is all that we have when discussing philosophy. As time is defined as "a non-spatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future", saying that something is before time is akin to saying a circle has corners.

 

Didn't say you did, now did I? Why would anyone who doesn't know you presume to know anything about you? I think you need to calm down. How about walking your dog?

 

You are free to believe that the Universe just magically popped into existence for no reason whatsoever. I'll continue to think the idea merits further research.

 

LOL. Is that what the "New Atheism" is these days? Word games. Fine. I'll walk the dog. You can play word games or whatever you like with yourself.

 

Awesome. And just to let you know, I'm not an Atheist. Nor am I religious. Isn't there enough subjects to discuss already without having to take what is merely a description of two different ideological points of view and the ways they think as some sort of "personal attack"?

Is this some of that Faux Rage I've heard about?

Glad the dog got walked.

 

The tensed and un-tensed concept is discussed at length in many of Craig (William PhDX2 ThD) as well as God existing 'outside time'. If anyone wants to read a fascinating commentary especially if you haven't read Craig check out these two easy to read 'articles'. (from the perspective of me, an eternal philosophy student!)

Enlightenment is as near as visiting the websites below, lol~

God, Time, and Creation | Reasonable Faith
www.reasonablefaith.org › Q & A
Jun 4, 2007 - Dr. Craig, you seem to believe God exists outside of time when there is no universe [God (a)] and inside of time when there is a universe [God ...
Causation and Spacetime | Reasonable Faith
www.reasonablefaith.org › Q & A

Feb 15, 2010 - Dear Dr. Craig ... Because the universe is all of time and space, and since causality presuposses time and ... if you cannot apply causality outside of time, or better said, if you cannot apply causality to time and space itself?
God, Time, and Eternity | Reasonable Faith
www.reasonablefaith.org


reva

 

Well we could talk about something you and I may be interested in. Like Texas would be part of Mexico if it were not for Tennessee and the Tennesseans~ Lol~

No the reason I began this article which has not been on topic since the OT is to show that there are individuals that can more easily 'visualize' and understand the metaphysical concepts and other things that are required for faith and to believe in intangible things related to spirituality*. I have not said that these spiritual challenged atheists are less anything ie intelligent intuitive possessors of common sense etc, no not at all. The universe needs all kinds of people, and if those atheists here (a good percentage of them are angry) would have asked me I would have said that those that have a difficult time with theism and metaphysics do far better in the mathematical realm and other things that require precise thought and concentration. But *cof* no one asked...

* However these same people do believe in all sorts of intangibles as long as those said intangibles have no 'title' to supernatural spiritual 'items' ie concepts etc.



reva

 

Most of us are OK with saying we don't know. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it must be God. Those who think it was God, how can you be sure it is the same god you worship?

 

Nothing begins to exist without a cause for it to begin to exist. So ask yourself what could cause a life giving universe to begin to exist? Oh yeah, since time, matter, energy, even space and every other physical item etc was created just after the big bang banged, the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist had to be atemporal (read that as eternal it's self explanatory). Hmmm' something that is eternal and creates a universe? Sounds like the description of God to me.

Here this is a great way to further your research. I am sure you will enjoy it ~

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe ...
www.reasonablefaith.org › Scholarly Articles › The Existence of God
William Lane Craig ... Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe. ... If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, one would to that extent ...

Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause ...
www.reasonablefaith.org › Scholarly Articles › The Existence of God
William Lane Craig ... Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. ... that is to say, to maintain that God exists atemporally sans the universeis not .... "Gold has atomic number 79" and "This table could not have been made of ice.


reva

 

Ha! Davy Crockett?

 

So if it were because two "dimensional belly-buttons" (I made it up) lined up and burped the material into our dimension to create what we see around us today, would you still call that "god"?

 

Re: hallucinations - the issue is there aren't any other scientifically plausible explanations. The fact that taking drugs didn't produce the same feeling as almost dying doesn't mean there isn't a neurological explanation for both.

As other have pointed out, under standard cosmology, time began with the big bang, so what happened "before" is an incoherent question.

 

Big Bang theory. Can we say Creation theory? God theory?

If you can do that, then we all are on the same page.

 

I don't think "The Big Bang" is really a theory in its own right. It's a flawed term (it could be argued intentionally flawed) for one element of a scientific theory regarding the origins of the universe. The point is that a scientific theory isn't just a case of "How about if this happened?" but is a much more formal, detailed and structured concept.

I'm not aware of any theistic ideas regarding the origins of the universe or the general existence and nature of a god that has the specific detail or scientific rigour to be properly called a theory in this context. Too many of the obvious questions are dismissed with things like "We can't know the mind of God" or "God exists outside those physical laws" without any concrete backing.

 

If the belly buttons had the attributes of God, yes they would be God. Or even a Flying Spaghetti Monster would be god if it can create our universe. You see IMO people get way too hung up on emotion and so lose sight of what the pure information tells us and shows us. I almost lost my sponsoring church (for my Ordainment) when I publicly supported the concept or idea that Jesus/God could be a individual or an entire very ancient alien race. Its not heresy if ET did what Jesus/God of the bible did. What theological difference would the ET=God concept make? None. The bible does not say where God came from just that 'God is'.


reva

 

Where have you been? In this thread we have mentioned the big bang being the preeminent SCIENTIFIC theory for over fifty years! Only after reining as the best scientific theory for decades have the atheist scientists attempted to discredit or replace it because its theistic implications. BTW an ontological or cosmological theory is a theory who has a central goal to lend evidence or proof for the existence of God. KCA comes to mind, because it uses impeccable logic and as all do of this type of argument it employs a logical syllogism to arrive at its conclusion, and that conclusion is God exists.

reva

 

"God" is a good word for a power that is both atemporal and powerful enough to create a universe. However, going from there to a "god" that hates gays and condemns people to Hell for disagreeing with it is a rather large step.

 

Agreed. Something caused the Universe to pop into existence. That "something" doesn't have to be intelligent. As for the
"God" many worship, I think they worshipping man-made interpretations of what they believe God is or wants.

In some ways, if we look at all religions and spiritual points of view, where they are similar is most likely to be the most truthful.

 

Now you are getting somewhere! Lol. You see I guess its because I came to being spiritual (believing in God) in a convoluted way, but its helped me understand via logic and science as well as faith how it all works. I tend to separate God and religion into a two tier 'system' that is casually connected. In other words I feel that its much more probable that God exists than any one religion is 100% accurate.

Another way of putting it (I am struggling here lol) is that I have no doubt God exists, I do have some doubts if my religion has every thing 100% correct, or even 70% correct. Then you have to ask is it important that Christians or the religious get everything right about God. Now you see the subject is sliding towards and requiring a 'personal' interpretation of all the available information. I have probably already confused you. The way I believe is not easy to explain because the nay sayers which are atheists AND fundamental Christians have such a difficult problem separating emotion from their beliefs. That is why I am writing a book on that very subject. (it seems everyone is doing the same!)

Really, the subject of religion and of 'does God exist' should be discussed separately. Btw remember the new testament is the go to manual for Christians. Can you show me even one sentence in the bible where Jesus condemned homosexuality? I also have my doubts that a burning hell exists for humans. More likely unbelievers that reject God totally will simply cease to exist which is humane and painless.

American King James Version Matt 25:45

'Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. I am still out on the burning hell that some humans will end up in (or not) which does exist, but even in a worst case scenario for unbelievers God wishes we repent. Its we that put ourselves in hell just as a child murderer puts himself in old smokey. The only difference is someone that rejects God is worse than a child murderer. Now now don't get angry at me for that statement. If you become enraged you are confirming what I said at the beginning of this reply.

reva

 

Agreed on separate discussions, but the atheists-who-are-really anti-theists love lump all together simply because it allows a broader field to cherry-pick the best examples of bad behavior.

While I agree Christians should stick with the NT, the fact remains far too many self-labeled Christians love to cherry pick from the OT to push their political agendas. Hence, the Christian anti-gay movement's propensity to dip into Leviticus to support their political agenda.

 

First off lets make sure everyone understands what Metaphysics is and is not. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It should not be considered as a science.(ie, it does not use the scientific method).Lets also understand what spirituality is and what it is not. To be spiritual one does not have to believe in the existence of god or any religion, one can be religious but it is not a requirement. Finally what does atheist mean. Atheist is someone who does not believe in god, full stop. Nothing else can be surmised when a person tells you they are an atheist.

So this statement is completely false " other things that are required for faith and to believe in intangible things related to spirituality*." faith is not required for spirituality and spirituality is not required for faith. So what evidence do you have to explain that some people (by your implication theists) have anymore ability to understand the metaphysical and spiritual?. You make the classic mistake of thinking that because people do not agree with your ideas, then they do not understand them! I am perfectly capable of understanding the philosophy of say Kant, whether I agree with it or not is another matter.
Do you think that when an atheist listens to Beethoven he does not experience a spiritual feeling, or when he looks at a wonderful view he does not comprehend the transcendent. Just because these things are at present beyond mans understanding does not mean they are beyond our capacity to eventually understand. Even if they are it does not mean I must attribute them to a god. Who are these "spiritually challenged" atheists you talk about?, not one single post here backs up your accusation. You further assert that atheists are angry. What evidence do you provide to back up your accusation? It might well be that if atheists are angry it is because of your unfounded allegations.
It appears that you think your way of thinking allows understanding of the abstract better than an atheist, complete rubbish. Keep trying to sell that there snake oil!

 

In any group especially with 2.2 billion members take or give a few tens of millions we are going to have the rotten apple probably more accurately tens of thousands of truly mushy gnat infested rotten apples. So I just accept that fundamentalists will not change and maybe its a good thing (that's material for another thread). In any case, even a Fundy is more my brother than an atheist with his main purpose in life to destroy our religion. Ha ha I just had a funny visual...ok here it is; The church supposed to be the body of Christ so I visualize the various fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, holy rollers, Christian Zionists members as being different body parts. So the fundamentalists of any branch own the anal body parts.


reva

 

Agreed about bad apples. The problem isn't religion, but that such people use, actually misuse, religion to further their own agenda.

It doesn't matter if that religion is Christianity, Judaism, Islam or just Atheism. Bad apples will use whatever tools they can to further their goals.

 

Again, what does the "pure information" of 1 Samuel 15:3 show us about God?