What's your definition of "God"? - Page 20

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

I don't see how not being a physical being magically excuses you or qualifies you to have no beginning. Both can have no beginning theoretically

You are trying to jump into a conclusion without the benefit of the logic that got you there. Physical forms always have beginning and ends. That's a premise based on observation. Matter itself doesn't increase or decrease, it just changes forms, and no matter is in the same form forever. That's good old science.

Why doesn't God have to have a beginning? Because we have not yet proven that spiritual forms are subject to beginnings and ends.

Before you can address the nature of God you have to address the nature of the nonphysical.

Before you can address the non-physical, you have to address epistemology.

In the end, it's all interconnected.

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

You are trying to jump into a conclusion without the benefit of the logic that got you there. Physical forms always have beginning and ends. That's a premise based on observation. Matter itself doesn't increase or decrease, it just changes forms, and no matter is in the same form forever. That's good old science.

I don't base my thinking all on current human observation. For all we know, all the molecules could have always existed. For all we know, there was no beginning to some physical matter. My point is, spiritual or not, it seems to me that inherent in the belief of God is the belief that things don't have to have a beginning (like God).

Quote:

Why doesn't God have to have a beginning? Because we have not yet proven that spiritual forms are subject to beginnings and ends.

God doesn't have to have a beginning. I'm saying either way there are problems. No beginning, just always was? Even when there was nothing, something from nothing? Then you have: had a beginning. Something made God?

I think if you believe in God you have to believe he just always was. And that, to me, is the deal breaker. Just speaking for me.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

God doesn't have to have a beginning. I'm saying either way there are problems. No beginning, just always was? Even when there was nothing, something from nothing?

Who said there was nothing? According to many belief systems, God always was. I suggest you read up on the theories you criticize before you criticize, or your arguments end up being straw men.

God was (spiritually) when matter didn't exist. Same goes for souls, in some Eastern beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

I think if you believe in God you have to believe he just always was. And that, to me, is the deal breaker. Just speaking for me.

I'd love to see that formatted logically.

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Who said there was nothing? According to many belief systems, God always was. I suggest you read up on the theories you criticize before you criticize, or your arguments end up being straw men.

Well, thanks for the reading suggestions but I don't need to "read more" in order to criticize theories. Please don't assume what I've read or how much I've read, thank you. If you don't agree with them, that's fine. I am not stating my thoughts to make you or anyone think it is a straw man or not. These are my personal feelings.

Who said there was nothing is irrelevant, I was stating a possible scenario. I don't buy that God was (spiritually) when matter didn't exist because that means God came from nothing, which I don't buy.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

Who said there was nothing is irrelevant, I was stating a possible scenario. I don't buy that God was (spiritually) when matter didn't exist because that means God came from nothing, which I don't buy.

You are defining "spiritual" as nothing. Don't you think that's a bit matter-centric?

Rankenstein · 02-25-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

And the amount of matter that was in this nothingness that suddenly started to expand was all matter in the universe.

Yes, which is finite. The universe isn't infinite, just very, very big. (Something reminds me of Douglas Adams in that sentence.) Anyway, we weren't initially discussing singularities and infinity, I'm going to try and find out what the first topic was.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

The universe isn't infinite

Nobody said it was. Not anybody here, at least.

Rankenstein · 02-25-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Yes, which is finite. The universe isn't infinite, just very, very big. (Something reminds me of Douglas Adams in that sentence.) Anyway, we weren't initially discussing singularities and infinity, I'm going to try and find out what the first topic was.

Aha... we were talking about First Cause - the Prime Mover - a spiritual being somehow exempt from physical laws through mechanisms unknown, yet able to affect them at whim.

A being that, though everything else needed to be created, didn't need to be created because it is... er... spiritual, and not bound by the same rules that are applied to everything else ever.

Special pleading, in other words.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Aha... we were talking about First Cause - the Prime Mover - a spiritual being somehow exempt from physical laws through mechanisms unknown, yet able to affect them at whim.

A being that, though everything else needed to be created, didn't need to be created because it is... er... spiritual, and not bound by the same rules that are applied to everything else ever.

Special pleading, in other words.

Just a wee bit outside the jurisdiction of physical matter.

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 08:36 AM

I don't know if we will ever know, so please put me in the Agnostic camp of intellectually honest "just doesn't know."

sremington · 02-25-2008, 08:42 AM

Well let's put it simply...

If the Universe was made... there had to have been something here before that in order for it to come into being....

If it is not God then it was something. If it was something then did that HAVE to have a beginning?? If so, what allowed that something to exist in the first place??

At some point we need to revert make to the Law of Causality which doesn't state ALL things need a cause but rather ALL things which come 'to be' need a cause.

If God always existed then he was never made. An eternal being doesn't need a cause.

BUT, if the universe was always here then that didn't need a cause either, it just "was"....

So it falls back to an eternal universe without a need for a cause or an eternal God without a need for a cause. So pick one or the other...

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 09:37 AM

Ferre, you may have seen this already, but when you mentioned Creationist it reminded me of the 6 lines of evidence work. Check out this out, you will probably enjoy the conclusion (part 6): http://www.24hourforums.com/view_top...58&forum_id=97

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

http://www.24hourforums.com/view_top...58&forum_id=97

That kid has a tail! I want a tail! That would be so cool.

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

That kid has a tail! I want a tail! That would be so cool.

LOL, hey, the genetic coding is there for a reason, but it's not to make you jealous.

Rankenstein · 02-25-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

That kid has a tail! I want a tail! That would be so cool.

I've got a front tail.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

I've got a front tail.

You call that nubbin a tail?

Rankenstein · 02-25-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

You call that nubbin a tail?

It has the advantage of being infinitely dense

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

I've got a front tail.

LOL, Damn ...

Adamantium · 02-25-2008, 09:42 AM

Intelligent Design is not a real science, it's a "hey, this could be responsible for what you don't know" faith-based push in disguise. Not having answers now or yet, or not knowing the whole evolutionary process does not = intelligent design.

John Scott · 02-25-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamantium

Intelligent Design is not a real science, it's a "hey, this could be responsible for what you don't know" faith-based push in disguise. Not having answers now or yet, or not knowing the whole evolutionary process does not = intelligent design.

I've actually been reading up on it. At first I thought it was just creationism in disguise, but then you have triple Ph.D's with more education than you, me, and everybody on this forum combined, convert from Darwinian viewpoints to ID, and you got to wonder why. It's easy to dismiss if you have an agenda and little knowledge of it, but that's not exactly intellectually honest.

Darwinian evolution theory can work only at the cell level, and can't work on single cells. So how did DNA evolve? It's an interesting question, and I'll suspend condemnation of ID until I research it for myself.