Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
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 — and sloppily — 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-?***
.
-
@unknownuser said:
Question to theists....
What would it take for you to no longer believe? What I mean is what proof would you require in order to stop believing in God? aliens from another planet? existence of dark matter?
Question for non-theists...
What would you need to start believing in God?
I guess I get to answer both since I'm Agnostic.
A1. Not much, I lean that way anyway... reasonable explanation of how the universe was created and how nothing begets something.
A2. being dead and waking up alive in an afterlife, God him/herself telling me so... seeing or communicating with a ghost of spirit. witnessing a miracle of biblical proportions and it being unexplainable by science. it would be nice to get down to the atomic or cellular level in animals and find a "made in heaven" stamped somewhere.
aliens are only going to prove mankind's own hubris in believing he was alone in an utterly massive universe.
-
@solo said:
I can use the historical/archaeological method to prove Lucy existed millions of years before Jesus was allegedly alive, I can use multiple accounts by multiple folks that confirm Washington crossed the Delaware, photos, video and newspaper reports that prove Lennon was killed, ...
To my earlier point, it's possible that any or all of those things have been falsified - just so we're clear that we're not dealing with 'beyond doubt' sort of proof now. We're within the realm of the historical method so we're using its rules. And I'd agree, by it's rules Lucy existed, Washington crossed the Delaware, and Lennon was killed.
@unknownuser said:
...yet I only really have one book to prove Jesus existed and that same proof talks about big fish swallowing men, earth flooding, two of every beast and bug on a boat, dividing seas, dancing in fire, zombie resurrections, armageddon, apocalypse, ending hunger with two fish etc.
First of all you can't, at this point, lump the gospels in whole-sale with the rest of the Bible just because we buy them in one large volume nowadays. The old testament gives us some good insight into the culture and beliefs of the authors, but each of the gospels was an entirely separate document and should be evaluated accordingly.
Secondly, the evidence for Jesus is, necessarily, going to look very different from the evidence for Lucy or Lennon. Jesus was by all accounts, at the time a relatively insignificant figure in the grand scheme of things within the Roman empire and not the sort of person we'd expect to find a lot of external sources about. And yet we do find, scattered about several references (Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, even the Talmud) which when brought together seem to suggest that a man named Jesus lived, he had some disciples, did unexplainable things, and was crucified around passover for some capital offense. All of these corroborate the Biblical narrative.
Furthermore, it's notable that where we can test the Gospels archaeologically, they've proved immensely reliable. This is at least circumstantial evidence towards the reliability of the authors in general with regards to their accounting.
As for the gospels being written later, we can get into that but if you're suggesting that someday you might not only misremember details of your interactions with your current best friend - but that you may later find that you've completely made up that best friend, that's not very logical.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
Question to theists....
What would it take for you to no longer believe? What I mean is what proof would you require in order to stop believing in God? aliens from another planet? existence of dark matter?
It's hard to have 1 thing. If I found out the resurrection never happened I don't see how I could be a Christian any longer. That's a biggie for me. I guess that would require some evidence that the 4 gospels were historically inaccurate or falsified, perhaps along with some reasonable explanation as to why they were inaccurate/falsified. At that point I'd have to reevaluate many other religions but would probably become an agnostic of some variety.
In my mind, if the resurrection happened it points towards both a God and the truth of Jesus' message. If it didn't then he was some cruel mix of brilliant teacher and degenerate mentally unstable liar. Off-hand, I can't think of any other issue that's quite so stark.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
Question for non-theists...
What would you need to start believing in God?
For God to physically walk around doing the impossible. Then I'd believe God existed.
If God did visit and did start doing the impossible but I still didn't feel like following I would expect God to understand my decision and allow me to go about my business.
I'd appreciate his talents and thank him for a great place to live but I'm happy the way I am and 'thanks' should be enough. If I felt God needed constant appraisals to keep God off my back it'd soon be a pain in the ass for me. Too clingy.
Even, if God could intervene in a terrible event in my life I'd rather struggle on learn from that experience than getting bailed out because God can do what I can't. Not that I don't appreciate talent it's just my opinion.
God would always be welcome in my home as it would make for an interesting evening.
-
I'll just carry on not believing in a tradition interfering 'God', guy on a cloud etc.
But when I die if I find that I was mistaken it'll be an interesting and challenging surprise.
If it turns out that I was right then I don't care as I won't know about it...
But if a Christian/ Moslem / Jew etc dies and finds he's mistaken he'll be really disappointed
-
@unknownuser said:
Jesus was by all accounts, at the time a relatively insignificant figure in the grand scheme of things within the Roman empire and not the sort of person we'd expect to find a lot of external sources about.
homey could walk on water, perform miracles, and come back from the dead.. that's pretty damn significant regardless of the roman empire.. i would think he'd get at least as much coverage as mt vesuvius blowing it's lid which happened around the same time as jesus.
.
.
sidenote— and the answer to "What did the carpenter say to jesus?" is...."Hey buddy.. can you cross your legs.. i only have one nail left!"
badabingbadaboom..
-
@unknownuser said:
homey could walk on water, perform miracles, and come back from the dead.. that's pretty damn significant regardless of the roman empire.. i would think he'd get at least as much coverage as mt vesuvius blowing it's lid which happened around the same time as jesus.
Only his disciples saw him walk on water and most of his other miracles were witnessed by simple rural folk - farmers and fishermen. The sorts of people who certainly would have shared those things, and Jesus' message, with their friends, but not the sort of people who would go hire a scribe to write a book about it. And we see this sort of thing throughout. Jesus has crowds of thousands following him on some occasions but with an important Jewish official like Nicodemus, he met at night. Or we find Jesus heal someone and they immediately go around telling folks about it.
Besides, Jesus wasn't the only one at the time apparently doing amazing things. If you heard someone had feed thousands of people with only a bit of bread and fish you'd be more likely to seek him out for the bread and fish than the miracle. Sorcery and the like were accepted as fact back then so a Roman official hearing about some Jewish peasant healing people wouldn't have gotten much attention. Whether you think people were actually able to perform authentic sorcery back then or whether people were simply more easily taken in by tricksters is irrelevant. The point is that most of what Jesus was doing wouldn't have seemed terribly note worthy to the rest of the world. The only reason it became so was when he was accused of starting a sort of Jewish rebellion (which had happened no so long before and would have been fairly fresh in the Roman conscience).
-Brodie
Advertisement