• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can you make a case for a God...

tecoyah

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I have entered intoa debate, where someone has hoped for proof of a negative...which I understand is impossible. Nevertheless, my intent is to provide enough data to at least, make the Idea of a biblical God unacceptable in any logical mind...as my opponent has yet to create this thread.

Here it Is...have at it Amigo
 
I'm looking forward to this debate since these types of discussions are always fruitful and good natured.
 
Hare said:
I'm looking forward to this debate since these types of discussions are always fruitful and good natured.
Click to expand...


Regardless of the meaning behind this...I think the intent can rise above the issues you point out.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Non-political polls do not belong in this forum. Moved to Philosophy.
 
I don't think it should be deleted, it was already moved :).

That being said, I am a spiritual person who is agnostic. As a fan of Star Trek I like the logical reasoning of the Vulcan's that say that if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then it is still in the realm of possibly existing.

So where I come to my conundrum is the "big bang theory", and if it started with one point of singularity, where the hell did the point of singularity come from? Where did all this mass come from. Then if you come to the conclusion that god created it, can it be possible that we have to consider where god came from?
 
tecoyah said:
I have entered intoa debate, where someone has hoped for proof of a negative...which I understand is impossible. Nevertheless, my intent is to provide enough data to at least, make the Idea of a biblical God unacceptable in any logical mind...as my opponent has yet to create this thread.

Here it Is...have at it Amigo
Click to expand...

The old adage about proving a negative wasn't proving a negative. It was disproving a negative accusation. Once accused the person or ideology is forever branded by the accusation even when proven innocent or not guilty.

there seems to be a misdirection taking place socially about that, wonder why?

Oops, sorry didn't see the mod warning.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me very easy to understand how the concept developed out of ritual dances and the like in a non-scientific world, and how it then became some sort of guarantee of the ultimate worth of what was felt to be better behaviour (to stick to its more admirable consequences). I think that, now, apart possibly from a few mystics whose experience is special, it is an inherited concept which good boys and girls feel they ought to defend because they loved their parents. That is all very admirable, but if we were starting from scratch I don't think the idea would occur to us.
 
Cephus said:
Don't worry, nobody can, no matter how much they might wish or claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

Jump out of a plane at 10,000 ft without a parachute and see who else you call on?
 
grip said:
Jump out of a plane at 10,000 ft without a parachute and see who else you call on?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who you call on, you're going to splat anyhow. Call on Santa Claus for all I care.
 
grip said:
Still makes for a good case. :)
Click to expand...

How is that a good case? It's yelling out desperate pleas to any imaginary friend you think might help. Do they help? Nope. Therefore, not a good case.
 
Penderyn said:
I think that, now, apart possibly from a few mystics whose experience is special, it is an inherited concept which good boys and girls feel they ought to defend because they loved their parents. That is all very admirable, but if we were starting from scratch I don't think the idea would occur to us.
Click to expand...

I do think it would occur to us, due to our creative, instinctive, and intuitive abilities.
 
grip said:
Jump out of a plane at 10,000 ft without a parachute and see who else you call on?
Click to expand...

I'd really like to see you jump. Then you can call on whatever / whomever you want. We'll see who goes to your aid...
 
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Click to expand...
Ma 4:7 (see also: De 6:16).
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I don't think it should be deleted, it was already moved :).

That being said, I am a spiritual person who is agnostic. As a fan of Star Trek I like the logical reasoning of the Vulcan's that say that if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then it is still in the realm of possibly existing.

So where I come to my conundrum is the "big bang theory", and if it started with one point of singularity, where the hell did the point of singularity come from? Where did all this mass come from. Then if you come to the conclusion that god created it, can it be possible that we have to consider where god came from?
Click to expand...

Suppose for a moment that space (The universe) has always existed, or more accurately, never not existed. Space and time (According to Einstien) are connected in that, the concept of space means nothing (Not definable) without time, and time is equally undefinable without space. However, what if space has always existed? Wouldn't then time be a manifestation of space, not as a property, but an effect. There is a real logical reason to believe the forsaid scenario might be true since energy can neither be created nor can it be destroyed. Well, if that's the case, and since time fundamentally is about observing change, what we observe as time is the changing of matter and energy from one form to the other, but the sum total of energy/matter is and can only ever be finite. Consider that the universe is one giant ball of energy, and within that ball, energy and matter morph from one to the other, and as such we have the effect we call time, BUT, this morphing of energy and matter is not a property of time, it is an effect of a finite space (Universe).

Now, conversly, the prevailing wisdom is that at some point if the universe had a beginning, then it must surely have an end, but then we have a little problem because energy cannot be destroyed. Well, if it can't ever be destroyed, then how can it cease to exist? The answer is that it ceases to exist in its present form (The universe that we know and love), and perhaps morphs (However by big crunch or pick one theory) into another universe. Some people seem to think that all this energy will one day surcumb to power of entrophy, and the universe will settle as a static ball of freezing cold nothing, yet this theory is not logical in the sense that these same people also believe the universe was created at some point in the past. Well, if it was created at some other point, then what happens to all the energy? The matter in the "big freeze" scenario converts to energy and eventually rests due to entrophy. My problem with that scenario is, well isn't that sort of the same thing as a static universe in the very real sense that this state of the universe in the big freeze is essentially the end of the universe, but wait, it's not really the end of the universe, it's only the end of the universe we know and love where matter and energy are interchangable and vibrant. Moreover, if everything is at rest and very very cold, would time exist? How could you measure time if there was no change to measure?

This logical conundrum bafffles me. But it is made less baffling if we consider a finite universe where matter and energy are always interchangeable and something, some force, power or hand has a stake in exactly how that energy and matter interchange. Is it God? I don't know, I don't believe in God per say, but if something has always existed (The universe) and if this something will always exist, and if space and time are not the same thing, then I can at least logically deduce that something not known is responsible for the change in matter and energy that produced life that at this stage has become so self aware that we can ask these questions on an internet message board. Of course, then there's the idea that in a static finite universe, everything that can possibly happen will happen, and we're just living in a time where what is happening is merely the result of that mathematical reality. 100 monkey's typing on typewriters for billions of years comes to mind.. :)


Tim-
 
Why do atheists talk about God so much?
 
Anarcho-fascist said:
This link is relevant. But really, most atheists don't talk much about God at all.
Click to expand...

If theists would keep their ridiculous beliefs to themselves, atheists would virtually never talk about God. There would be no need to. It's the fault of those who keep pushing their beliefs on everyone else that we're forced to respond.
 
I believe that the majority of atheists who attack theists, especially on forums, suffer from bad childhoods where they had poor examples of Christian faith from their parents or other relatives. Christianity, especially Protestantism, can lead its adherents to an absolutism in personal conduct that is contrary to the understanding nature that Christ demands of us. Even though the things we believe are immutable and cannot be argued away, it need not make us harsh and inflexible persons in our attitudes towards others. We still need to call a sin a sin, but we must keep in mind our own failings and not seek to condemn, but to aid another sinner to find the path to true peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom