Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@speaker said:
Well then lets try to keep this passion only inside the corner bar.
What do you mean by that?
@speaker said:
Or I may just gather information about my hormone levels, and make a detailed analysis of the many chemical reactions in my brain that caused the emotion you call love. But I'm neither a scientist or am I qualified to do so. I don't see the sense for me to attempt to trivialize the cause of such a complex emotion when there is already scientific research done in this field.
Measuring hormone levels or chemical reactions to prove love is a flawed arguement. For example: if your leg is severed in a car accident your body chemicals change drastically. Does this mean you no longer love? I don't believe it does.
@speaker said:
Again we come to the question that we may understand the word love differently, and even if I'd give you a perfectly good scientific explanation, should you care if you only believed in the spiritual meaning of love?
To clarify, I am talking about love for another human being, I.E. your wife, husband, daughter, son, etc...
-
@unknownuser said:
Measuring hormone levels or chemical reactions to prove love is a flawed arguement. For example: if your leg is severed in a car accident your body chemicals change drastically. Does this mean you no longer love? I don't believe it does.
I don't quite understand your example, wouldn't the agonizing pain just overcome other emotions? Wouldn't an adrenalin rush be more useful for your survival then some emphatic feelings for your crashed car? How about the cases when you have an amnesia, you can lose all your memories, emphatic feelings, emotions and "the spiritual bounds" that connect you with your loved ones to the point that they seem like complete strangers to you. Does your soul have an amnesia too?
How do you recognize that someone is in love then? Do we look for Cupids arrow up their ass and the butterflies? How could you prove that someone else is in love if he does not admit it?
What if we observe a thousand couples that say their in love and analyse their brain activity at their reunion and when meeting a complete stranger. If after these observations you can spot a common and consistent pattern for the different cases, then can you conclude that certain patterns in the brain activity can be linked to hormone level change and appearance of certain emotions like love?
If this research is consistent with a thousand more from many fields of science and is successfully repeated by others, then why would anyone still believe in any superstitious answers if science can give you a rational explanation?
-
@speaker said:
I don't quite understand your example...
Let me try to better explain what I meant. You stated: "... I may just gather information about my hormone levels, and make a detailed analysis of the many chemical reactions in my brain that caused the emotion you call love."
If there was a chemical signature identified for love it would not be present 24/7. Brain activity varies greatly between sleep and awake, it is not a constant. While sleeping or in a car crash your hormones and chemical reactions would vary. So where did the love go? Do I stop loving my daughter if I cut my thumb and adrenaline is rushing through my system or if I am asleep and dreaming? Absolutely not.
Therefore a chemical signature is a flawed argument for the existence of love.@speaker said:
What if we observe a thousand couples that say their in love and analyse their brain activity at their reunion and when meeting a complete stranger. If after these observations you can spot a common and consistent pattern for the different cases, then can you conclude that certain patterns in the brain activity can be linked to hormone level change and appearance of certain emotions like love?
If this research is consistent with a thousand more from many fields of science and is successfully repeated by others, then why would anyone still believe in any superstitious answers if science can give you a rational explanation?
Those are what if statements. Has this been done? I would like to see the results.
Also, would that not just be a chemical response during face recognition, fading away when meeting the stranger. Again, would the love for the other person then stop when the chemistry changed?What if you applied a similar experiment to thousands of Muslims talking about Allah, or Jews talking about God? What if then there was the same evidence of a pattern, consistent and repeatable, would this then conclude the existence of a higher power?
My point is, Love is no more provable than the existence of God. If one can't prove scientifically without a shadow of doubt that they love their child does that make them delusional? I don't think so. Christians, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. all express love in some form or another. I know some Atheists who show just as much love and compassion for their fellow man than theists do. Well we can't prove that love exists so are they just as crazy as the rest of us? Maybe so.
-
@solo said:
If you get alzheimer's and forget god/jesus/holy ghost, are you still a christian?
I believe so, yes. Alzheimer's is a progressive, degenerative disorder that attacks the brain. In short your brain is dying. If you forget the sandwich you had for lunch does that mean it did not exist? No. If you forget your belief because your brain is dying does that mean you never believed? No.
You may have forgotten God but he has not forgotten you. -
a bunch of cavemen that can just barely make it off their planet in their eensy weensey little speck of existence -- not even knowing whatwhenhowwhy or anything else about the universe or if there is even a universe to begin with... sitting around arguing about whether or not god (or 1 of the few hundred thousands of humans' gods) created the universe..
-
I have been able to distill my previous post.
God did not create the universe, it is the universe and the universe is god.
-
@unknownuser said:
God did not create the universe, it is the universe and the universe is god.
If god is the universe then who/what created god-universe?
Boofredlay's example on love is great.
Who created time? Universe? Existence?
Why? What's the purpose?
Who created "My" God? Why I exist?
Do I have a soul?
In a universe that everything is living and dying, to make space for a new birth, is there anything immortal?
There's probably a death, hidden behind the birth of the universe and scientists will find it, sooner or later.
Or... this bigbang created death... which is equal.
I have strong evidences on this.
Once again.
We're talking about the purpose of the existence.
About god, immortality, life.
Avoiding the word death,
Let's talk about love then, is it immortal? Who cares. Is love just a warm feeling? We can't live without it. Can we?
It's the only think we can do, after all. That's the spirit.What frightens me?
"for the people made their recollection fit in with their sufferings..."
THE HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR
By Thucydides 431 BC -
Boofredlay
-
Because you can ask a question it doesn't make it valid.
So presuming the universe had a creator leapfrogs over the initial question that ought to be asked first - was the universe created ?
If the universe 'just happened' spontaneously then there's no valid question about who [or what] created it.Similarly your second question - what's the purpose ? [of the universe]
This too assumes there is a purpose that we could discover if only we searched hard enough.
However, if there is simply 'no purpose' and the universe just 'is', without any intent or deeper meaning, then again that question is not needed...You can ask a question like, 'Do I have a soul?', because that is at a relatively base level - you might not be able to answer it with any certainty though. But then a trap question like, 'Did God give me my soul?' presupposes things - like that you have a soul and there is God who might have given you it...
It's a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type of question [where you must answer only 'Yes' or 'No' !]... Whatever your answer it is trapped by the question itself - unless you are allowed to give a properly expansive answer, that in turn redefines the question itself; which of course should have been in at least two steps, more like, "Do you beat your wife? If you answered 'Yes', have you now stopped doing so ?"
So to recast the question into steps...
"Was the universe created?" [stop if NO/DON'T KNOW]
"Is there a God?" [stop if NO/DON'T KNOW]
"Did God create the universe?" [YES/NO/DON'T KNOW !]Obvious answer is 'I don't know.' [andI don't care!]
-
Boofredlay
Nope, I still cant find logic in what you say. Your examples seem backward and your conclusion makes no sense to me.
If you can't relate to non-believers with terms outside your personal reality, then how could we ever come to a common conclusion?You say you can't prove love, but can you define it? Can you prove something that is undefinable? What is the point of doing so then?
Here is the first article I could find about the scientific explanation of love:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/clairemcloughlincolumn1.htm/
I believe there are tons of peer reviewed scientific articles out there that explain love in other ways, but do you ever look for them? Or are you just satisfied with the impermeable truth your faith provides? -
I may not be quite on the mark but I think Boofredlay's overall point may simply be that there are other ways to know something besides the scientific method. I would tend to agree and probably argue that very few things we believe are the sorts of things we've actually put through the scientific method. Not speaking specifically about God but there's also mathematical proof, logical proof, or historical proof (perhaps there are a few others I'm not thinking of).
It should be noted that most of these aren't really able to 'prove' something so much as give sufficient evidence for it. Science can't 'prove' that gravity exists but it's given us sufficient evidence to believe it does.
For me the most convincing evidence sort of came from around the other direction. Rather than proving God which tends to require intense logical arguments or a type and level of scientific knowledge that I don't have - I tend to come about it via the historical method at looking at Jesus and His resurrection which points towards God.
-Brodie
-
@speaker said:
Nope, I still cant find logic in what you say. Your examples seem backward and your conclusion makes no sense to me.
If you can't relate to non-believers with terms outside your personal reality, then how could we ever come to a common conclusion?I was just using your description of chemical evidence for love to make a point. I am sorry you don't understand. It has nothing to do with relating to non-believers or coming from an alternate reality, don't be insulting.
@speaker said:
You say you can't prove love, but can you define it? Can you prove something that is undefinable? What is the point of doing so then?
Yet you are using the argument that hormone levels and chemical reactions are proof of love.
@speaker said:
...but do you ever look for them? Or are you just satisfied with the impermeable truth your faith provides?
All you know about me is that I use SketchUp and I am a Christian. My belief in God has changed over the years due to my questioning everything and certainly discussions such as these prove valuable. But to assume that because I am a Christian that I take whatever is fed me as absolute is insulting.
I read that article you posted up and it is all well and good but proves nothing. It just lays out how our body reacts chemically in different stages of a romantic relationship.
-
@unknownuser said:
t does.
For me the most convincing evidence sort of came from around the other direction. Rather than proving God which tends to require intense logical arguments or a type and level of scientific knowledge that I don't have - I tend to come about it via the historical method at looking at Jesus and His resurrection which points towards God.
exactly how far back did you look in history? only far enough to find jesus without wondering what came before?
here's a quick (well, not super quick) look through the historical records pertaining to jesus..
[flash=823,480:2rjjov10]http://www.youtube.com/v/m_zytOaQxYg?version=3&hl=en_US[/flash:2rjjov10]
-
I'll try and take a look at the video (my internet here is quite low). I've heard about it but honestly never found it worth watching because I didn't think anyone gave it much credibility. Heck, even Tim Callahan from Skeptic.com (certainly not a Christian apologist) took Joseph to task stating that what truth there was "is liberally โ and sloppily โ mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus." He ends the article with the line, "Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids." You can find that article here http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25/#feature
Besides, I have looked into each of these cases before (Horus, Krishna, Mithra, etc.) and have found very little validity in any of the arguments. Certainly not enough that would cause historians to question the very existence of the person of Jesus (Joseph's conclusion based on this evidence). Most of what I've come across were uncited falshoods (Horus' 12 disciples and crucifixion), exaggerations (I've heard parallels suggesting Mithra, too, was born of a virgin - but it's left out that this 'virgin' is a rock and Mithra came out as a young man holding a torch in one hand and a dagger in the other), or irrelevant (no christian scholar thinks Jesus was born on Dec 25th. It's pretty well known that this was a date chosen long after Jesus' birth and wasn't chosen on historical grounds but on political grounds as a way to turn a pagan holiday into a holy day).
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
All you know about me is that I use SketchUp and I am a Christian. My belief in God has changed over the years due to my questioning everything and certainly discussions such as these prove valuable. But to assume that because I am a Christian that I take whatever is fed me as absolute is insulting.
Yes it is, and it's quiet often from one point of view.
All in all there is a big difference between thees two points of view. One seeing humans as isolated bio - logic machines, and other seeing them as a lot more than that.The rise of man from the apes came when they started buried their dead. It was not logic that made us humans. Logic is only a small part of man as a whole...and the whole is not only in this body and life. This is a crucial feeling that animals don't have, but human does... Some apes can do math, but can't look up.
The story about the history and religion in Zeitgeist (with no evidence) is IMO planed to go in pack with the other present stories (with evidences) told in this documentary to discredit both of them!
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
For me the most convincing evidence sort of came from around the other direction. Rather than proving God which tends to require intense logical arguments or a type and level of scientific knowledge that I don't have - I tend to come about it via the historical method at looking at Jesus and His resurrection which points towards God.
Can Jesus be validated beyond doubt historically? and what about his ressurection? I do not believe you can prove any of this historically which makes your 'evidence' rather lacking.
Decent points, I believe. From where I'm standing, there doesn't seem to be much 'historical evidence' for Jesus' existence. Sure, there's the Bible, but I'd say that one's a teeny bit biased - it's primarely, well, propaganda. One should keep in mind also, the Gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' supposed death. They're hearsay, basically.
-
@solo said:
Can Jesus be validated beyond doubt historically? and what about his ressurection? I do not believe you can prove any of this historically which makes your 'evidence' rather lacking.
Was my post unclear? If you're looking for proof 'beyond doubt' it doesn't exist outside of mathematics. For whatever beliefs you choose to hold that level of evidence for as the basis of belief, you'll never acquire sufficient evidence to believe. If you held that standard for anything from the existence of gravity to evolutionary theory, to the existence of George Bush, you'd never believe those things.
If you're suggesting that the historical method is flawed then take it up with historians but it's the method we use to prove any historical event we believe to have occurred.
You see the problem isn't the evidence it's the worldview. You've adopted a worldview that suggests that in these sorts of cases the historical method is insufficient to prove something like the existence of Jesus or his resurrection. From there we have little to discuss though as this is how we must prove these events. You don't ask for "scientific" evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware, or "mathematical" evidence that John Lennon was killed, or "logical" proof that Alexander the Great existed. You use the historical method to establish those sorts of things, and by using that method I've become quite secure in my beliefs regarding Jesus and thereby God.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
The rise of man from the apes came when they started buried their dead. It was not logic that made us humans. Logic is only a small part of man as a whole...and the whole is not only in this body and life. This is a crucial feeling that animals don't have, but human does... Some apes can do math, but can't look up.
Eh... this ape was already a man somehow. A Neanderthal probably, who knows.
The rise of civilized man came when he discovered castration of cattle. He became a farmer. Maybe man's mind went further...
Unfortunately this didn't happen in pro Colombian America.Such quotes are just quotes, they are expressions of our thoughts and feelings. Nothing more, though there's some truth on these.
-
@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
For me the most convincing evidence sort of came from around the other direction. Rather than proving God which tends to require intense logical arguments or a type and level of scientific knowledge that I don't have - I tend to come about it via the historical method at looking at Jesus and His resurrection which points towards God.
Can Jesus be validated beyond doubt historically? and what about his ressurection? I do not believe you can prove any of this historically which makes your 'evidence' rather lacking.
Decent points, I believe. From where I'm standing, there doesn't seem to be much 'historical evidence' for Jesus' existence. Sure, there's the Bible, but I'd say that one's a teeny bit biased - it's primarely, well, propaganda. One should keep in mind also, the Gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus' supposed death. They're hearsay, basically.
Within the historical method the gospels are superb material actually. Two are written by people who were present 1st hand for most of the events they detail. The other 2 seem to be very reliable 2nd hand accounts. We don't dismiss history because it was written by those close to the events that happened (which is more valuable a biography written by a close personal friend or one written by someone who never meet the person?).
There are of course the accounts by Josephus and Tacitus (the later is referenced in the article I mentioned above http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25/#feature ) who weren't Christians.
There are also things in the Bible which we wouldn't expect to find were one writing propaganda - embarrassing details or events that may seem to contradict the premise.
And finally, there's the lack of motivation. By all accounts rather than getting rich or famous from these writings and beliefs they were persecuted and killed.
-Brodie
-
i don't care.. believe what you want..
(though i'm pretty sure the only people that are right are the ones that admit 'i don't know what the heck is going on'
)anyway....
***Q- What did the carpenter say to jesus?
A-?***
.
Advertisement