Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@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
-
@unknownuser said:
Within the historical method the gospels are superb material actually.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Beer?
-
@unknownuser said:
We evolved from beast to man the moment we invented beer (which apparently was thousands of years before we invented bread)
I may visit Texas, I mean it!
That's the spirit...
Because we're spiritual creations. And the spirit needs some spirit. Occasionally. -
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Within the historical method the gospels are superb material actually.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Beer?
Depends...wheat?
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Within the historical method the gospels are superb material actually.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Beer?
BTW, on what basis, specifically, would you discredit the gospels from a historical point of view? You mentioned that they're written by Jesus' supporters but could you flesh that out and/or provide some other examples or reasons?
-Brodie
-
@michaliszissiou said:
@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 BCGod did not exist before the Universe, as the distance and time of the universe is infinite. And I am supposing that our Universe may be just a subset of a universe of universes. But as to the question of meaning. Again I would suppose the "meaning of life" is to simply have some basic inkling of how the various elements of the Universe are related. Meaning being derived from understanding oneness as a universal principal. If you understand your role in the universe, then perhaps you become at peace with the way of things and cease to struggle with a false dichotomy between all things "self" and everything else in your surroundings. Letting go of the self is not the same as being absorbed by the Borg. It is more like the additional power you get by "Let the force be with you."
-
@roger said:
God did not exist before the Universe, as the distance and time of the universe is infinite...
Science hasn't claimed the universe is infinite for some time now. And theists don't claim that God exists (solely) within our time/space. If he created the universe he, necessarily, exists outside of it.
-Brodie
-
@michaliszissiou said:
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.What if at the end of every black hoe there is a new universe being created lol?
-
@unknownuser said:
God did not exist before the Universe, as the distance and time of the universe is infinite.
God may be infinite. Books say so. But distance and time of the known universe isn't infinite. It doesn't look so. If I'm not mistaken, this is the front argument. The hidden one is IMO about death and "the meaning of life" you say. No, the purpose of creation / existence I say. Is there any?
-
The infinity or otherwise of the universe is not really definable. It's true that it has a finite boundary, but that does not mean that it is finite. If it was then it would have something outside it that it was exanding into...which would presumably stretch into infinity itself.
We perceive a boundary at approximately 13.7 billion light years distant, but that does not mean that we are at the centre of a universe of radius 13.7 billion light years. The universe is isomorphic...it's the same wherever you are. So if you were located, say, 10 billion light years in any direction from where we are now, you wouldn't be any nearer the edge; you'd still see a boundary in every direction at 13.7Gy.
This is the problem with viewing the BB as an explosion rather than an expansion.
-
@unknownuser said:
What if at the end of every black hoe there is a new universe being created lol?
not really sure but i like the typo!
-
@alan fraser said:
The infinity or otherwise of the universe is not really definable. It's true that it has a finite boundary, but that does not mean that it is finite. If it was then it would have something outside it that it was exanding into...which would presumably stretch into infinity itself.
We perceive a boundary at approximately 13.7 billion light years distant, but that does not mean that we are at the centre of a universe of radius 13.7 billion light years. The universe is isomorphic...it's the same wherever you are. So if you were located, say, 10 billion light years in any direction from where we are now, you wouldn't be any nearer the edge; you'd still see a boundary in every direction at 13.7Gy.
This is the problem with viewing the BB as an explosion rather than an expansion.
yeah, maybe.. this is all assuming there really are only 3 dimensions.. i'm thinking that just because us humans can only perceive up/down, left/right, front/back doesn't mean that's all there is.. a 4th dimension could be time but that one's a hoax.. i think our view on time is similar to the earth being flat.. one day, future generations are going to look back at us and laugh.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
What if at the end of every black hoe there is a new universe being created lol?
not really sure but i like the typo!
-
Here is a video from scepticon about the historical Jesus. Mostly clearing some facts about the gospel one. This will probably be an eye-opener for some and it really was for me, since I too once believed he was such a well known fellow at that time. Now, at best I think he could have been a wise preacher that got crucified...
http://www.youtube.com/user/HamboneProductions?feature=watch#p/search/0/MvleOBYTrDEBoofredlay
You have your right to be insulted, but all I'm saying is you communicate with words that have no meaning to others and it is like talking in a foreign language with a theist. You try to refute my argument about love, yet you fail to give your own definition of the word.
The article doesn't need to prove anything, it states the facts about how we get the emotions that we associate with being in love, so when examining someone- their brain activity or hormone levels, we could find that they are similar to a person that is in love. Or do you only find a poetic meaning to that word?
I don't necessarily think you blindly follow by the book. I just wanted to hear your position on this. Everyone just claims to have his own unique relationship with god and it is never clear to me what they actually believe.
-
@unknownuser said:
a 4th dimension could be time but that one's a hoax
Isn't it spacetime since it's a constant?
-
Sorry I got excited.
@unknownuser said:@unknownuser said:
What if at the end of every black hoe there is a new universe being created lol?
not really sure but i like the typo!
-
@speaker said:
…but all I'm saying is you communicate with words that have no meaning to others and it is like talking in a foreign language with a theist. You try to refute my argument about love, yet you fail to give your own definition of the word.
I was very clear, using your argument and your examples to make a point. You still assume I am talking about spiritual love however I never said I was. Go back and read my posts again and you will see that I am not coming from an esoteric position as you perceive me to be.
I agree that the disconnect in our discussion is with our perceptions of love as you mentioned. Correct me if I am wrong but you have been describing romantic/physical love. I am talking about love for ones parents, kids, friends and significant others outside of the physical relationship as being unprovable. And so defining it is a potentially impossible task yet I will certainly give it a go. What is your definition(s) of love?
My overlapping definitions of love:
- Romantic or passionate love: The physical and emotional connection for another person resulting in a change in hormone levels. However it does not last. After the honeymoon phase in a monogamous relationship the passionate love will fade only to surface during love making or heavy petting (he he).
- Friendship love: A love of familiarity and mutual respect for another person to whom you have a unique attachment, a common bond or mutual desires.
- Unconditional love: An unchanging reverence for and devotion to another person or persons where ones actions are selfless and sacrificial.
- Compassionate love: Being selfless and sympathetic in your actions be they giving of your time or resources without expectation of anything in return.
However, each of these have inseparable emotions and feelings as well. I am sure I could come up with more descriptions if I thought about it harder but I am tired and would love to get some sleep as I have a big deadline tomorrow.
Sorry Mike for getting so far OT.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
a 4th dimension could be time but that one's a hoax
Isn't it spacetime since it's a constant?
hmm.. i already butcher my communication of ideas i feel strongly about so i'd better not try typing ideas i'm not so sure about..
but i'm pretty sure even space-time has to do with the 3 dimensions we all know and love..
i'm definitely not positive about any of this stuff but if i really step back and try to imagine the world strictly within the dimensions i've observed and/or been taught.. and i mean really try to step away from all that then things just don't add up.. i just don't think we're anywhere close to being smart enough to know what's actually going on.. + i'm pretty sure we're missing out on some senses(?).. when it comes to this stuff, we mostly have to depend on our eyes and maybe touch to figure it all out.. there's probably some other dimensions going on all around us but we just don't have a way to notice them.. maybe some plants or insects or other things right here on earth can pick up on these other dimensions but we can't.. not yet anyway..
not gonna drag this out much longer..
you guys got an LSD emoticon anywhere though?
-
@unknownuser said:
yeah, maybe.. this is all assuming there really are only 3 dimensions.
On the contrary, Jeff; that's not assuming anything such thing. That's simply the way it is. At the very least it is assuming 4 dimensions, otherwise we really would be at the physical centre of the universe (based on observation) and you would be quite definitely nearer the edge if you were anywhere else.
I'm not dismissing the concept of a multiverse for a moment, but where these other universes are 'located' is likely to always be a matter of speculation...either other 'bubbles' outside our own, overlapping our own, or even occupying exactly the same 'space' as our own.On the subject of dimensions, superstring M-Theory requires 11 for the universe to operate at all. Personally, I'm a string theory agnostic. There are many pre-eminent particle physicists that are violently against it. Wolfgang Pauli described it as 'not even wrong'....ie it doesn't even pass the first hurdle as far as being scientifically testable. It's every much a matter of faith as a belief in God.
Advertisement